ICTIONARY OF
EITIES AND
EMONS IN
THE BIBLE
EDITED BY
KAREL VAN DER TOORN, BOB BECKING,
AND PIETER W. VAN DER HORST
DICTIONARY OF
DEITIES AND DEMONS
IN THE BIBLE
DICTIONARY OF
DEITIES AND DEMONS
IN THE BIBLE
DDD
Edited by
Karel van der Toorn
Bob Becking
Pieter W. van der Horst
SECOND
EXTENSIVELY REVISED
EDITION
KEG,
VTA $
« 6,
ETE *
"6837
BRILL
LEIDEN * BOSTON * KOLN
WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.
1999
© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying.
recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
First edition 1995
Second extensively revised edition 1999
Published jointly 1999 by Brill Academic Publishers
P.O. Box 9000, 2300 PA Leiden, The Netherlands, and by
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
255 Jefferson Ave., S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 /
P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.
Published under the auspices
of the Faculty of Theology
of Utrecht University
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Printed in the United States of America
05 04 03 02 01 00 99 54321
Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data
Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (DDD) / Karel van der Toom,
Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst, editors. — 2nd extensively rev. ed.
| cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Brill ISBN 90-01-11119-0 (cloth: alk. paper).
Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491-9 (cloth: alk. paper).
1. Gods in the Bible — Dictionaries. 2. Demonology in the Bible — Dictionaries.
I. Toorn, K. van der. II. Becking, Bob. 11]. Horst, Pieter Willem van der.
BS680.G57D53 1999
220.3 — dc?l 98-42505
CIP
Die Deutsche Bibliothek — CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Dictionary of deities and demons In the Blble : (DDD) / Karel van der Toorn .. . cd. —
2nd extensively rev. ed. — Leiden; Boston; Kóln : Brill, 1998
Brill ISBN 90-04-11119-0
Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491-9
Brill ISBN 90 04 11119 0
Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491-9
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate
fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923
USA. Fees are subject to change.
CONTENTS
COnsSultants ..........cccccceeseeccecsesesseeceeeeeeneneeasessssaueesessessecsseess VI
List of Contributors ........ aeeeceensavsaneeanevssuscacessscseesansensaessee® VII
Introduction ..................eeeeseeeeeeeeeeenne nennt nennen tentent rota XV
Preface to the Revised Edition .............................eeessss XIX
Abbreviations ........... eeeseeeeeeeeei nennen nenne aate esee eterne XXI
General .....ccccccccccccsccccccsssscesseccessccscevsesencesesssaseeuseeeaneauen XXI
Biblical Books (including the Apocrypha) ................. XXI
Pseudepigraphical and Early Patristic Works ............. XXII
Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts ............ SR XXIII
Targumic Material .................... eese XXII
Periodicals, Reference Works, and Series .................. XXIV
List Of ENtrieS ......0...ccccccccccssseseeccceseseessecaaeseceeasaeceseeeeeseees XXXIII
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible ............... 1
CONSULTANTS
HANS DIETER BETZ
Chicago
ANDRE CAQUOT
Paris
JONAS C. GREENFIELD
Jerusalem
ERIK HORNUNG
Basel
MICHAEL STONE
Jerusalem
MANFRED WEIPPERT
Heidelberg
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Tzvi ABUSCH, Waltham
(Etemmu, Ishtar, Marduk)
Larry J. ALDERINK, Moorhead
(Demeter, Nike, Stoicheia)
Bendt ALSTER, Copenhagen
(Tammuz, Tiamat, Tigris)
Jan ASSMANN, Heidelberg
(Amun, Isis, Neith, Re)
David E. AUNE, Chicago
(Archai, Archon, Hera, Heracles)
Tjitze BAARDA, Amsterdam
(Sabbath)
Michael L. BarrE, Baltimore
(Lightning, Night, Rabisu)
Hans M. BARSTAD, Oslo
(Dod, Sheol, Way)
Bernard F. Barro, Greencastle
(Behemoth, Curse, Zedeq)
Bob BECKING, Utrecht
(Abel, Amalek, Ancient of Days, Arm, Blood, Breasts-and-womb, Cain, Day, Eagle,
El-rophe, Ends of the earth, Exalted ones, Girl, Hubal, Ishhara, Jaghut, Jalam,
Japheth, Jordan, Kenan, Lagamar, Protectors, Qatar, Rapha, Raven, Sarah, Sasam,
Sha, Shalman, Shelah, Shem, Shining One(s), Shunama, Sisera, Thillakhuha, Thuka-
muna, Vanities, Varuna, Virgin, Ya‘dq, Yehud, Zamzummim)
Hans Dieter BETZ, Chicago
(Authorities, Dynamis, Legion)
VIII LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Jan DEN BoeEFr, Utrecht
(Saviour)
Jan N. BREMMER, Groningen
(Ares, Hades, Hymenaios, Linos, Narcissus, Nereus, Nymph)
Cilliers BREYTENBACH, Berlin
(Hypsistos, Nomos, Satan)
Roelof VAN DEN BROEK, Utrecht
(Apollo, Phoenix)
Mordechai CoGan, Jerusalem
(Ashima, Shulman, Shulmanitu, Sukkoth-benoth, Tartak)
John J. CoLLINs, Chicago
(Daniel, Gabriel, Liers-in-wait, Prince, Saints of the Most High, Watcher)
Peter W. Coxon, St. Andrews
(Gibborim, Nephilim, Noah)
Peggy L. Day, Winnipeg
(Anat, Jephtah’s daughter, Satan)
Meindert DIJKSTRA, Utrecht
(Abraham, Adat, Aliyan, Clay, Esau, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Leah, Mother, Rachel)
Ken DowDen, Birmingham
(Aeneas, Daphne, Dioskouroi, Jason, Makedon, Menelaos, Patroklos, Perseus,Quiri-
nus, Silvanus, Skythes, Thessalos)
Han J. W. DRUVERS, Groningen
(Aion, Atargatis, Mithras)
Eric E. ELNES, Princeton
(Elyon, Olden Gods)
Reinhard FELDMEIER, Bayreuth
(Almighty, Mediator II, World rulers)
Jarl E. Fossum, Ann Arbor
(Dove, Glory, Simon Magus, Son of God)
Hannes D. GarrEn, Graz
(Aya, Bashtu, Hubur)
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS IX
Richard L. GORDON, IImmünster
(Anthropos, Helios, Poseidon, Pronoia)
Fritz Graf, Basel
(Aphrodite, Athena, Bacchus, Dionysus, Heros, Zeus)
Jonas C. GREENFIELD, Jerusalem
(Apkallu, Hadad)
Mayer I. GRUBER, Beer-Sheva
(Abomination, Azabbim, Gillulim, Lies, One)
John F. HEALEY, Manchester
(Dagon, Dew, Ilib, Mot, Tirash)
Matthieu S. H. G. HEERMA VAN Voss, Amsterdam
(Hathor, Horus, Osiris, Ptah)
George C. HEIDER, River Forest
(Lahmu, Molech, Tannin)
Ronald S. HENDEL, Dallas
(Nehushtan, Serpent, Vampire)
Jan Willem vAN HENTEN, Amsterdam
(Angel II, Archangel, Dragon, Mastemah, Python, Roma, Ruler cult, Typhon)
Wolfgang HERRMANN, Stuttgart
(Baal, Baal-zebub, El, Rider-upon-the-clouds)
Pieter W. VAN DER Horst, Utrecht
(Adam, Amazons, Ananke, Chaos, Dike, Dominion, Eros, Evil Inclination, Father of
the lights, God II, Hosios kai dikaios, Hyle, Hypnos, Lamb, Mammon, Thanatos,
Themis, Unknown God)
Cornelis HOUTMAN, Kampen
(Elijah, Moses, Queen of Heaven)
Herbert B. HUFFMON, Madison
(Brother, Father, Name, Shalem)
Manfred HUTTER, Graz
(Abaddon, Asmodeus, Earth, Heaven, Heaven-and-earth, Lilith, Shaushka)
X LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Bernd JaANowski, Tübingen
(Azazel, Jackals, Satyrs, Wild Beasts)
Albert DE JoNc, Leiden
(Khvarenah, Mithras, Vohu Manah, Wrath)
Marinus DE JONGE, Leiden
(Christ, Emmanuel, Heaven, Sin, Thrones)
Jean KELLENS, Liège
(Arta, Baga, Haoma)
Emst Axel KNAuF, Bern
(Edom, Qés, Shadday)
Matthias KÓCKERT, Berlin
(Fear of Isaac, Mighty One of Jacob, Shield of Abraham)
Frans VAN KOoPPEN, Leiden
(Agreement, Altar, Holy One, Humban, KiririSa, Sanctuary, Soil, Vashti)
Marjo C. A. KoRPEL, Utrecht
(Creator of All, Rock, Stone, Thornbush)
Bernhard LANG, Paderborn
(Wisdom)
Fabrizio LELLI, Florence
(Stars)
Theodore J. Lewis, Athens (USA)
(Dead, First-born of death, Teraphim)
Bert Jan LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, Leiden
(Antichrist)
Edouard LiPIŃsKI, Louvain
(Lamp, Light, Shemesh)
Alasdair LIVINGSTONE, Birmingham
(Assur, Image, Nergal)
Johan Lust, Louvain
(Gog, Magog)
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS XI
Michael Macu, Tel Aviv
(Jeremiel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel)
P. Kyle McCarter, Baltimore
(Evil spirit of God, Id, Zion)
Meir MALUL, Haifa
(Strong Drink, Taboo, Terror of the Night)
Luther H. Martin, Burlington
(Fortuna, Hermes, Tyche)
Samuel A. MEIER, Columbus
(Angel I, Angel of Yahweh, Destroyer, Mediator I)
Tryggve N. D. METTINGER, Lund
(Cherubim, Seraphim, Yahweh zebaoth)
A. R. MILLARD, Liverpool
(Adrammelech, Anammelech, Nabü, Nibhaz)
Patrick D. MILLER, Princeton
(Elyon, Olden Gods)
Hans-Peter MULLER, Miinster
(Chemosh, Falsehood, Malik)
S. MONGER, Fribourg
(Ariel)
Martin J. MULDER, Leiden
(Baal-berith, Carmel, God of fortresses)
E. Theodore MULLEN, Indianapolis
(Baalat, Go’el, Witness)
Gerard Mussies, Utrecht
(Amaltheia, Artemis, Giants, Hyacinthus, Jezebel, Olympus, Tabor, Titans, Wind-
Gods)
Nadav Na’aMAN, Tel Aviv
(Baal toponyms, Baal-gad, Baal-hamon, Baal-hazor, Baal-hermon, Baal-judah, Baal-
meon, Baal-perazim, Baal-shalisha, Baal-tamar)
XII LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
George W. E. NICKELSBURG, Iowa City
(Son of Man)
Herbert NiEHR, Tübingen
(Baal-zaphon, God of heaven, He-of-the-Sinai, Host of heaven, Zaphon)
Kirsten NIELSEN, Århus
(Oak, Sycomore, Terebinth)
Gregorio DEL OLMO LETE, Barcelona
(Bashan, Deber, Og)
Dennis PARDEE, Chicago
(Asham, Eloah, Gepen, Gether, Koshar, Kosharoth)
Simon B. PARKER, Boston
(Council, Saints, Shahar, Sons of (the) God(s))
Martin F. G. PARMENTIER, Utrecht
(Mary)
Emile PUECH, Jerusalem
(Lel, Lioness, Milcom)
Albert DE Pury, Geneva
(El-olam, El-roi, Lahai-roi)
Jannes REILING, Utrecht
(Elders, Holy Spirit, Melchizedek, Paraclete, Unclean Spirits)
Sergio RIBICHINI, Rome
(Adonis, Baetyl, Eshmun, Gad, Melqart)
Greg J. RILEy, Fairfax
(Demon, Devil, Midday demon)
Wolfgang RöLLIG, Tübingen
(Baal-shamem, Bethel, El-creator-of-the-earth, Hermon, Lebanon,
Sirion)
Hedwige ROUILLARD-BONRAISIN, Paris
(Rephaim)
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Christopher ROWLAND, Oxford
(Enoch)
David T. Runia, Leiden
(Logos)
Udo RUTERSWORDEN, Kiel
(Horeph, Horon, King of terrors)
Brian SCHMIDT, Ann Arbor
(Al, Moon)
Choon-Leong SEOw, Princeton
(Am, Face, Lim, Torah)
Klaas A. D. SMELIK, Brussels
(Ma‘at)
S. David SPERLING, New York
(Belial, Meni, Sheben)
Klaas SPRONK, Amsterdam
(Baal of Peor, Dedan, Lord, Noble ones, Rahab, Travellers)
Marten STOL, Amsterdam
(Kaiwan, Mulissu, Nanea, Sakkuth, Sîn)
Fritz SroLz, Zürich
(River, Sea, Source)
Marvin A. SWEENEY,
(Ten Sephirot)
Karel VAN DER TOORN, Amsterdam
XII
(Agreement, Altar, Amurru, Arvad, Avenger, Beltu, Boaz, Cybele, Eternity, Euphra-
tes, Gabnunnim, God I, Gush, Ham, Haran, Hayin, Hebat, Holy One, Humbaba,
Humban, Jael, Kelti, Kese?, KiririSa, Laban, Meriri, Min, Mouth, Nahor, Qatar,
Rakib-El, Ram, Sanctuary, Serug, Seth, Shahan, Sheger, Shepherd, Shimige, Sidon,
Soil, Terah, Vashti, Viper, Vohu Manah, Yahweh)
Joseph TRoPPER, Berlin
(Spirit of the dead, Wizard)
XIV LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Christoph UEHLINGER, Fribourg
(Leviathan, Nimrod, Nisroch, Riding Horseman)
Herman TE VELDE, Groningen
(Bastet, Bes, Khonsu, Nile)
Richard L. Vos, Capelle aan de IJssel
(Apis, Atum, Ibis, Thoth)
Jan A. WAGENAAR, Utrecht
(King)
Wilfred G. E. Watson, Newcastle upon Tyne
(Fire, Flame, Helel, Lah, Misharu)
Nicholas Wyatt, Edinburgh
(Asherah, Astarte, Calf, Eve, Kinnaru, Oil, Qeteb)
Paolo XELLA, Rome
(Barad, Haby, Mountains-and-valleys, Resheph)
Larry ZALCMAN, Tel Aviv
(Orion, Pleiades)
Ida ZATELLI, Florence
(Aldebaran, Constellations, Libra)
Dieter ZELLER, Mainz
(Jesus, Kyrios)
INTRODUCTION
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (henceforth DDD) is in some ways
unlike any other dictionary in the field of biblical studies. This is the first catalogue of
its kind, one which discusses all the gods and demons whose names are found in the
Bible. Complementing the usual surveys and histories of Mesopotamian, Egyptian,
Ugaritic, Syro-Palestinian, Persian, Greek, and Roman religion, DDD assesses the
impact of contemporary religions on Israel and the Early Church by focusing on those
gods that actually left traces in the Bible.
The deities and demons dealt with in this dictionary are not all of one kind. Even
though the distinction between major and minor gods is a delicate one, some of the
gods here discussed are more representative of their culture than others; Marduk’s
place in Babylonian religion is more central than that of the god Euphrates. If both
have nevertheless found their way into DDD, it is because the two of them are men-
tioned in the Bible. Other gods, however, despite their importance, have no separate
entry in DDD because there is not a single mention of them in the biblical books: Enlil
is an example of this. The imbalance produced by a selection based on the occurrence
of a god’s name in the Bible is redressed, to some degree, by a system of cross-refer-
ences throughout DDD and an index at the end. Thus Anu, the Mesopotamian god of
heaven, does not have a separate entry, but is discussed under ‘Heaven’, and in various
other articles indicated in the index. The inevitable disproportion caused by the cri-
terion on which DDD has been conceived is often more optical than real.
The criterion by which DDD has selected its gods has just been summarized as men-
tion of the god’s name in the Bible. Yet things are not as straightforward as this rule of
thumb measurement might suggest. The boundaries of the Bible, to begin with, change
from the one religious community to the other. In order to make the selection of deities
as representative as possible, the editors have chosen to base it on the most com-
prehensive canon currently used, viz. that of the Orthodox Churches, which consists of
the complete canon of the Septuagint version (including 3 and 4 Maccabees) plus the
Greek New Testament. The term Bible as used in the title of DDD covers in fact the
Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; the complete Septuagint (including the so-called
Apocrypha); and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Though many articles
pay attention to the subsequent development of notions and concepts in the Pseud-
epigrapha, the latter have not been used as an independent quarry of theonyms.
Many gods discussed in DDD are mentioned by name in the Bible. They constitute
what one might call the first group. Obvious examples are Asherah, Baal, El, Hermes,
Zeus and others. These gods were still recognized or recognizable as such by the author
of the relevant passage and by the audience. In some instances the names are found
only in the Septuagint and not in the corresponding section of the Masoretic text. An
interesting example is Apis: at Jer 46:15 the Greek Old Testament has Eovuyev ó “Amg,
XVI INTRODUCTION
“(Why) has Apis fled?", where the Masoretic text reads *)703, "(Why) was it swept
away?” Should the Greek be a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text (which is not cer-
tain), it is valuable as a reflection of the religious milieu surrounding the—Jewish—
community in which the translator was at home.
A second group of deities listed in DDD are mentioned in the Bible, not indepen-
dently, but as an element in personal names or place names. Such theophoric anthropo-
nyms and toponyms are a rich source of information on the religious milieu of the
Israelites and the Early Christians. It need hardly be said that the occurrence of a deity
in a place name, such as Anat in Anathoth, or Shemesh in Beth-shemesh, does not
automatically imply that the deity in question was in fact worshipped by the people
who lived there; nor need someone called Artemas or Tychicus (Tit 3:12) have been a
devotee of Artemis or Tyche. Yet such names reflect a certain familiarity with the dei-
ties in question, if not of the inhabitants of the town or the bearer of the name, then at
least of their ancestors or their surroundings. The deities in question may therefore be
said to have been part of the religious milieu of the Bible.
A third group of deities consists of gods mentioned in the Bible, but not in their
capacity as gods. They are the so-called demythologized deities. Examples abound.
One of the Hebrew words for moon used in the Bible is yarealt; this is the etymological
equivalent of Yarikh, the moon-god known from the Ugaritic texts. Although the moon
may have retained faint traces of divinity in the Bible, it has basically been divested of
its divine status. The same holds true of the sun (3emes): the Hebrew word corresponds
with the god Shamash in Akkadian, and the goddess Shapshu in Ugaritic. There are
many other, more trivial instances, such as ríró3, the Hebrew word for new wine, ety-
mologically the equivalent of the Mesopotamian deity Sirish and the Canaanite god
Tirash. Although the Hebrew words (and there are also Greek examples) no longer
stand for deities, the very fact that the corresponding terms in other Semitic languages
do, is revealing. We have included many examples of such dethroned deities, not only
to draw attention to the mythological overtones still occasionally perceptible, but also
to demonstrate how Israelites, Jews, and Early Christians were part of a religious cul-
ture from which they are to be distinguished at the same time.
The fourth group of deities discussed in DDD consists of gods whose presence
and/or divinity is often questionable. In the course of biblical scholarship, a wealth of
alleged deities has been discovered whose very presence in the texts it not immediately
evident. A famous example is that of Belti and Osiris. By slightly revocalizing Isa
10:4, and altering the division of the words, Paul de Lagarde obtained a reference to
Belti and Osiris where generations of scholars before him had read a negation (bilri)
and the collective designation of prisoners (’assir). Such emendations sometimes con-
jure up gods hitherto unknown; in many cases they are phantom deities, in the sense
that they are unattested elsewhere in the Bible or in ancient Near Eastern texts, or that
the textual proposal is simply unwarranted. In the category of speculated deities fall
also the suggestions conceming the appellative use of certain epithets, such as Shep-
herd or Stone. The reinterpretation of good Hebrew words (such as ra‘, ‘evil’) as theo-
nyms (such as Re, the Egyptian sun-god) is another case in point. In a limited number
of cases, the supposed deity is established as the hidden reality behind a human figure;
INTRODUCTION XVII
thus Jephthah's daughter has allegedly been modelled after a goddess. The inclusion of
such deities often is more a tribute to the scholarly ingenuity of colleagues, present and
past, than an accurate picture of the religious situation in biblical times. Also, it has
proved impossible to be exhaustive in this domain. Some suggestions have no doubt
escaped our notice, or simply been judged too far-fetched to qualify for inclusion in
DDD.
The fifth and final category of gods is constituted by human figures who rose to
attain divine or semi-divine status in a later tradition. Jesus and Mary belong to this
group, but also Enoch, Moses and Elijah. At times the process of glorification, or more
precisely divinization, started during the biblical period; before the closing of the first
century CE divinity was ascribed to Jesus. In most cases, however, the development
leading to divine status has been postbiblical. It tells more about the Wirkungsgeschich-
te than about the perception of such exceptional humans by their contemporaries. Yet
the borderlines between human and divine are not always crystal clear; neither is the
precise point at which the divinization began. What is found in its full-blown form in
postbiblical writings is often contained in nuce in the Bible.
The aims of DDD, in short, cannot be reduced to a single object. It is meant primari-
ly as an up-to-date source-book on the deities and demons found in the Bible. Its
various attendant aims are hardly less important, though. It is meant as a scholarly
introduction to the religious universe which the Israelites and the Early Christians were
part of; it is meant as a tool to enable readers to assess the distinctiveness of Israclite,
Jewish and Early Christian religions; it is meant as a survey of biblical scholarship with
respect to the mythological background of various biblical notions and concepts; and it
is meant, finally, as a means to discover that the Bible has not only dethroned many
deities, but has also produced new ones.
Most articles of DDD consist of four sections, each marked by a Roman numeral. Sec-
tion l discusses the name of the god, including its etymology, as well as its occurrence
in the various ancient civilisations surrounding Israel and Judah. The biblical evidence
is briefly surveyed, and a gencral indication as to the capacity in which the name
occurs is given. Section II deals with the identity, character and role of the deity or
demon in the culture of origin. When an originally non-Israelite deity is discussed,
such as Amun, Marduk or Zeus, the section focuses on the cult of the god outside the
Bible. If the god is primarily attested in the Bible, section II is devoted to a discussion
of the extra-biblical references and parallels. Section III deals with the role and nature
of the deity in the books of the Bible. Section IV consists of the relevant bibliography.
An asterisk prefixed to the name of the *author marks a publication as particularly
important for the subject. Studies containing further bibliographical information are
followed by the observation ‘& lit’ between brackets after the title. A supplementary
section is sometimes added to discuss the post-Biblical attestations and developments.
Many people have collaborated over the past four years to carry DDD to completion. It
is a pleasure to mention some of those who have been involved with the project. The
initial impetus came from Michael Stone (Jerusalem). His idea of creating a dictionary
XVIII INTRODUCTION
of ancient Near Eastern religions found favour with Brill; one of its publishers,
Elisabeth Erdman, began to look for an editor. The three editors she eventually found
decided to curtail Stone’s ambitious project to far more modest dimensions; and even
as modest a project as DDD has proved more time-consuming than any of us expected.
During the first year a list of entries was prepared, sample articles were written, and
over a hundred authors were solicited. Several of the latter suggested entries previously
overlooked by the editors. The major part of the job began at the end of the second year
when articles started coming in. Though the scholarly work on the manuscripts (or
rather hard copy) was done by the editorial team, if need be after consulting with the
advisors, thc bulk of the articles were processed and made ready for publication by
various assistants. Mrs Gerda Bergsma, Ms Kim de Berg, Mr Joost van Meggelen, Mr
Hans Baart, and Mr Theo Bakker have assisted us with the preparation of the manu-
script, for different amounts of time. We owe a special debt of gratitude to Ms
Meta Baauw who saw most of the articles through the final stage of preparation. Mr
Hans van de Berg (Utrecht University) was invaluable for his assistance with all mat-
ters pertaining to computers and software. Dr Peter Staples (Utrecht University) and
Mrs Helen Richardson have polished the language of the articles, often written by
scholars for whom English is not their primary—nor, for many, their secondary—
tongue. Dr Gerard Mussies (Utrecht University) joined us in reading the proofs. The
collaboration with all of them, and—though less immediately—with the international
group of respected colleagues who have written the various contributions, has been one
of the rewards of editing DDD.
K. VAN DER TOORN
B. BECKING
P. W. VAN DER HORST
November, 1994
`- PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION
The first edition of DDD, published in the summer of 1995, had to go through two
printings in order to meet the demands of the market. The success of the book, also in
terms of its academic standing, is a source of pride and gratitude for the editors and the
many contributors. The ongoing demand for DDD provided its editorial team also with
an excellent opportunity to take a fresh look at the first edition in view of the prepar-
ation of a second, revised, edition. Many of the lacunae and occasional errors in DDD!,
signalled to us by friends and colleagues, could thus be repaired. The present thorough-
ly revised edition of DDD contains some thirty new entries. a host of additions and
corrections to articles from the first edition, and important bibliographical updates.
The formula of the book has remained unaltered, but it has become richer and more
rigorous in its contents.
The editors gratefully acknowledge the help of Frans van Koppen (Leiden) in the
preparatory stages of the new manuscript. Ab de Jong (Leiden), Frans van Koppen
(Leiden), Koos van Leeuwen (Utrecht), Mirjam Muis (Utrecht), Gerard Mussies
(Utrecht), and Sil Timmerman (Utrecht) assisted the editors in reading the proofs.
Aemold van Gosliga (Leiden) was instrumental in the type-setting of the manuscript.
Barsaum Can (Leiden) prepared new indices. Their joint efforts have resulted in the
present book, which the editors hope and trust will meet with as favourable a reception
as the first edition.
K. VAN DER TOORN
B. BECKING
P. W. VAN DER Horst
August, 1998
Akk
Ar
Aram
ca.
chap(s).
col(s).
Copt
DN
Eg
Eng
Eth
fig(s).
Gk
Heb
Hit
Hurr
IE
LXX
GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS
Akkadian
Arabic
Aramaic
book
century
circa
chapter(s)
column(s)
Coptic
Deuteronomist
divine name
Deuteronomistic redactor(s)
Elohist
Egyptian
English
Ethiopic
figure(s)
Festschrift
Greek (versions)
Greek
Hebrew
Hittite
Hurrian
Indo-European
Yahwist
Latin
Septuagint
MB
ms(s)
MT
n(n).
no(s).
NT
obv.
OG
OL
OSA
OT
P
p(p).
Pers
Phoen
pl(s).
PN
QL
Middle Babylonian
manuscript(s)
Masoretic Text
note(s)
number(s)
New Testament
obverse
Old Greek
Old Latin
Old South Arabic
Old Testament
Priestly Document
page(s)
Persian
Phoenician
plate(s)
personal name
Qumran Literature
reverse
section
Sumerian
Syriac
Ugaritic
verse(s)
Vulgate
Vetus Latina
ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLICAL BOOKS (INCLUDING THE APOCRYPHA)
Gen
Exod
Lev
Num
Deut
Josh
Judg
1-2 Sam
1-2 Kgs
Isa
Jer
Ezek
Hos
Joel
Obad
Amos
Jonah
Mic
Nah
Hab
Zeph
Hag
Zech
Mal
Ps (pl.: Pss)
Job
Prov
Ruth
Cant
Eccl (or Qoh)
Lam
Esth
Dan
Ezra
Neh
1-2 Chr
1-2-3-4 Kgdms
Add Esth
Bar
Bel
1-2 Esdr
4 Ezra
Jdt
Ep Jer
1-2-3-4 Macc
Pr Azar
Pr Man
Sir
Sus
Tob
Wis
Matt
Mark
Luke
XXII
John
Acts
Rom
1-2 Cor
Gal
Eph
ABBREVIATIONS
Phil Heb
Col Jas
1-2 Thess 1-2 Pet
1-2 Tim 1-2-3 John
Titus Jude
Phim Rev
ABBREVIATIONS OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL AND EARLY PATRISTIC WORKS
Adam and Eve
2-3 Apoc. Bar
Apoc. Mos.
Ass. Mos.
1-2-3 Enoch
Ep. Arist.
Jub.
Mart. Isa.
Odes Sol.
Or. Jo.
Pss. Sol.
Sib. Or.
T. 12 Patr.
T. Levi
T. Benj.
Acts Pil.
Apoc. Pet.
Gos. Eb.
Gos. Eg.
Gos. Heb.
Gos. Naas.
Gos. Pet.
Gos. Thom.
Prot. Jas.
Barn.
1-2 Clem.
Did.
Diogn.
Herm. Man.
Sim.
Vis.
Ign. Eph.
Magn.
Phld.
Pol.
Rom.
Smyr.
Trall.
LAB
Mart. Pol.
Pol. Phil.
Books of Adam and Eve
Syriac, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch
Apocalypse of Moses
Assumption of Moses
Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew Enoch
Epistle of Aristeas
Jubilees
Martyrdom of Isaiah
Odes of Solomon
Prayer of Joseph
Psalms of Solomon
Sibylline Oracles
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Levi
Testament of Benjamin, etc.
Acts of Pilate
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospe! of the Ebionites
Gospe! of the Egyptians g
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Naassenes
Gospel of Peter
Gospe! of Thomas
Protevangelium of James
Barnabas
1-2 Clement
Didache |
Diognetus
Hermas, Mandate
Similitude
Vision
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians
Letter to the Magnesians
Letter to the Philadelphians
Letter to Polycarp
Letter to the Romans
Letter to the Smyrnaeans
Letter to the Trallians
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
Martyrdom of Polycarp
Polycarp to the Philippians
ABBREVIATIONS XXIII
ABBREVIATIONS OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND RELATED TEXTS
CD
Hev
Mas
Mird
Mur
p
Q
1Q, 2Q, 3Q, ete.
IQapGen
1QH
1QIsa%>
1QpHab
1QM
1QS
1QSa
1QSb
3Q15
4QFlor
4Q Mess ar
4QPrNab
4QTestim
4QTLevi
4QPhyl
11QMelch
11QTgJob
Frg. Tg.
Pal. Tgs.
Sam. Tg.
Tg. Esth I ‘and’ I
Tg. Isa,
Tg. Ket.
Tg. Neb.
Tg. Neof.
Tg. Ong.
Tg. Ps.-J.
Tg. Yer. I
Tg. Yer. Il
Yem. Tg.
Cairo (Geniza text of) Damascus (Document)
Nahal Hever texts
Masada texts
Khirbet Mird texts
Wadi Murabba‘at
Pesher (commentary)
Qumran
Numbered caves of Qumran, yielding written material: followed by
abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book
Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave |
Hódáyót (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave |
First or second copy of Isaiah from Qumran Cave |
Pesher on Habakkuk from Qumran Cave |
Milhama (War scroll)
Serek Hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline)
Appendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to 1QS
Appendix B (Blessings) to 1QS
Copper Scroll from Qumran Cave 3
Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Qumran Cave 4
Aramaic “Messianic™ text from Qumran Cave 4
Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran Cave 4
Testimonia text from Qumran Cave 4
Testament of Levi from Qumran Cave 4
Phylacteries from Qumran Cave 4
Melchizedek text from Qumran Cave 4
Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11
ABBREVIATIONS OF TARGUMIC MATERIAL
Fragmentary Targum
Palestinian Targums
Samaritan Targum
First ‘and’ Second Targum of Esther
Targum of Isaiah
Targum of the Writings
Targum of the Prophets
Targum Neofiti 1
Targum Onqelos
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum Yerushalmi I
Targum Yerushalmi I
Yemenite Targum
ABBREVIATIONS OF PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, AND SERIES
AAA
AAAS
AASF
AASOR
AB
AbB
ABD
ABL
ABRT
Aeg
AfO
AfO Beih.
AGH
AGJU
AHAW
AHW
AION
AIPHOS
AJA
AJBA
AJP
AJSL
AKKGE
AKM
Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology
Annales archéologiques arabes
Syriennes
Annales Academiae Scientiarum
Fennicae
Annual of the American Schools of
Oriental Research
Anchor Bible
Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift
und Ubersetzung
Anchor Bible Dictionary
R. F. HARPER, Assyrian and
Babylonian Letters
J. A. CRAIG, Assyrian and
Babylonian Religious Texts
Antiquité classique
Acta Orientalia
Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan
C. H. W. JOHNS, Assyrian Deeds
and Documents
Abhandlungen des Deutschen
Palástinavercins
Ágyptologische Abhandlungen
Agypten und Altes Testament
Agyptologische Forschungen
A. H. GARDINER, Ancient Egyptian
Onomastica
Aegyptus
Archiv fiir Orientforschung
AfO Beiheft
E. EpELING, Die akkadische
Gebetsserie “Handerhebung”
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken
Judentums und des Urchristentums
Abhandlungen der Heidelberger
Akademie der Wissenschaften
W. von SODEN, Akkadisches
Handwórterbuch
Annali dell'Istituto orientale di
Napoli
Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie
et d'histoire orientales et slaves
American Journal of Archaeology
Australian Journal of Biblical
Archaeology
American Journal of Philology
American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literature
K. TaLLovIsT, Akkadische Götter-
epitheta (= StOr 7)
Abhandlungen für die Kunde des
Morgenlandes
AKT
ALASP
ALBO
ALGHJ
ALGRM
AIT
ALUOS
AMI
AnBib
AncSoc
ANEP
ANET
AnOr
ANQ
ANRW
AnSt
AntAfr
Anton
AOAT
AoF
APAW
APOT
ARAB
Arch
ARE
ARES
ARI
ARM
ARMT
ArOr
ARTU
ARW
Ankara Kiiltepe Tabletleri (1990)
Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-
Syriens-Palástinas
Analecta Lovaniensa Biblica et
Orientalia
Arbeiten zur Literatur und
Geschichte des Hellenistischen
Judentums
Ausführliches Lexikon der griechi-
schen und rémischen Mythologie,
cd. W. H. Roscher (= LGRM)
D. J. WISEMAN, Alalah Texts
Annual of the Leeds University
Oriental Society
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran
Analecta Biblica
Ancient Society
The Ancient Near East in Pictures,
ed. J. B. Pritchard
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed.
J. B. Pritchard
Analecta Orientalia
Andover Newton Quarterly
Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Römischen Welt
Anatolian Studies
Antiquités Africaines
Arbeiten zur Neutestamentliche
Textforschung
Antonianum
Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Altorientalische Forschungen
Abhandlungen der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Berlin
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament, ed. R. H.
Charles
D. D. LUCKENBILL, Ancient Records
of Assyria and Babylonia
Archaeology
Ancient Records of Egypt, ed. J. H.
Breasted
Archivi reali di Ebla, studi
Archivi reali di Ebla, testi
A. K. GRAYSON, Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions
Archives royales de Mari
Archives royales de Mari, Textes
Archiv Orientálnt
J. C. DE Moor, An Anthology of
Religious Texts from Ugarit
Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft
AS
ASAE
ASAW
ASNU
ASOR
ASSR
ASTI
ATANT
Atr.
AuA
Aug
AulOr
AulOrSup
AUSS
BA
Bab.
BAe
BAGB
BAGD
BagM
BAM
BAR
BARev
BASOR
BASP
BBB
BBR
BBVO
BCH
BD
BDB
BdE
ABBREVIATIONS
Assyriological Studies (Chicago)
Annales du service des antiquités de
l'Egypte
Abhandlungen der Sächsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phil.-hist. Kl., Berlin
Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici
Upsaliensis
American Schools of Oriental
Research
Archives des sciences sociales des
religions
Annual of the Swedish Theological
Institute
Abhandlungen zur Theologie des
Alten und Neuen Testaments
W. G. LAMBERT & A. R. MILLARD,
Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story
of the Flood
Antike und Abendland
Augustinianum
Aula Orientalis
Aula Orientalis-Supplementa
Andrews University Seminary
Studies
Biblical Archaeologist
Babyloniaca
Bibliotheca Aegyptica
Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume
Budé
W. BAUER, W. F. ARNDT, F. W.
GINGRICH & F. W. DANKER,
Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament
Baghdader Mitteilungen
F. KÖCHER, Die babylonisch-assyri-
sche Medizin in Texten und
Untersuchungen
Biblical Archaeologist Reader
Biblical Archaeology Review
Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research
Bulletin of the American Society of
Papyrologists
Bonner Biblische Beiträge
H. ZIMMERN, Beiträge zur Kenntnis
der babylonischen Religion
Berliner Beiträge zum vorderen
Orient
Bulletin de correspondance helléni-
que
Book of the Dead
F. Brown, S. R. DRIVER & C. A.
BriGGS, Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament
Bibliothéque d'étude, Institut
français d'archéologie orientale
BDR
BE
BEATAJ
BeO
BETL
BG
BHH
BHK
BHS
Bib
BibOr
BibTS
BICS
BIES
BIFAO
BiMes
BIN
BiOr
BIOSCS
BJR(U)L
BJS
BKAT
BM
BMC
BMS
BN
Bo.
BoSt
BR
BRA
BRL?
BRM
BSFE
XXV
F. BLASS, A. DEBRUNNER &
F. REHKOPF, Grammatik des neu-
testamentlichen Griechisch
Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania, Series
A: Cuneiform Texts
Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten
Testaments und des alten
Judentums
Bibbia e oriente
Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium
Berolinensis Gnosticus
Biblisch-Historisches
Handwórterbuch, ed. B. Reicke &
L. Rost
Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. Kittel
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Biblica
Biblica et Orientalia
Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies
Bulletin of the Israel Exploration
Society (= Yediot)
Bulletin de l'Institut français
d'archéologie orientale
Bibliotheca Mesopotamica
Babylonian Inscriptions in the
Collection of J. B. Nies
Bibliotheca Orientalis
Bulletin of the International
Organisation for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
Bulletin of the John Rylands
(University) Library
Brown Judaic Studies
Biblischer Kommentar: Altes
Testament
tablets in the collections of the
British Museum
British Museum Coin Catalogues
L. W. KiNc, Babylonian Magic and
Sorcery
Biblische Notizen
field numbers of tablets excavated at
Boghazkóy
Boghazk6i-Studien
Biblical Research
Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte
des Altertums
Biblisches Reallexikon, ed.
K. Galling
Babylonian Records in the Library
of J. Pierpont Morgan
Bulletin de la Société française
d'égypiologie
XXVI
BSOAS
BullEpigr
BWANT
BWL
BZ
BZAW
BZNW
BZRGG
CAD
CAH
CANE
CBET
CBQ
CBQMS
CCDS
CCSL
CCT
CdE
CIG
CIJ
CIL
CIMRM
CIS
CML
ConB
CPJ
CPSI
CQ
CRAIBL
CRB
CRINT
CRRA
CTA
ABBREVIATIONS
Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies
Bulletin épigraphique
Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom
Alten und Neuen Testament
W. G. LAMBERT, Babylonian
Wisdom Literature
Biblische Zeitschrift
Beihefte zur ZAW
Beihefte zur ZNW
Beihefte zur ZRGG
The Assyrian Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago
Cambridge Ancient History
Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, ed. J. M. Sasson
Contributions to Biblical Exegesis
and Theology
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQ Monograph Series
Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
Cunciform Texts from Cappadocian
Tablets
Chronique d'Egypte
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum
Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum
Corpus Inscriptionum et
Monumentorum Religionis
Mithriacae
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
Classical Journal
Cunciform Monographs
J. C. L. GiBsoN, Canaanite Myths
and Legends
Coniectanea Biblica
Classical Philology
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum
Corpus of Proto-Sinaitic
Inscriptions, ed. J. Biggs &
M. Dijkstra
Classical Quarterly
Comptes rendues de l'Académie des
inscriptions et belles lettres
Cahiers de la Revue biblique
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad
Novum Testamentum
Compte rendu, Rencontre assyriolo-
gique internationale
Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian
Tablets
Coffin Texts
A. HERDNER, Corpus des tablettes
alphabétiques
CTH
CTM
DAGR
DBAT
E. LAROCHE, Catalogue des textes
hittites
Calwer Theologische Monographien
Dictionnaire des antiquités grec-
ques et romaines, ed. C. V.
Daremberg & E. Saglio
Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten
Testament
DBATBeih Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten
DBSup
Dendara
DISO
DJD
DLU
DNWSI
DOTT
EdF
Edfou
Ee
EKK
Emar
EncBibl
Enclsl
EncJud
EncMiqr
EPRO
ER
ERE
Erlsr
ErJb
ESE
Esna
ETL
EWNT
ExpTim
FAOS
Testament, Beiheft
Dictionaire de la Bible, Supplément
E. CHassinaT & F. Daumas, Le
temple de Dendara
C.-F. JEAN & J. HOFTUZER,
Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémi-
tiques de l'ouest
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
G. DEL OLMO LETE & J.
SANMARTIN, Diccionaria de la
lengua Ugarttica
J. HOFTUZER & K. JONGELING,
Dictionary of the North-West
Semitic Inscriptions
Documents from Old Testament
Times, cd. D. W. Thomas
J. A. KNUDTZON, Die El-Amarna-
Tafeln (= VAB 2); EA 359-379:
A. RAINEY, El Amarna Tablets
359-379 (= AOAT 8)
Ertráge der Forschung
M. DE ROCHEMONTEIX &
E. CHassinaT, Le temple d'’Edfou
Enuma Elish
Evangelisch-Katholischer
Kommentar
D. ARNAUD, Recherches au pays
d'Astata. Emar VI.1-4
Encyclopedia Biblica, London
Encyclopedia of Islam
Encyclopedia Judaica
Entsiqlopédia Migra’it, Jerusalem
Etudes préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans l'empire romain
Encyclopedia of Religion
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Eretz Israel
Eranos Jahrbuch
Ephemeris für Semitische
Epigraphik
S. SAUNERON, Le temple d'Esna
Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses
Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum
Neuen Testament
Expository Times
Freiburger Altorientalische Studien
FAT
FGH
FRLANT
FS
GAG
Ges. V?
Ges.18
GGA
Gilg.
GK
GLAJJ
GM
GNT
GOF
GRBS
GTA
HAB
HALAT
HAR
HAT
HAW
HdO
Hey
HIROTP
Hisl
HNT
HR
HSCP
HSM
HSS
HTKNT
HTR
HTS
HUCA
ABBREVIATIONS
Forschungen zum Alten Testament
Forschungen und Fortschritte
Fragmente der griechischen
Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby
Forschungen zur Religion und
Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Festschrift
Forschungen zur Bibel
W. VON SODEN, Grundriss der
akkadischen Grammatik
W. GESENIUS, Hebrdisches und
aramäisches Handwörterbuch.
(17th. ed.)
W. GESENIUS, Hebrdisches und
aramiiisches Handworterbuch,
(18th. ed.)
Gättingische Gelehrte Anzeigen
Gilgamesh epic
Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik,
28th ed., ed. E. Kautzsch
M. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors
on Jews and Judaism
Göttinger Miszellen
Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament
Göttinger Orientforschungen
Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies
Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten
Hamburger Ägyptologische
Beiträge
W. BAUMGARTNER et al.,
Hebräisches und Aramäisches
Lexikon zum Alten Testament
Hebrew Annual Review
Handbuch zum Alten Testament
Handbuch der Altertuins-wissen-
schaften
Handbuch der Orientalistik
Heythrop Journal
R. ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite
Religion in the Old Testament
Period (2 vols.)
Handwórterbuch der [slam (Leiden
1941)
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
History of Religion
Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Harvard Semitic Studies
Herders Theologischer Kommentar
zum Neuen Testament
Harvard Theological Review
Harvard Theological Studies
Hebrew Union College Annual
IBHS
IBS
ICC
IDB
IDBS
[Délos
IEJ
IFAO
IG
IGLS
IGR
IJT
IKymie
IM
Int
IOS
IPN
IrAnt
ISBE
JA
JAAR
JAC
JANES
JAOS
JARCE
JAS
JB
JBL
JCS
JDS
JEA
JEN
JEOL
JESHO
JETS
JHNES
JHS
XXVII
B. K. WALTKE & M. O'Connor,
An Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax
Irish Biblical Studies
International Critical Commentary
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible, Supplementary Volume
Inscriptions de Délos
Israel Exploration Journal
Institut francais d'archéologie orien-
tale
Inscriptiones Graecae
Inscriptions grecques et latines de
la Syrie
Inscriptiones Graecae ad res
Romanas pertinentes
Indian Journal of Theology
Inschriften von Kyme
tablets in the collections of the Iraq
Museum, Baghdad
Interpretation
Israel Oriental Society
M. Notn, Die israelitischen
Personennamen
Iranica Antiqua
International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., ed. G. W.
Bromiley
Journal asiatique
Journal of the American Academy of
Religion
Jahrbuch fiir Antike und
Christentum
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern
Society of Columbia University
Journal of the American Oriental
Society
Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt
Journal of Asian Studies
Jerusalem Bible
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Judaean Desert Studies
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
Joint Expedition with the Iraq
Museum at Nuzi
Jaarbericht ... Ex Oriente Lux
Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient
Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society
Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies
Journal of Hellenic Studies
XXVIII
JIS
JNES
JNSL
JPOS
JPSV
JQR
JR
JRAS
JRelS
JRH
JRS
JSHRZ
JSJ
JSJS
JSNT
JSNTSup
JSOT
JSOTSup
JSP
JSS
JSSEA
JSSR
JTS
KBo
KEK
KHAT
KJV
ABBREVIATIONS
Journal of Jewish Studies KIF
Journal of Near Eastern Studies KP
Journal of Northwest Semitic KS
Languages KTU
Journal of the Palestine Oriental
Society
Jewish Publication Society KTU?
Translation of the Bible
Jewish Quarterly Review
Journal of Religion
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
Journal of Religious Studies
Journal of Religious History KUB
Journal of Roman Studies LAS
Jüdische Schriften aus LAPO
Hellenistisch-Rómischer Zeit
Journal for the Study of Judaism in LAS
the Persian, Hellenistic and
Roman Periods LAW
Supplements to the Journal for the LCL
Study of Judaism in the Persian, LdA
Hellenistic and Roman Periods Legends
Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Lei
Journal for the Study of the New LfgrE
Testament, Supplement Series LIMC
Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament LKA
Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament, Supplement Series LKU
Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha LSAM
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal of the Society for the Study LSCG
of Egyptian Antiquities
Journal for the Scientific Study of LSJ
Religion
Journal of Theological Studies LSS
tablets in the Kouyunjik collections LTK
of the British Museum LUA
H. DONNER & W. ROLLIG, MAD
Kanaandische und aramdische s
Inschriften MAS
E. EBELING, Keilschrifttexte aus MAIS
Assur religiösen Inhalts ,
Kommentar zum Alten Testament MAMA
E. EBELING, Keilschrifttexte aus Maqlu
Assur verschiedenen Inhalts MARI
L. KOEHLER & W. BAUMGARTNER,
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti MDAIK
libros
Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi
Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar MDOG
Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten
Testament MDP
King James Version MEE
Kleinasiatische Forschungen
Kleine Pauly
Kleine Schriften
M. Dietricn, O. Loretz &
J. SANMARTIN, Die keil-alphabeti-
sche Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24)
M. Dietricn, O. Loretz « J.
SANMARTIN, Die keil-alphabeti-
sche Texte aus Ugarit; second
enlarged edition: The Cuneiform
Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras
Ibn Hani and Other Places.
Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkói
Leipziger Agyptologische Studien
Littératures anciennes du Proche-
Orient
S. PARPOLA, Letters of Assyrian
Scholars (AOAT 5)
Lexikon der Alten Welt
Loeb Classical Library
Lexikon der Agyptologie
L. GINZBERG, The Legends of the
Jews
Leionénu
Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos
Lexicon Iconographicum
Mythologiae Classicae
E. EBELING, Literarische
Keilschrifttexte aus Assur
A. FALKENSTEIN, Literarische
Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk
Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure, ed.
F. Sokolowski
Lois sacrées des cités grecques, ed.
F. Sokolowski
LIDDELL-SCOTT-JONES, Greek-
English Lexicon
Leipziger semitische Studien
Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche
Lunds Universitets Årsskrift
Materials for the Assyrian
Dictionary
Münchener Ägyptologische Studien
Missione archeologica italiana in
Siria
Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua
G. MEIER, Maqlu (= AfO Beiheft 2)
MARI Annales de recherches inter-
disciplinaires
Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archáologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo
Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft
Mémoires de la délégation en Perse
Materiali epigrafici di Ebla
MEFR(A)
MGWJ
MIO
MM
Mnem
MRS
MSL
Mus
MusHelv
MUSJ
MVAÀG
NABU
NAWG
NBL
NCB
NEB
NedTTs
Neot
NESE
NewDocs
NHC
NHS
NorTT
NovT
NovTSup
NRSV
NTOA
NTS
NTStud
NTTS
Numen
OBO
OBTR
OCD
OECT
OGIS
OIP
OLA
OLD
ABBREVIATIONS
Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoi-
re de l'École francaise (antiquité)
Monatsschrift für Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judentums
Mitteilungen des Instituts für
Orientforschung
J.H. MoULTON & G. MILLIGAN, The
Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament
Mnemosyne
Mission de Ras Shamra
Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon
Le Muséon
Museum Helveticum
Mélanges de l'Université Saint-
Joseph
Mitteilungen der Vorder-Asiatisch-
Agyptischen Gesellschaft
Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et
utilitaires
Nachrichten von der Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen
Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. M. Görg &
B. Lang
New Century Bible
New English Bible
Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
Neotestamentica
Neue Ephemeris für Semitische
Epigraphik
New Documents Illustrating Early
Christianity, ed. G. H. R. Horsley
Nag Hammadi Codex
Nag Hammadi Studies
Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
Novum Testamentum
Novum Testamentum Supplements
New Revised Standard Version
Novum Testamentum et Orbis
Antiquus
New Testament Studies
Nieuwe Theologische Studiën
New Testament Tools and Studies
Numen: International Review for the
History of Religions
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
S. DALLEY, C. B. F. WALKER &
J. D. HAWKINS, Old Babylonian
Texts from Tell Rimah
Oxford Classical Dictionary
Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones
Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger
Oriental Institute Publications
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
Oxford Latin Dictionary
OLP
OLZ
OMRO
Or
OrAnt
OrChr
OrSu
OrSyr
OTL
OTP
OTS
PAAJR
PAPS
PBS
PEFQS
PEQ
PG
PGM
Philol
PhilQuart
PIFAO
PJ
PL
PLRE
PMG
POS
POxy
PRU
PSBA
PVTG
PW
PWSup
r.
Qad
QDAP
XXIX
Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit
het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te
Leiden
Orientalia
Oriens Antiquus
Oriens Christianus
Orientalia Suecana
l'Orient syrien
Old Testament Library
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
ed. J. H. Charlesworth
Oudtestamentische Studiën
Proceedings of the American
Academy of Jewish Research
Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society
Publications of the Babylonian
Section, University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania
Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Patrologia Graeca, cd. J. Migne
Papyri Graecae Magicae, ed.
K. Preisendanz
Philologus
Philosophical Quarterly
Publications de l’Institut français
d'archéologie orientale du Caire
Palästina-Jahrbuch
Patrologia Latina, ed. J. Migne
Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire
Poetae Melici Graeci
Pretoria Oriental Series
Oxyrhynchus Papyri
Palais royal d'Ugarit
Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology
Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti
Graeca
PAULY-WissOWA, Realencyclopddie
der klassischen Altertums-
wissenschaft
Supplement to PW
K. SETHE, Die altügyptischen
Pyramidentexte
Qadmoniot
Questiones Disputatac
Quarterly of the Department of
Antiquities in Palestine
H. C. RAWLINSON, The Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia
Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéolo-
gie orientale
XXX
RAAM
REg
REG
REJ
REL
RES
RevQ
RevScRel
RevSem
RGG
RGRW
RGTC
RGVV
RHA
RhMus
RHPR
RHR
RIH
RIMA
RivBib
RivStorAnt
RLA
RQ
RR
RS
RSF
RSO
RSOu
ABBREVIATIONS
H. Gerse, M. HÖFNER & RSP
K. Rupo pu, Die Religionen
Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der RSR
Mandder RSV
Reallexikon für Antike und RT
Christentum
F. THUREAU-DANGIN, Rituels acca-
diens RTL
H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ggypti- SAA
schen Religionsgeschichte SAAB
Records of the Ancient Near East SAK
Revue Archéologique SANE
Revue Biblique SB
Die Religionen der Menschheit
Realencyclopiidie ftir protestanti- SBAW
sche Theologie und Kirche
Revue des études anciennes SBB
Revised English Bible SBH
Regional Epigraphic Catalogue of
Asia Minor
Revue d'égyptologie SBLDS
Revue des études grecques
Revue des études juives SBLEJL
Revue des études latines
Répertoire d'épigraphie sémitique SBLMS
Revue de Qumran SBLSBS
Revue des sciences religieuses SBLTT
Revue sémitique SBLWAW
Die Religion in Geschichte und SBS
Gegenwart (31957-1965) SBT
Religions in the Graeco-Roman SBTU
World SCHNT
Répertoire géographique des textes
cunéiformes SCR
Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche ScrHier
und Vorarbeiten SDAW
Revue hittite et asianique
Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie SEÀ
Revue d'histoire et de philosophie Sef
religieuses SEG
Revue de l'histoire des religions
field numbers of tablets excavated at SEL
Ras Ibn-Hani Sem
The Royal Inscriptions of SGDI
Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods
Rivista Biblica Italiana
Rivista di storia antica SGL
Reallexikon der Assyriologie
Römisches Quartalschrift für christ-
liche Altertumskunde und
Kirchengeschichte
Review of Religion
field numbers of tablets excavated at
Ras Shamra
Rivista di studi fenici
Rivista degli studi orientali
Ras Shamra - Ougarit
Ras Shamra Parallels, ed.
S. Rummel (AnOr 51; Rome 1981)
Recherches de science religieuse
Revised Standard Version
Recueil de travaux relatifs à la phi-
lologie et à l'archéologie égyptien-
nes ef assyriennes
Revue théologique de Louvain
State Archives of Assyria
State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
Studien zur Altigyptischen Kultur
Sources from the Ancient Near East
Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden
aus Aegypten
Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften
Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge
G. A. REISNER, Sumerisch-babylo-
nischen Hymnen nach Thontafeln
griechischer Zeit
Society of Biblical Literature
Dissertation Series
SBL, Early Judaism and Its
Literature
SBL Monograph Series
SBL Sources for Biblical Studies
SBL Texts and Translations
SBL Writings of the Ancient World
Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
Studies in Biblical Theology
Spéátbabylonische Texte aus Uruk
Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum
Novi Testamenti
Studies in Comparative Religion
Scripta Hierosolymitana
Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen
Akademie der Wissenschaften
Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok
Sefarad
Supplementum Epigraphicum
Graecum
Studi epigrafici e linguistici
Semitica
H. CoLLrTZ et al., Sammlung der
griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, 4
vols. (1884-1915)
A. FALKENSTEIN & J. VAN DUK,
Sumerische Götterlieder
SH(C)ANE Studies in the History (and Culture)
SHT
SIG
SIRIS
SJLA
of the Ancient Near East
Studies in Historical Theology
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum,
ed. W. Dittenberger
Sylloge inscriptionum religionis
Isiacae et Sarapiacue, ed.
L. Vidman
Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SOT
SL
SMS
SMSR
SNTSMS
SO
SOTSMS
SPAW
SPhA
SR
SRT
SSEAJ
SSS
ST
StAeg
STBoT
STDJ
StEb
StOr
StPsm
STT
Su-B
StScm
StudNeot
SUNT
5 urpu
SVF
SVTP
Syll.
Tákultu
TAM
TANZ
TCGNT
TCL
TCS
TDNT
ABBREVIATIONS
Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament
A. DEIMEL, Sumerisches Lexikon
Syro-Mesopotamian Studies
Studi e Materiali di Storia delle
Religioni
Society for New Testament Studies
Monograph Series
Sources orientales
Society for Old Testament Studies
Monograph Series
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phil.-hist. K1., Berlin
Studia Philonica Annual
Studies in Religion
E. CHIERA, Sumerian Religious
Texts
Society for the Study of Egyptian
Antiquities Journal
Semitic Studies Series
Studia Theologica
Studia Aegyptiaca
Studien zu den Bogazkóy-Texten
Studies in the Texts of the Desert of
Judah
Studi Eblaiti
Studia Orientalia
Studia Pohl Series Maior
O. R. GURNEY, J. J. FINKELSTEIN &
P. HULIN, The Sultantepe Tablets
(H. STRACK &] P. BILLERBECK,
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch
Studi Semitici
Studia Neotestamentica
Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen
Testaments
E. REINER, Surpu (= AfO Beiheft
11)
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta
Studia in Veteris Testamenti
Pseudepigrapha
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum,
ed. W. Dittenberger
R. FRANKENA, Takultu, De sacrale
maaltijd in het assyrische ritueel
Tituli Asiae Minoris
Texte und Arbeiten zum Neutesta-
mentlichen Zeitalter
B. M. METZGER, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New
Testament
Textes cunéiformes du Louvre
Texts from Cuneiform Sources
Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. R. Kittel &
TDOT
TDP
TGF
THAT
ThStud
ThZ
TIM
TLZ
™
TRE
TRev
TRu
TSAJ
TSK
TSS!
TUAT
TWAT
TWAT
UBL
UCOP
UET
UFBG
UM
UNT
UPZ
Urk. M
Urk. IV
Urk. V
USQR
UVB
XXXI
G. Friedrich
Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament
R. LABAT, Traité akkadien de dia-
gnostics et pronostics médicaux
Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta
Theologisches Handwórterbuch zum
Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni &
C. W. Westermann
Theologische Studien
Theologische Zeitschrift
Texts in the Irag Museum
Theologische Literatur Zeitung
Tell Mardikh, tablets from Ebla
Theologische Realenzyklopddie
Theologische Revue
Theologische Rundschau
Texte und Studien zum antiken
Judentum
Theologische Studien und Kritiken
J. C. L. GiBSON, Textbook of Syrian
Semitic Inscriptions
Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten
Testaments, ed. O. Kaiser
Theologisches Worterbuch zum
Alten Testament, ed. G. J.
Botterweck & H. Ringgren
Theologisches Wórterbuch zum
Neuen Testament, ed. R. Kittel &
G. Friedrich
Theologisches Zeitschrift
Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur
University of Cambridge Oriental
Publications
Ur Excavation Texts
Ugarit-Forschungen
W. MAYER, Untersuchungen zur
Formensprache der babylonischen
"Gebetsbeschwórungen" (2 StPsm
5)
Ugaritica
C.H. GonDoN, Ugaritic Manual
Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament
Urkunden der Ptolemüerzeit, cd.
U. Wilcken
K. SETHE, Hieroglyphische
Urkunden der griechisch-rómi-
schen Zeit
K. SETHE, Urkunden der 18.
Dynastie
H. Grarow, Religiöse Urkunden
Union Seminary Quarterly Review
C. H. Gorpon, Ugaritic Textbook
Vorláufiger Bericht über die ...
Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka
(Berlin, 1930)
XXXII
VAB
VAS
VAT
Wb.
WBC
WbMyth
WHJP
WMANT
Wo
WS
WTJ
WUNT
WUS
ABBREVIATIONS
Vorderasiatische Bibliothek WVDOG
Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmiler
tablets in the collections of the
Staatliche Museen, Berlin WZ
Vigiliae Christianae WZKM
Vicino Oriente
Vivre et Penser (= RB 19411-1944) YBC
Vetus Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements YOS
field numbers of tablets excavated at
Warka ZA
Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen ZÄS
Sprache ZAH
Word Biblical Commentary ZAW
Wörterbuch der Mythologie, cd.
H. W. Haussig ZDMG
World History of the Jewish People
Wissenschaftliche Monographien ZDPV
zum Alten und Neuen Testament
Welt des Orient ZNW
Wiener Studien
Westminster Theological Journal ZPE
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament ZRGG
J. AISTLEITNER, Wórterbuch der
ugaritischen Sprache ZTK
Wissenschaftliche
Veróffentlichungen der Deutschen
Orientgesellschaft
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des
Morgenlandes
tablets in the Babylonian Collection,
Yale University Library
Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian
Texts
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
Zeitschrift für ügyptische Sprache
Zeitschrift fiir Althebraistik
Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlündischen Gesellschaft
Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palüstinavereins
Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik
Zeitschrift für Religions- und
Geistesgeschichte
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
Ab -*Father
Abaddon
Abba -*Father
Abel
Abomination
Abraham
Adam
Adat
Addirim | -*Noble Ones
Adon -*Lord
Adonay -*Lord; Yahweh
Adonis
Adrammelech
Aeneas
Agreement
Ah -*Brother
Aion
A]
Alay —AI
Aldebaran
Aliyan
Allon Oak
Almah -*Virgin
Almighty
Altar
Ala -*Al
Aluqqah -*Vampire
Am
Amalek
Amaltheia
Amazons
Amun
Amurru
Anakim -*Rephaim
Anammelech
Ananke
Anat
Ancient of days
Angel (I)
Angel (II)
Angel of death -*Angel
Angel of Yahweh
Anthropos
Antichrist
Anu -*Heaven
Aphrodite
Apis
Apkallu
Apollo
ENTRIES
Apollyon -*Abaddon; Apollo
Apsu -*Ends of the earth
Aqan -'Ya'üq
Archai
Archangel
Archon
Ares
Ariel
Arm
Arta
Artemis
Arvad
Asham
Asherah
Ashhur -*Ishhara
Ashima
Ashtoreth — -^Astarte
Asmodeus
Assur
Astarte
Atargatis
Athena
Atum
Augustus -*Ruler cult
Authorities
Avenger
Aya
Ayish —>Aldebaran
Azabbim
Azazel
Baal
Baalat
Baal toponyms
Baal-berith
Baal-gad
Baal-hamon
Baal-hazor
Baal-hermon
Baal-judah
Baal-meon
Baal of Peor
Baal-perazim
Baal-shalisha
Baal-shamem
Baal-tamar
Baal-zaphon
Baal-zebub
Bacchus
XXXIV
Baetyl
Baga
Barad
Baraq -Lightning
Bashan
Bashtu
Bastet
Beelzebul -*Baal-zebub
Behemoth
Bel -*Marduk
Belial
Beliar -*Belial
Beltu
Bes
Bethel
Blood
Boaz
Boshet -*Bashtu
Breasts-and-womb
Brother
Bul -*Calf
Cain
Calf
Carmel
Castor -*Dioskouroi
Chaos
Chemosh
Cherubim
Christ
Claudius Ruler cult
Clay
Constellations
Council
Creator of All
Curse
Cybele
Dagon
Daniel
Daphne
Datan -*Dedan
Day
DayStar -*Helel
Dead
Death Mot; Thanatos
Deber
Dedan
Demeter
Demon
Derek Way
Destroyer
Destruction -Qeteb
Devil
Dew
Diabolos —Devil
ENTRIES
Dike
Dionysus
Dioskouroi
Divine beings —>Sons of (the) God(s)
Dod
Dominion
Dove
Doxa -*Glory
Dragon
Dynamis
Ea -*Aya
Eagle
Earth
Eben -*Stone
Ed - Witness
Edom
Ehad -*One
El
El-berith —Baal-berith
El-creator-of-the-earth
Elders
Elemental spirits of the universe — -*Stoicheia
Elijah
Eloah
Elohim -*God (1)
El-olam
EI-roi
El-rophe
Elyon
Emim -*Rephaim
Emmanuel
Ends of the earth
Enoch
Equity -*Misharu
Eros
Esau
Esh -*Fire
Eshmun
Etemmu
Eternity
Euphrates
Eve
Everlasting God ^ El-olam
Evil Inclination
Evil spirit of God
Exalted ones
Exousiai -*Authorities
Face
Falschood
Familiar spirit ^ Wizard
Father
Father of the lights
Fear of Isaac
Fire
First-born of death
Flame
Flood -*ld
Fortuna
Gabnunnim
Gabriel
Gad
Gaius -*Ruler cult
Gepen
Gether
Ghost -*Spirit of the dead
Giants
Gibborim
Gillulim
Gir
Glory
God (I)
God (II)
God of fortresses
God of heaven
God of seeing — -*El-roi
Goddess -*Terebinth
Go'el
Gog
Gush
Haby
Hadad
Hades
Hail -*Barad
Ham
Hamartia -*Sin
Haoma
Haran
Hathor
Hayin
He-of-the-Sinai
Healing God —El-rophe
Heaven
Heaven-and-Earth
Heavenly beings Sons of (the) God(s)
Hebat
Hebel -*Abel
Helel
Helios
Hera
Heracles
Herem -Taboo
Hermes
Hermon
Heros
Hobab -*Humbaba
Hokmah - Wisdom
Holy and Righteous -*Hosios kai dikaios
Holy One
ENTRIES XXXV
Holy Spirit
Horeph
Horon
Horus
Hosios kai dikaios
Host of heaven
Hubal
Hubur
Humbaba
Humban
Hunger -*Mceriri
Hyacinthus
Hyle
Hymenaios
Hypnos
Hypsistos
Ibis
Id
Idols -*Azabbim; Gillulim
Ilib
Image
Inanna Ishtar
Ishhara
Ishmael
Ishtar
Isis
Jackals
Jacob
Jael
Jaghut
Jalam
Japheth
Jason
Jephthah’s daughter
Jeremiel
Jesus
Jeush -*Jaghut
Jezebel
Jordan
Joseph
Judah -*Yehud
Kabod -*Glory
Kaiwan
Kelti
Kenan
Kese?
Kesil -*Orion
Khonsu
Khvarenah
Kimah -*Pleiades
King
King of terrors
King of Tyre -*Melqart
XXXVI
Kinnaru
Kiririga
Kokabim -*Stars
Koshar
Kosharoth
Kubaba -*Cybele
Kyrios
Laban
Lady -*Adat; Beltu
Lagamal -*Lagamar
Lagamar
Lah
Lahab -*Flame
Lahai-roi
Lahmu
Lamb
Lamia -Lilith
Lamp
Law -*Nomos: Torah
Leah
Lebanon
Legion
Lel
Leviathan
Libra
Liers-in-wait
Lies
Light
Lightning
Lilith
Lim
Linos
Lioness
Logos
Lord
Lordship -*Dominion
Lyre -Kinnaru
Ma -*Cybele
Ma‘at
Magog
Makedon
Mal'ak melis | -*Mediator (T)
Mal’ak Yahweh -*Angel of Yahweh
Malik
Mammon
Man -*Anthropos
Marduk
Mary
Mashhit ~-*Destroyer
Mastemah
Matter —Hyle
Mazzaloth -*Constellations
Mediator (I)
Mediator (II)
ENTRIES
Melchizedek
Melgart
Menelaos
Meni
Meriri
Mesites | -* Mediator (II)
Messenger -*Angel (1)
Messiah -*Christ
Michael
Midday demon
Mighty One of Jacob
Mighty ones -*Gibborim
Milcom
Min
Mire Clay
Misharu
Mistress -*Adat; Beltu
Mithras
Molech
Moon
Moses
Most High -*Elyon: Hypsistos
Mot
Mother
Mountains-and-valleys
Mouth
Mulissu
Nabû
Nahar -River
Nahash -*Serpent
Nahhunte —Lagamar
Nahor
Name
Nanca
Narcissus
Naru -*River
Necessity — Ananke
Nehushtan
Neith
Nephilim
Nereus
Nergal
Nibhaz
Night
Nike
Nile
Nimrod
Ninuna - Nimrod: Nisroch
Nisroch
Noah
Noble ones
Nomos
Nymph
Oak
Ob -*Spirit of thc dead
Oberim -*Travellers
Og
Oil
Olden Gods
Olympus
One
Ophannim -*angels
Orion
Osiris
Ouranos -*Heaven; Varuna
Pahad Laylah -*Terror of the Night
Pantokrator -*Almighty
Paraclete
Patroklos
People Am
Perseus
Phoebus -*Apollo
Phoenix
Pleiades
Pollux -*Dioskouroi
Poseidon
Power -*Dynamis
Presbyteroi -*Elders
Prince
Prince (NT) -*Archon
Prince of the army of Yahweh —Prince
Principalities —Archai
Pronoia
Protectors
Ptah
Python
Qatar
Qedar -*Qatar
Qedoshim ->Saints
Qeteb
Qós
Queen of Heaven
Quirinus
Rabisu
Rachel
Rahab
Rakib-El
Ram
Rapha
Raphael
Raven
Re
Rephaim
Rephan -*Kaiwan
Resheph
Rider-upon-the-clouds
ENTRIES XXXVII
Riding Horseman
Righteousness -*Zedeq
River
Rock
Roma
Ruler cult
Sabbath
Saints
Saints of the Most High
Sakkuth
Samson -*Heracles
Sanctuary
Sar -*Prince
Sarah
Sasam
Satan
Satum -Kaiwan
Satyrs
Saviour
Sea
Seirim — -*Satyrs
Sela Rock
Selem — *Image
Seneh -*Thornbush
Seraphim
Serpent
Serug
Seth
Seven -*Apkallu
Sha
Shadday
Shahan
Shahar
Shalem
Shalman
Shaushka
Shean -*Shahan
Sheben
Shechem -*Thukamuna
Sheger
Shelah
Shem
Shemesh
Sheol
Shepherd
Sheqer -Falsehood
Shield of Abraham
Shimige
Shining one(s)
Shiqmah -*Sycomore
Shiqqus -Abomination
Shulman
Shulmanitu
Shunama
Shunem -*Shunama
XXXVIII
Sid -Sidon
Sidon
Silvanus
Simon Magus
Sin
Sin
Sirion
Sisera
Skythes
Soil
Son of God
Sons of (the) God(s)
Son of Man
Soothsaying spirit -*Spirit of the dead
Sophia ~Wisdom
Soter -*Saviour
Source
Spirit -*Holy Spirit
Spirit of the dead
Stars
Stoicheia
Stone
Strong Drink
Sukkoth-benoth
Sun -*Helios; Re Shemesh
Sycomore
Taboo
Tabor
Tal -Dew
Tammuz
Tannin
Tartak
Tehom -*Tiamat
Ten Sephirot
Terah
Teraphim
Terebinth
Terror of the Night
Thanatos
Themis
Theos -*God (II)
Thessalos
Thillakhuha
Thornbush
Thoth
Thrones
Thukamuna
Tiamat
Tiberius -*Ruler cult
Tigris
ENTRIES
Tirash
Titans
Torah
Travellers
Trees ~*Oak, Sycomore, Terebinth, Thombush
Tyche
Typhon
Unclean spirits
Unknown God
Uriel
Vampire
Vanities
Varuna
Vashti
Vine -*Gepen
Viper
Virgin
Vohu Manah
Watcher
Way
Wild Beasts
Wind-Gods
Wine -*Tirash
Wisdom
Witness
Wizard
World rulers
Wrath
Yaaqan —Ya'üq
Yahweh
Yahweh zebaoth
Yam -*Sea
Ya'üq
Yarikh —Moon
Yehud
Yidde‘oni -*Wizard
Yizhar -*Oil
Yom -Day
Zamzummim
Zaphon
Zedeq
Zeh-Sinai -*He-of-the-Sinai
Zeus
Zion
Zur -*Rock
AB -* FATHER
ABADDON
I. The noun 'ábaddón is derived from
the Heb root TZN, which is common Semitic
(cf. Ug and Aram "bd, AKk abátu) and
means 'to destroy'. The Hebrew noun has
the meaning ‘place of destruction’ which
basically fits all occurrences in the Bible;
only in the NT is ‘ABaddav (Rev 9:11)
construed as a proper name.
JI. Though the religions of the ancient
Near East know a considerable number of
deities and demons relating to the nether-
world, there occurs no divine name of such
a being which can be derived from the root
"BD. In the OT 'ábaddón occurs six times in
Wisdom literature mostly meaning 'place of
destruction’. Thus in Prov 15:11; 27:20 and
Job 26:6 we find it in parallelism to §é’6l
(‘underworld’; ~Sheol), while in Ps 88:12
*dbaddén occurs in parallelism with qeber
(‘grave’). When ’abaddén occurs without a
parallel noun, as in Job 31:12, its reference
is topographical. It is this locative aspect
which can also be seen in the writings from
Qumran (e.g. IQH 3:16.19.32)? partly again
in parallel with 3&ól. In the Babylonian Tal-
mud (Fr 19a) it is given as the second of the
seven names of Gehenna.
The mythological implications of Abad-
don come to the fore in Job 28:22: 'ábaddón
and mawer (‘death’, —Mot) are both re-
ferred to as personificd beings who can
speak and hear. This is the biblical starting
point for speculations about *abaddén as a
separate entity, as the realm of an -*angel of
death and the netherworld. We can mention,
from Apoc. Zeph. 10:3, the -*angel Eremiel
who resides in the underworld where all the
souls are locked in; also / Enoch 20:2 is
comparable to this idea of a personified
angel of the 'ábaddón. This is also the
background of the use of ‘ABaddav in Rev
9:11 as a proper name. After the fifth angel
has blown his trumpet, the depth of the
underworld 1s opened and smoke and huge
locusts come up from it; their king is called
“in Hebrew Abaddon, and in Greek he is
called ~Apollyon™. This Greek expression
is not only derived from the verb axdAA ut,
but there is also an allusion to the Greek
god Apollo who is a god of pestilence and
destruction; Aeschylus already (Agam. 1028.
1081; cf. Plato, Krat. 404c.405c) connects
the god's name with this verb. Thus
‘ABaddav or ‘AnoAAvawv can be seen as a
demon who brings destruction and whose
realm is the underworld.
The explicit use of ?ábaddón for a de-
monic being is rare, as it is used mainly as
the name of a place. Maybe two occurrences
of the word are secondarily open to personi-
fication: Prov 27:20 tells us that Abaddon
cannot be satiated; this anthropomorphous
diction may be a slight hint of Abaddon's
demonic character. Also Job 26:5-6 is to be
mentioned once more: In Job’s speech, the
shades in the underworld tremble before
God and there is no shelter to cover Abad-
don. Thus it is perhaps not too speculative
to assume that Abaddon is not only a place
of destruction but also a demon of destruc-
tion. But on the whole Abaddon’s role as a
demon certainly does not figure prominently
in the Bible—though the OT is aware of
such underworldly beings.
III. Bibliography
J. JERemias, ‘ABaddav, TWNT 1 (1933) 4;
A. OEPKE, ‘AnoAAvwv, TWNT 1 (1933)
396; B. OTZEN, TAN 'ábad. TWAT 1 (1970-
1973) 20-24.
M. HUTTER
ABBA -* FATHER
ABEL — ABOMINATION
ABEL ^35
I. Abel is a novelistic figure in Gen 4.
His name is etymologically related to hebel
‘breath; nullity; vapor’ (Vanities). He has
been related to the personal name é-bil //
*a-bil in texts from Ebla. Within the para-
digm that the antediluvian patriarchs were
demigods or at least heroes, GORDON seems
to suggest that Abel was a deity in Ebla
(1988:154). In a later Jewish Hellenistic
speculation Abel is seen as a judging
angel.
II. The texts referred to by Gordon point
to a person called *Ebil and not to a deity.
The name é-bil (MEE I 338 s.v. é-bil; MEE
II 12 r. ii:6; II 7 r. i:6) is not preceded by
the determinative for a deity. The name
belongs to a human being, as thc addition
LU 4ra-sa-ap shows (MEE 1 12 r. ii:6). So
the antediluvian Abel cannot be interpreted
as a deity.
III. In the OT Abel occurs only in Gen
4:2.4.8-9.25. His name is derived from the
noun hebel ‘breath’ (SEYBOLD 1974:337;
Hess 1993) indicating that he is a person
with a transient character. A connection with
Akk ibilu and Arab ’ibil ‘came!’ (HALAT
227) is less probable.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Abel is
seen as one of the ‘heroes of faith’ (Heb
11:4): “By faith Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice than Cain". The
author of this letter refers to the question
why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and
Abel's accepted. This problem is discussed
in some Hellenistic-Jewish and Rabbinic
sources too: Josephus, Ant. 1, 53-54 (God
had more pleasure in animals linked with
nature than in fruits as the product of cultu-
re); Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini; Tg.
Ps.-J. Gen 4:8; T. Sota 4,19 (here Cain is
listed among the ungodly). The Greek trans-
lation of Theodotion offers an independent
interpretation according to which fire came
down from heaven to consume Abel’s
sacrifice but not Cain’s. Another passage
from the Epistle to the Hebrews interprets
the blood of Abel in christological terms
(Heb 12:24).
In a throne vision in the longer recension
of the Testament of Abraham, Abel is
depicted as the “sun-like angel, who holds
the balance” (6 GyyeAos 0 NAtépopdos 6 TOV
Cuyov xatézwv). As son of the first born in
history, Abel is sitting as judge in heaven
and he will judge the entire creation (7. Abr.
B XIIE1-3; cf. FossuM 1985:276-277;
MacH 1992:198, who wrongly quotes the
passage as T.Abr. B 10,8f). In the shorter
recension of the Testament of Abraham,
Abel is seen only as an angel (T. Abr. A.
XI:2). A relation with the angel Hibil known
as a demiurge in Mandaic sources cannot be
excluded (FossuM 1985:262-263).
IV. Bibliography
J. E. FossuM, The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985);
C. H. Gorpon, Notes on Proper Names in
the Ebla Tablets, in: Eblaite Personal
Names and Semitic Name-giving (A. Archi
ed.; ARES 1; Roma 1988) 153-158; R. S.
Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of
Genesis 1-11 (AOAT 234; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1993) 27-28.223-225; M. MacH, Enr-
wicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engel-
glaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34;
Tübingen 1992); K. SEvBoLp. 025 hæbæl,
TWAT 2 (1974) 334-343.
B. BECKING
ABOMINATION 1^9
I. The singular noun 3iggü; 'abomin-
ation' as a dysphemism mcaning 'god, god-
dess' appears scven times in the Masoretic
text of Hebrew Scripture. This term refers
respectively to (a) -^Milcom, the chief god
of the Ammonites (1 Kgs 11:5, 7); (b)
—Chemosh, the chief god of Moab (1 Kgs
11:5; 23:18); (c) Ashtoreth (—Astarte), the
chief goddess of the Sidonians (2 Kgs 11:5,
7); and (d) the abomination of desolation
(Sigqtis mésomém, Gk PSEAUypAa Epnidcenc,
Dan 11:31; 12:1), which most modern inter-
preters identify with the statue of —Zeus
Olympios which Antiochus IV Epiphanes
set up in the Temple of the LoRD
(7*Yahweh) at Jerusalem on December 6th
ABRAHAM
in the year 167 scr. It is generally agreed
that the reading siggtsim méSémém is the
result of dittography and that the original
and correct reading should be here also
Siqqiis méSémém, i.e., ‘abomination (singu-
lar) of desolation’.
It is likewise generally agreed that the
latter designation of Zeus Olympios is a
play upon -*Baal shamem, ‘Lord of
heaven’, which is the Phoenician title of
both Canaanite Hadad and Greek Zeus,
who were perceived to be the same deity
under different names just as, mutatis
mutandis, modern Muslims, Christians and
Jews perceive Allah, Jehovah, and Adonai
as different names for the same deity.
The plural 3igqüsim, ‘abominations’,
refers to unspecified deities other than the
LoRD and their respective cult statues in
Deut 29:16; Jer 7:30;16:18; 32:34; Ezek
5:11; 7:20; 11:21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23. Only
in Zech 9:7 and Isa 66:3 is the plural
Siqqüsgim employed in the sense of šëgāşîm,
'non-kosher foods'. In Hos 9:10 the term
means ‘disgusting people’, and it refers to
the Israclites who through licentious beha-
viour with the Midianite women were enti-
ced into worship of Baal of Peor (cf. Num
25:3-5). In Nah 3:6 the noun šiqggûşîm refers
to disgusting objects (possibly excrements)
which God promises to throw at personified
Nineveh in order to bespatter the city which
had until now attracted the admiration of all
the world with her charms.
Unquestionably, referring to deities and
their cult objects as Siggiisim, whose pri-
mary meaning is ‘disgusting objects’, was
meant to repel Israelites, who might other-
wise be tempted to worship prohibited de-
ities. In the same way, Lev 18 asserts that
various types of sexual relations, which
some persons might perceive to be alterna-
tive lifestyles, are so repulsive that they
make even the personified land of Israel
vomit.
H. Bibliography
R. GALATZER-LEvy & M. I. GRUBER, What
an Affect Means: A Quasi-Experiment about
Disgust, The Annual of Psychoanalysis 20
(1992) 69-92; L. F. HARTMAN & A. A.
DiLELLA, Daniel (AB 23; Garden City
1978); J. MitGrom, Two Priestly Terms:
Seqes and tamé’, Tarbiz 60 (1991) 423-428.
M. I. GRUBER
ABRAHAM OTIN
I}. The ‘original’ name of the patriarch
'abrám belongs to the common stock of
West Semitic names known since the begin-
ning of the second millennium BCE. It is a
contracted form of ’dbirdm (HALAT 9; DE
Vaux 1968:11; 1 Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1;
26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrm in Ugarit
(KTU 4.352:2,4 = 'A-bi-ra-mu/i; PRU 3,20;
5,85:10; 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. Hurr-
MON, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari
Texts [Baltimore 1965] 5), 'brm in Elephan-
tine (E. SACHAU, Aramidische Papyrus und
Ostraka aus einer Militür-Kolonie zu Ele-
phantine [Leipzig 1911] no. 75/1 1L.8). It
occurs perhaps also in the toponym p? hqr
Jbrm ‘the fortress of Abram’ mentioned in
the Sheshong-list (J. SimoNs, Handbook of
Egyptian Topographical Lists [Leiden 1973]
XXXIV:71-72; MEYER 1906:266; Y. AHA-
RONI, The Land of the Bible {London 19792]
328; pace M. NorH, Die Schoschenkliste,
ZDPV 61 [1938] 291-292 - Awfsütze zur
biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde 2
[ed. H. W. Wolff; Neukirchen Vluyn 1971]
83-84), but identification with biblical Abra-
ham remains extremely uncertain. "Abraham
is an extended form of ’abram. The exten-
sion is rather due to reverence and distinc-
tion than dialectic variance. In historical
times, tradition—confirmed by folkloristic
etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7}—knew the
patriach only by his name ’abrahdm (Mic
7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.).
II. At one time the patriarchs were inter-
preted as local Canaanite deities (LUTHER
1901; MEYER 1906, cf. WEIDMANN 1968:
89-94) or in terms of astral myth (GoLD-
ZIHER 1876:109-110, 122, 182-183; JERE-
MIAS 1906), particularly Abraham, since he
was associated with centres of the Meso-
potamian -*moon cult (Ur and -*Haran).
Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess
and Abraham's father -Terah with the
ABRAHAM
moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradi-
tion, there are allusions to the ancient cults
of Abraham’s place of origin (Josh 24:2),
mythological interpretation of the Abraham-
cycle plays no role in recent discussion.
Still, the religio-historical role of father
Abraham as the most venerated ancestor and
saint of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
(Matt 3:9; 8:6, Luke 16:22-23; John 8:39
etc.; Str-B I 116-121; III 186-201; JEREMIAS
1958; Busse 1988:81-92) and his mythic
image as —Rock, i.e. begetter, (Isa 51:1) is
of interest. This latter veneration of 'Father
Abraham’ may derive from an carly
Israelite, viz. Canaanite ancestral cult of
Abraham at Machpelah (~Cybele) (WEID-
MANN 1968: 27-30; Loretz 1978:192).
Recent scholarship has become increas-
ingly sceptical about the historicity of
Abraham and the patriarchal era (THOMPs-
ON 1974; VaN Seters 1975; Bium
1984:491-506; KéckerT 1988:300-323).
Tracing the origins of Abraham within the
complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is
extremely difficult. Pentateuchal traditions
picture him as the founder of a number of
cult-places (Shechem -*Thukamuna, Gen
12:6-7; Bethel, Gen 12:8; 13:3-4; Mamre,
Gen 13:18; Beersheba, Gen 21:23; Moriah /
Jerusalem?, Gen 22:2; 1 Chron 3:1); he
came cither from Ur or from Haran in Mes-
opotamia (Gen 11:27-32; 15:7); his pastoral
and sedentary life is mainly concentrated in
the environment of the Negev (Beersheba,
E) and/or Hebron (Mamre, JP) and he was
buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23:1-
20, JP; 25:1-7, P) Traditio-historical
research basically agrees that his connec-
tions with Haran, Shechem and Bethel are
of a secondary character and originated
when tradition identified Abraham as the
father of Isaac and ancestor of the Northern
tribes (~Jacob; NoTH 1948: 112-127). The
traditions of Mamre and the ancestral tomb
of Machpelah near Hebron possess, how-
ever, a certain credibility. The traditions
about Abraham, the Hebrew, who lived near
the —Terebinths of the Amorite Mamre
(Gen 14:13 with parallel accounts in Gen
13:18; 14:18; 18:1; 23:1.19) suggest that the
cult of Abraham was originally at home
around Hebron (ALT, KS 1, 54-55: JEPSEN
1953-54:144, 149).
III. Pre-Judaean -traditions about Abra-
ham were kept and fostered by the clan of
Caleb, the Kenizite, who settled and lived at
Hebron (Josh 14:6.13-15; 15:13-19 = Judg
1:10-15.20) before they merged with the
Judaean confederation. At the sanctuary in
Mamre-Hebron, Abraham was ‘a father of
many nations’ as early as the emergence of
the monarchy. At the end of the second mil-
lennium BCE at least two tribal federations,
the Judaean Israelites and the [shmaelites
claimed Abraham as one of their ancestors.
It is not until the end of the monarchic
period, however, that in Judacan-Israelite
tradition ‘our father" Abraham emerges out
of the shadow of Jacob (Isa 29:23; Mic
7:20), probably because of his more ‘ecu-
menical' character (Jer 33:26; Ezek 33:24;
Isa 41:8; 51:2; 63:16; VAN DER MERWE
1956:90-101, 121-124). Pleas based on the
election of Abraham as friend and servant of
God (resp. Isa 41:8; 2 Chr 20:7; Jas 2:23; cf.
Gen 26:24; Exod 32:13; Ps 105:42; also
Koranic al-halîl, Surah 4:125) and his
fathership of Israel may reflect a growing
reverence for him as an ancestral saint and
intercessor (Gen 18:22-33; 20:17; 23:6 [?];
cf. Isa 63:15-16; Str-B I 116-121). Abra-
ham's image as a rock-begetter parallel to
Sarah as a childbearing rock-cleft (Isa 51:1)
may even refer to the ancient cult-legend of
Machpelah (VAN UCHELEN 1968: pace
FaBry, TWAT 4 1982-84:982) If so, it
would be the oldest reference to Machpelah
outside the Pentateuch. From Gen 23:1-20;
25:7-11 (P) it might be inferred that at the
least in early post-exilic times the motif of
the patriarchal tomb had become established
in Israclite-Ishmaelite tradition. In this
period Hebron was no Judaean territory
(Neh 11:25) but part of the hyparchy
Idumea (I Mace 6:65; ALT, KS 2, 327-329;
AHARONI 1979:416). Already at this stage
the existence of Jewish and Idumaean
pilgrimages seems to be implied and Jub.
22:3-4 and Josephus (Bell. IV 532) may
confirm this. The present edifice which
houses the epitaphs of the patriarchs and
their wives, the Haram el-Khalil, is a work
ADAM
of Herodian architecture (JEREMtAS 1956;
Weirrert, BRL?, 145 [& lit]). It was
presumably built over a more modest shrine,
called byt ^brhin (Heb Jub. 22:24; 23:6; DJD
Ill 269; lat baris Abraham) also known as
byt hbrk ‘house of the Blessed One’ (3015
XI11,8; Mur 43:2; Lipisski 1974:50-51). This
‘house of Abraham/the Blessed One’ is most
probably not identical with the cult-place of
Mamre, which at present is located at Ramat
al-Khalil, 3 km. north of Hebron (Bell. IV
533; IQapGen XXT,19). Though Mamre is
nowhere mentioned explicitly outside Gen-
esis, it was an ancient sanctuary and a centre
of pilgrimage (2 Sam 2:4; 5:3). According
to Josephus the ancient terebinth, called
Ogyges was still shown there (Bell. IV 533;
Ant. | 186). The place was destroyed by
Hadrian after the Bar Kochba revolt and
turned into a marketplace. Constantine built
a basilica inside the Herodian wall (So-
zomenus, Hist. Eccl. 1l 4; JEREMIAS 1958;
WriPPERT, BRL?, 145; MAGEN 1991). The
still impressive remains of both places and
the unbroken tradition testify to Abraham's
religious significance as the father of all
who are of the faith of Abraham (Rom
4:16). and to his ancestral cult, in the Haram
el-Khalil, still observed by Jews, Christians
and Muslims (JEREMIAS 1958).
IV. Bibliography
E. BruM, Die Komposition der Váter-
geschichte (WMANT 57; Stuttgart. 1984);
H. Busse, Die theologischen Beziehungen
des Islams zu Judentum und Christentum
(Grundzüge 72; Darmstadt 1988); I. GoLp-
ZINER, Der Mythos bei den Hebrdern und
seine geschichtliche Entwicklung (Leipzig
1876: repr. 1987); A. JEPSEN, Zur Über-
lieferungsgeschichte der Vitergestalten, WZ-
Leipzig 2/3 (1953-54) 267-281 = FS ALT
(Leipzig 1953-54) 139-155; A. JEREMIAS,
Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients (Leipzig 1906); J. JEREMIAS, Hei-
ligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen
1958) 90-100; M. KÖCKERT, Vätergott und
Váterverheissungen (FRLANT 142; Göt-
tingen 1988); E. Lipinski, ‘Anaq-Kiryat
'Arba-Hébron et ses sanctuaires tribaux,
VT 24 (1974) 41-55; O. Loretz, Vom
kanaanüischen Totenkult zur jüdischen
Patriarchen- und Elternehrung, Jahrbuch für
Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 3
(1978) 149-203; B. LurHEn, Die israeli-
tischen Stimme, ZAW 21 (1901) 1-76; Y.
MAGEN, Elonci Mamre. A Herodian Cult
Site, Qadimoniot 24 (1991) 46-55 [Hebr]; E.
MEYER, Die lsraeliten und ihre Nach-
barstümrmine (Halle 1906); B. J. VAN DER
MERWE, Pentateuchtradisies in die Pre-
diking van Deuterojesaja (Groningen 1956);
T. L. THoMPSON, 7he Historicity of the
Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin 1974); N. A.
VAN UCHELEN, Abraham als Felsen (Jes
51,1), ZAW 80 (1968) 183-191; J. VAN
Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition
(New Haven and London 1975); R. DE
Vaux, Die Patriarchenzühlungen und die
Geschichte (Stuttgart 1968); DE Vaux, His-
toire ancienne d'Israel. Des origines à
l'installation en. Canaan (Paris 1971); H.
WEIDMANN, Die Patriarchen und ihre Re-
ligion im Licht der Forschung seit Julius
Wellhausen (FRLANT 94; Gottingen 1968);
M. Wespprert, Abraham der Hebrier?
Bemerkungen zu W. F. Albrights Deutung
der Viiter Israels, Bib 52 (1971) 407-432; C.
WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36 (BKAT 1⁄2;
Neukirchen 1981).
M. DIJKSTRA
ADAM
I. in the Bible itself there are no traces
of traditions that Adam was ever regarded as
a divine or angelic being. For non-biblical
ANE material possibly relevant to Adam
veneration the reader is referred to the
lemma ->Soil. Here only post-biblical mate-
rial pertinent to the motif of Adam’s divine
or angelic status is dealt with.
II. Some passages in early rabbinic lite-
rature testify to the existence of ‘heretics’
(minim) that held that Adam had acted as
God’s associate in creation or as his pleni-
potentiary (c.g., b.Sanh. 38a: “Our rabbis
taught: Adam was created [last of all beings]
on the eve of Sabbath. Why so? Lest the
minim should say: The Holy One, blessed be
He, had a partner [sc. Adam] in His work of
creation”). Gnostic sources seem to confirm
this when they speak of Adamas through
ADAT
whom everything came into being (FossuM
1985:267). In other carly Christian sources
the idea of Adam having been God's vicere-
gent crops up occasionally, especially in the
so-called Adam literature (sec, e.g. the
Cave of the Treasure; further STONE 1992).
Philo’s distinction between the heavenly
Man of Gen 1:27 and the earthly man of
Gen 2:7 may have been one of the tributa-
ries to the development of this motif (Opif.
mundi 134 et al). In. 2 Enoch 30:11-12
(long recension) God says: “On the earth |
assigned him [Adam] to be a second angel,
honoured and great and glorious. | assigned
him to be a king, to reign on the earth and
to have my wisdom. There was nothing
comparable to him on the earth, not even
among my creatures that exist [the angels]."
But the Testament of Abraham ch. 8 (rec. B)
goes a step further when identifying Adam
with a Kavod-like (-*Glory) Man in heaven,
“sitting upon a throne of great glory” at the
gates of Paradise, encircled by a multitude
of angels and looking at the many souls
being led to destruction and the few souls
being led to life. “Adam is enthroned in
heaven as the Glory at the end of time"
(Fossum 1985:276). The description of
Adam as a “wondrous man,” “adorned in
such glory,” with a “terrifying apperance,
like that of the Lord” (Test. Abr. 11, rec. A)
clearly recalls Ezekiel’s vision in ch. 1. It
would seem that in certain circles with mys-
tical inclinations God’s Glory, the Heavenly
Man, and Adam merged into one angelic
figure. On the development of this idea in
later Kabbalistic circles see SCHOLEM 1974
(Reg., s.v.). The implication that all this
may have for the study of New Testament
christology is a matter of debate.
III. Bibliography
J. E. FossuM, The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985)
266-291; *Pu. B. MuNoa, Four Powers in
Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in
the Testament of Abraham (Sheffield 1998),
esp. 82-112; A. F. SEGAL, Two Powers in
Heaven (SJLA 25; Leiden 1977); G. ScHo-
LEM, Kabbalah (Jerusalem 1974); M. E.
STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam
and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta 1992).
P. W. VAN DER Horst
ADAT MTIR
I. The Ugaritic male title adn (—>Lord)
for god and men has a female counterpart:
adt (< *adattu < *adāntu ). EISSFELDT
(1939) proposed to read in the lament Jer
22:18 wéhdy ’ddat, ‘oh, Mistress’, implying
that a female deity is invoked.
II. At Ugarit, adt occurs as the female
counterpart to adn. adt is not only used to
indicate the Ugaritic queen-mother, but also
the mother-goddess as can be inferred from
names like bn adty = DUMU a-da-ta-ya
(PRU VI, 83 iv:11); fA-da-ti-ya (PRU III,
p.114:29); 'bdadt - "R-a-da-te (F. GRÖN-
DAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte aus
Ugarit [StP 1; Roma 1967] 45.90; KTU
3.3:12; PRU VI, 79:19, 185:2*); hyadt (PRU
I, 47:22); fSüm-a-da-te (PRU VI, 107:6);
[f)Um-mi-a-da-te (PRU V, 107:7). The title
*dt, ‘mistress’, is attested in Phoenicia for
Ba‘alat of Byblos (KA/ 6:2; 7:4) and for
—Astarte (KA/ 29:2) |n a proto-sinaitic
inscription from Serabit cl-Khadim -*Baalat
= -»Hathor) is given this epitheton (CPSI
No. 37). It also occurs in Palmyra (J.
CANTINEAU, Syria 17 [1936] 334-335;
NorH 1937:345) Finally, the Egyptian-
Asiatic female personal name 'dwnw (Papy-
rus Brooklyn 35.1446 vs 15a; SCHNEIDER
1987:264) must be noted. In Aramaic
inscriptions the title mr(’)t/mdrdt (= -*Atar-
gatis?) is used next to mara’, ‘lord’, more
than once (DISO 166-167; KAI 242).
III. It is not settled whether or not the
female title ‘mistress’ for the divine occurs
in the Old Testament. EISSFELDT (1938:489;
cf. HALAT 12. 231) proposed to read in the
lament Jer 22:18 wéhdy ’adat, ‘oh, Mis-
tress’, (parallel to ?G/iót in the preceding
colon), though the masoretic text, wéhdy
hódó, ‘oh, his majesty’, is rather clear (but
sce W. L. HoiLaDpav, Jeremiah 1 [Phil-
adelphia 1986] 592, 597). The only indica-
tion that the title was known in an Israelite
ADDIRIM —
context is found in a Judaean seal belonging
to a woman: 'dr ^it pihr (TiGay 1986:65).
Ugaritic and Palmyrene parallels suggest her
name (and perhaps the woman) to be of
foreign origin. If she was Israelite, her name
reflects either the existence of the cult of a
female deity like -Asherah in Judah or it
was used despite its original non-Israelite
character like e.g. Aramaic Martha who is
attested in Jewish contexts (DISO 166;
TiGay 1986:71).
IV. Bibliography
O. EissrELDT, Neue Belege für MUS “Her-
rin" OLZ 40 (1947) 345-346; M. NorH,
Zum phGnizischen N78, OLZ 31 (1938) 553-
558; T. SCHNEIDER, Die semitischen und
ügyptischen Namen der syrischen Sklaven
des Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 Verso, UF
19 (1987) 255-282; J. H. TiGAY, You Shall
Have No Other Gods (HSS 31; Atlanta
1986).
M. DIKSTRA
ADDIRIM -* NOBLE ONES
ADON > LORD
ADONAY -* LORD; YAHWEH
ADONIS “Adavis
I. Adonis (originally ‘Lord’, see
Hesychius s.v.) is a hero of classical mythol-
ogy, beloved by -*Aphrodite and Persepho-
ne. He has been identified with a Phoenician
god in Byblos who is referred to as Spa.mu
in the Amama letters. The divine name
Adonis occurs in Vulg Version of Ezek 8:14
instead of VL and LXX Thammuz. As
hemdat násim, ‘Darling of women’, Adonis
occurs possibly in Dan 11:37. References to
his cult are perhaps also to be found in some
chapters of Isaiah.
IIl. According to classical tradition (e.g.
Anton. Liber. 34; Apollod. III 14, 3-4; Ovid,
Metam. X 298-739; Hygin. Fab. 58)
Adonis was born from an incestuous union
between the heroine Myrrha, who had in-
curred the displeasure of Aphrodite, and her
own father Kinyras (or Theias), king of
ADONIS
Cyprus (or of Assyria/Syria). He divides his
time between the realm of the living and the
underworld, Central themes in the myths
about Adonis are Aphrodite’s love for him,
and his premature and shameful death; he
was killed by a wild boar while hunting. His
love and death are the subject of the Adonia
festivals celebrated in classical Athens, in
Ptolemaic Alexandria and in the Roman
world. In addition to a ritual mourning, there
were other rites varying with each locality
and period. The Athenian celebrations (Sth-
4th century BCE) were a private festival;
they were characterized by the high numbers
of women participating, their atmosphere of
frolic and licentiousness, and their ritual
mourning. One of the chief items on the
agenda was the preparation of the ‘Adonis
gardens’, i.c. small carthenware pots in
which seeds of cereals and vegetables had
been planted; these began to sprout within a
week, and were then left on the roofs under
the summer sun. The miniature ‘gardens’,
with seeds blooming in the dog-days and
wilting as soon as they sprouted, were
regarded as a symbol of an unfruitful agri-
culture; they were thought to represent the
Opposite of the normal cycle of seasons
(e.g., Plato, Phaedrus 276 B; Simplicius, in
Phys. VII 4). Likewise Adonis, beautiful and
young but inefficient as a hunter, was
deemed a paragon of anti-heroic behaviour.
A young lover of deities who reigned over
Opposite realms, Aphrodite over the earth
and Persephone over the underworld, Ado-
nis was in many ways thc opposite of the
positive sides of matrimony and manliness.
The private Athenian worship of Adonis by
concubines and prostitutes contrasts with the
public worship of --Demeter by wives and
mothers. On account of the intrusion of such
idiosyncratic values, the cult of the Greek
Adonis marks a crisis in the city ideology. It
is to be viewed as such rather than as a cos-
mic drama involving the death of a god
(DETIENNE 1989).
A 4th century BCE inscription from
Athens (IG II? 1261) allows Cypriots in the
city to celebrate the Adonis festival ‘accord-
ing to the customs of their homeland’ —
ADONIS
which shows that the rites varied locally.
According to the account of Cyril of
Alexandria (in Isa, 18:1-2; 4th-Sth century
CE), the Adonis festival was a show per-
formed in the sanctuaries by a chorus and
by singers commemorating Aphrodite’s
journey to the nether world in search of her
lover. According to Theocritus, however
(Idyll. 15; 4th-3rd century BCE), the Alexan-
drinian Adonis festival was celebrated in the
royal palace. The first day the participants
celebrated the union between the two lovers,
represented in the course of a banquet under
a kiosk of dill stems and surrounded by
fruits, delightful gardens, pots of perfumes
and a big variety of cakes. On the second
day the epithalamium gave way to a lament
as the worshippers gathered for a funeral
procession to carry the image of Adonis to
the seashore. The Adonis celebrations at
Byblos, on the Phoenician coast, described
in pseudo-Lucian’s De Syria Dea 6-9 (2nd
century CE) were performed in the great
temple of Aphrodite (Astarte). Legend has
it that the beginning of the rites was sig-
nalled by the arrival of a message sent by
the women of Alexandria and carried by the
waves to the harbour of the Poenician town,
to the effect that Aphrodite had found
Adonis. Occurring at about the same time of
year, the reddening of the Adonis river
which sprung from Mt. -*Lebanon, was
interpreted as a token of Adonis’ death (De
Syria Dea 6-7; cf. Cyril, in Isa. 18:1-2.).
The festival consisted of a period of general
mouming, followed by the joyful proclama-
tion that ‘Adonis continues to live’ beyond
death. There is no reference to ‘Adonis gar-
dens’. The hero received sacrifices ‘as if he
were dead’, women offered up some of their
hair or engaged in sacral prostitution, and
the celebrations ended on a note of cheerful-
ness.
According to local exegesis (quoted by
the author of De Syria Dea, cit.), the Adonis
of Byblos was a model of the Egyptian
—Osiris, ie. a great dying god of cosmic
significance. Moreover, since Strabo (XVI
2,18) attests that Byblos was dedicated to
Adonis he must indeed have been a god of
high rank. It is probable that the cult of
Adonis in Byblos continued the worship of a
Phoenician -*'Baal', conceived as a dying
and rising god. This god was not merely a
spring deity or a vegetation spirit, as Frazer
believed, but an important city god compar-
able to -*Melqart in Tyre and -*Eshmun in
Sidon. Honoured as king of his city, and
heir of the ancient Syrian cult of royal an-
cestors, he was worshipped by the periodical
celebration of his death and access to divine
life. In fact, the classical tradition about the
hero Adonis may well go back, ultimately,
to a Syro-Palestinian model. The latter was
often designated by a title (Baal, Adon)
instead of a proper name. Finally, we must
remember that in the 2nd century CE a
temple was built for Adonis in Dura Euro-
pos, on the ~*Euphrates, where he was wor-
shipped, perhaps together with the goddess
~Atargatis (RIBICHINI 1981:166-167).
III. In the Vulgate version of Ezek 8:14
the name of Adonis is used to render Heb
Tammfiz and Gk Oappovt (->Tammuz), for
whom women were weeping in the temple
of Jerusalem. It is possible that the reference
is indeed to the Mesopotamian Tammuz
whose cult was accepted by exiled Judacans
(EISSFELDT 1970:21; DELCOR 1978:378).
The Alexandrian translators of LXX did not
bother to identify the god with Adonis,
whose name and cult must have been known
in Egypt, but are satisfied to transcribe Tam-
muz’s name from Hebrew to Greck. Only in
the 3rd century CE is the identification of
Greek Adonis with the Hebrew and Syriac
Tammuz explicitly made (see Origen, Sel. in
Ezek 8:13-14). The cult of the Mesopotam-
ian god was considered to resemble that of
Canaanaite Baal/Adon (RIBICHINI 1981:181-
192; Loretz, in Adonis. Relazioni ..., 32).
The similarity was also noted by other exe-
getes (Jerome, in Ezek. 8:14 and Ep. 58:3
[about mourning nites for Tammuz/Adonis
in Bethlehem]; Cyril of Alex., in Isa. 18:1-2
and in Hos. 4:15; Theodoret, in Ezek. 8:14;
Procopius Gaz., in Isa 18:1-7; Chronicon
Paschale 130 [PG 92, 329]; see also W.
BAuDISSIN, Adonis und Eshmun [Leipzig
1911], 94-97, 352-54). There was some con-
fusion between the Greek Adonis and the
oriental Tammuz, also in later Syriac
ADRAMMELECH
sources (see esp. Isaac Antioch., XXV 125-
126; Theodore Bar Koni, Lib. schol. I fed.
Scher; Paris 1910] 204-205, 312-31; Melit.,
Or. ad Anton. Caes., 5 ; Ishodad of Merv,
Bar Bahlul, Bar Hebraeus, etc.).
Some commentators have taken the
mention of the “one desired by women” in
Dan 11:37 (combated by Antiochus Epi-
phanes) as an allusion to the cult of Adonis,
‘thrice-beloved’, according to Theocritus
(XV 86) and Hippolytus (Ref. haer. 5:9).
Yet there is not the slightest evidence in the
historical records that Antiochus ever op-
posed the cult of Adonis. The expression
hemdat násim could mean simply ‘the love
of women’ or, better, ‘the desire of women’;
then perhaps it merely points to the cruelty
Antiochus showed toward all women he was
sexually involved with.
Echoes of an Adonis ritual have also
been found in the oracle against Moab in Isa
15 (BONNET 1987): some scholars believe
that Isa 17:10-11 denounces the tending of
miniature gardens for Adonis; the Hebrew
expression — nit'é na‘dmdnim (‘pleasant
plants’) could be understood as ‘plants for
the Pleasant One’, the ‘Pleasant One’ being
Adonis. In a similar way Isa 1:29-30; 65:3
and 66:17 have been said to contain
references to sacrifices and other rites ‘in the
gardens’ for Adonis (E1ssFELDT 1970:19-
20; DELCOR 1978). These interpretations are
based on the hypothesis that the Adonis gar-
dens, well-known in the Graeco-Roman
world, continued an oriental (esp. Syro-
Palestinian) tradition (cf. the Egyptian ‘beds
of Osiris’, or the Syro-Palestinian cultic
practices in the gardens). This would mean
that gardens were regarded as suitable
places for ritual mournings for Baal, sym-
bolizing fertility and revival (see XELLA, in
Adonis. Relazioni..., 110-111, for the anal-
ogies between the Greek and biblical pol-
emics about this cult).
IV. In the 3rd century cE, Origen (Sel. in
Ezek. 8:14) sums up the exegesis of Adonis
that was current in his days (see DE VAUX
1971): "The god whom the Greeks called
Adonis is called Tammuz by the Jews and
the Syrians, as they say. It seems that cer-
tain sacred ceremonies are practised each
year; first, they weep for him as if he had
ceased to live; then they rejoice for him as if
he had risen from the dead. But those who
claim to be specialists in the interpretation
of Greek mythology and so-called mythical
theology affirm that Adonis symbolizes the
fruits of the canh: men weep when they sow
the seeds, but the seeds grow and, by their
growth, give joy to those who work the
land”. In fact, a ‘resurrection’ of Adonis, in
the cults celebrated in the Near East, is clear-
ly testified to not only by Origen, but also
by Procopius, Cyril and Jerome. In several
other literary sources, moreover, Adonis is
said to be a symbol of the ripe and cut grain
and contrasts with Attis as a symbol of
spring flowers (Porphyry, Imag. 7 in Eus.,
P. E. 11 11,12;13,14; Ammianus Marc. XIX
1,11; XXII 9,15). Note, finally, that the syn-
cretism with other heroic or divine figures,
by Greek and Latin authors, includes the
identification of Adonis with Attis, Osiris,
Pygmaion, —Dionysos, etc.; he is also
termed Gingras, Aoios, Gauas, Kirris, Itaios,
Pherekles, and lends his name to a river
(Nahr Ibrahim), a kind of flower (anemone),
fish, bird, song, and a metric verse.
V. Bibliography
*Adonis. Relazioni del Colloquio in Roma
(22-23 maggio 1981) (ed. S. Ribichini;
Roma 1984); W. ATALLAH, Adonis dans la
littérature et l'art grecs (Paris 1966); G. J.
Baupv, Adonisgürten. Studien zur antiken
Samensymbolik (Beitráge zur klassischen
Philologie 176; Frankfurt 1986); P.L. vAN
BERG, Corpus cultus Deae Syriae, 2 vols.
(Leiden 1972); C. BoNNET, Echos d'un ri-
tuel de type adonidien dans l'oracle contre
Moab d'Isaie (/safe, 15), SEL 4 (1987) 101-
119; J. N. BREMMER, Onder de parfum, in
de sla, tussen de vrouwen: Adonis en de
Adonia, Hermeneus 59 (1987) 181-187; M.
DErcon, Le probléme des jardins d'Adonis
dans Isaïe 17,9-11 à la lumière de la civili-
sation syro-phénicienne, Syria 55 (1978)
371-394; *M. DETIENNE, Les jardins d’Ado-
nis, 2nd ed. (Paris 1989); R. DE Vaux, The
Bible and the Ancient Near East (Garden
City, NY, 1971) 210-237; *O. EiSSFELDT,
Adonis und Adonaj (Berlin 1970); O.
LonETZ, Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Ado-
ADRAMMELECH
nis und Adonaj, UF 12 (1980) 287-292; G.
PICCALUGA, Adonis, i cacciatori falliti e
l'avvento dell'agricoltura, J mito greco (ed.
B. Gentili & G. Paione; Roma 1977) 33-48;
S. RiBiCHINI, Adonis. Aspetti ‘orientali’ di
un mito greco (StSem 55; Roma 1981); N.
ROBERTSON, The Ritual Background of the
Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine,
HTR 75 (1982) 313-359; B. Soyez, Byblos
et la féte des Adonies (Leiden 1977); B.
SovEZ, Adonis, LIMC 1, 222-229; R. Tur-
CAN, Les cultes orientaux dans le monde
romain (Paris 1989) 142-146; P. WELTEN,
Bethlehem und die Klage um Adonis, ZDPV
99 (1983) 189-203; E. WiLL, Adonis chez
les Grecs avant Alexandre, Transeuphraténe
12 (1996) 65-72.
S. RIBICHINI
ADRAMMELECH 922778
I. Adrammelech is a god worshipped
by the people of Sepharvaim whom the
Assyrians settled in Samaria, coupled with
->Anammelech, 2 Kgs 17:31.
II. No attempt to identify Sepharvaim or
its deities has yet commanded general
acceptance. An interesting proposal has been
produced by Zapok (1976). Building on a
study by Driver (1958) he argued that the
place was Assyrian Saparré, Babylonian
Sipirani, from a putative Siprayn, situated in
Chaldaca, south of Nippur. Its inhabitants
could have revered gods with West Semitic
names. Yet a location in Syria also deserves
serious consideration, in view of the fact
that Sepharvaim is mentioned after Hamath
and Arpad in both 2 Kgs 18:34 and 19:13
(Day 1989:46).
Since P. JENSEN proposed the minor
emendation from ’dr to ’dd (ZA 13 [1898]
333 n.1), many scholars have accepted
Adadmelech as a form of Hadad-melech,
‘Hadad is king’, encouraged by the read-
ing of Adad-milki in cunciform sources (so
J. A. Montcomery & H. S. GEHMAN,
Kings (Edinburgh 1951] 476; Driver 1958;
M. CocAN & H. Tapmor, // Kings [New
York 1988] 212). Now the support has
disappeared since O. PEDERSEN has shown
that the signs read Adad-milki are simply to
be read Dada or Dadda, caritative forms of
Adad (OrSu 33-35 [1984-1986} 313-316).
Moreover, the divine name would appear in
West Semitic as Hadad, Add. If the Sephar-
vites were of Aramean or Phoenician origin,
it is very unlikely that the name of their god
would have lost its initial A, unless the
Hebrew authors of Kings copied the infor-
mation from a cuneiform text in Babylonian,
which would not express it.
The Hebrew Text’s reading is a perfectly
acceptable West Semitic form, best recon-
structed as ’addir-melek ‘the glorious one is
king’. The adjective occurs in Ugaritic and
in Phoenician. It is a title of -^Baal in a 6th
century BCE inscription from Byblos (KA/ 9
B5). On fourth century coins of Byblos a
local king is named ’drmlk (PECKHAM
1968:47-50). However, the root is absent
from Aramaic, indicating a Canaanite or
Phoenician origin for this deity. The move-
ment of peoples and their cults by natural
processes of migration and trade, as well as
Assyrian deportations, could have brought a
group of worshippers to Babylonia, only for
their descendants to be transplanted to
Samaria (see in general B. ODED, Mass
Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-
Assyrian Empire [Wiesbaden 1979)).
IH. The Sepharvites honoured Adram-
melech and his companion Anammelech by
burning their children (2 Kgs 17:31). The
expression §drap (ba’é5), ‘to burn (in/with
fire)’, has been interpreted as reflecting the
deuteronomistic polemics against foreign
deities (e.g. WEINFELD 1972). This view,
however, has been seriously challenged (e.g.
by Kaiser 1976). Both Adrammelech and
Anammelech may be seen as aspects of
Molech whose worship involved similar
action. So long as no information about
these gods or their home is available from
other ancient Near Eastern sources, it is
impossible to clarify the biblical references
further.
The deity Adrammelech should not be
confused with the character Adrammelech,
the murderer of Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:37;
Isa 37:38; -*Mulissu).
IV. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria. An His-
10
AENEAS
torical and Archaeological Study (SHANE
2: Leiden 1992) 99-102; J. Dav. Molech: A
God of Human Sacifice in the Old Testament
(Cambridge 1989) 41-46; G. R. Driver,
Geographical Problems, Er/sr 5 (1958) 16-
20; O. Kaiser, Der Erstgeborene deiner
Söhne sollst du mir geben, Denkender
Glaube (FS C. H. Ratschow; ed. O. Kaiser;
Berlin/New York 1976) 24-48; B. PECK-
HAM, The Development of the Late Phoeni-
cian Scripts (HSS 20; Cambridge. Mass.
1968); M. WEINFELD, The Worship of
Molech and the Qucen of Heaven and its
Background, UF 4 (1972) 133-154; R.
ZADOK, Geographical and Onomastic Notes.,
JANES 8 (1976) 114-126.
A. R. MILLARD
AENEAS AivéagAiveiag
I. Aeneas, already a prominent Trojan
hero in Homer's Iliad, is best known to us
as the central figure of Virgil's Aeneid,
whose task it is to create the Roman identity
and destiny. His name occurs as that of the
paralysed man cured by Peter at Acts 9:33-
34. The name appears to be Greek, based on
the root for ‘praise’ (aiv-). The form Aineas
(as at Acts 9:33), as opposed to Aincias, is
originally the Doric dialect form according
to PAPE-BENSELER 1884 s.v.; the Latin is in
either case Aeneas.
Il. Aeneas, the son of lame Anchises
and the Goddess ~»Aphrodite (Venus), is
presented as a member of a cadet branch of
the Trojan royal family and the most distin-
guished Trojan warrior other than Hektor.
He is specially favoured and protected in the
Iliad, by -*Apollo, -*Poscidon and of course
Aphrodite. Poseidon is made to base this
protection (/liad 20:306-8) on a prophecy
that Aeneas and his descendants will rule
the Trojans after the destruction of the line
of Priam. This leads to a legend of his
travels to account for the existence of Aincia
in the Chalkidike, whose coins depicted him
as early as the late 6th century BCE
(MALTEN 1931:35; GALINKSY 1969:111-
112) and several other places and peoples in
Greece (MALTEN 1931:56-57).
A special role in European cultural his-
11
tory is played by the development of the
myth that Aeneas’ arrival in Italy led to the
foundation of Rome. Though elements may
go back to Stesichoros in the 6th century
BCE (GALINSKY 1969:106-13; OGILVIE 1965:
33, but cf. PERRET 1942:849), by the 5th
century it was accepted (GALINSKY 1969:
77.103) that Trojans had reached Sicily
(Thucydides 6, 2, 3) and that Aeneas had
founded Rome (Hellanikos, FGH 4F84).
This migration of the myth may be traceable
to the western interests and westward move-
ments of Phokaians in the 7th and 6th cen-
turies BCE and, in particular, their associ-
ation with the Etruscans (BOMER 1951:
36-9). The theme was certainly securely
established in Roman literary tradition long
before Virgil's definitive presentation in his
Aeneid, His epic depicts Aeneas as a man of
exemplary piety towards the gods (as in his
emblematic rescue of the holies from Troy),
towards his family (as in his emblematic
rescue of Anchises from Troy, carried on his
shoulders) and towards his people. The char-
acter of Aeneas is instrumental in Virgil's
presentation of a Roman mission to rule the
world with civilised imperialism, reflecting
the régime of Augustus and its claim to
moral authority after the collapse of the
Roman state into civil war (49-31 BCE).
III. It may seem curious that so elevated
a name should be assigned to the cripple in
Acts 9:33-34, but Greek culture—to which
the author of Acts belonged—was unlikely
to have taken cognisance of a Latin text
such as Virgil's. [t is best regarded as a
solid, traditional name dignified by its
bearer in Homeric epic (~Jason). Examples
occur, if not overly frequently, throughout
Greek history—for instance, a Corinthian
representative in Thucydides (4:119; 423
BCE), or an Arcadian general (367 BCE)
mentioned by Xenophon who is the prob-
able author of an extant work on military
strategy (‘Aeneas Tacticus’). FRASER-
MATTHEWS list 35 instances (but 183 for
Jason), several in the last century BCE, but
very few after Christ, probably a sampling
error. One Aencas is an emissary sent by the
high priest (late 2nd century BcE Pergamene
decree in Jos. Ant. 14, 10, 22), the son of
AGREEMENT
‘Antipatros’, perhaps grandson of ‘Jason’
son of Eleazar, and the whole embassy is
stocked with Jews bearing good Greek
names.
IV. Bibliography
A. ALFÖLDI, Die trojanischen Urahnen der
Römer (Basel 1957); F. BÖMER, Rom und
Troja: Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte
Roms (Baden-Baden 1951); P. M. FRASER
& E. Matmews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek
Personal Names, vol. 1, “The Aegean
Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica’ (Oxford 1987):
G. K. Gauinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome
(Princeton 1969); W. HoFFMANN, Rom und
die griechische Welt im 4. Jahrhundert,
Philol. Suppl. 27,1 (1935) 1-144 esp. 107-
28; N. M. HonsFALL, The Aeneas-Legend
from Homer to Virgil, Roman Myth and
Mythography (ed. J. N. Bremmer & N. M.
Horsfall; BICS 52; London, 1987) 12-24;
L. MALTEN, Aeneas, ARW 29 (1931) 33-59;
R. M. Oaitvie, A Commentary on Livy
Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) 33-34; W. PAPE,
revised by G. E. BENSELER, Wórterbuch
der griechischen Eigennamen (Braun-
schweig 1884); J. PERRET, Les Origines de
la légende troyenne de Rome (281-31) (Paris
1942) [but cf. A. Momigliano’s review in
JRS 35 (1945) 99-104).
K. DowbEN
AGREEMENT MID
I. The Hebrew word *edít, formally an
abstract noun (GK § 86 k) but perhaps ori-
ginally a plural (cf. *edór), occurs about fifty
times in the Hebrew Bible. lt primarily
designates a written document containing an
agreement between two parties. Because in
most Bible passages Yahweh is one of these
parties, Sediit developped the connotation of
‘covenant’ and ‘covenantal stipulations’
(SIMIAN- YOFRE 1986:1125-1128). Its Semi-
tic cognates, “dy in Aramaic and adi in
Akkadian, refer to a sworn agreement
between two political parties. In first millen-
nium Mesopotamian texts the sworn agree-
ment (or its material token) could be hypos-
tatized and thus occur as thcophoric element
in personal names.
12
II. The Akkadian word adi, plur. adé, is
well attested in first millennium political
and juridical texts from Assyria and Babylo-
nia. The exact understanding of the word
has been disputed. In the Assyrian political
organization, adit was the term used to indi-
cate sworn agreements, both between indep-
endent rulers and between subordinates or
vassals and the superior party. According to
WATANABE (1987:24), the term adé has first
of all a religious connotation, indicating the
relationship between the gods witnessing the
agreement and the party swearing the oath.
The sworn agreement was an old institution,
well documented in Old Babylonian Mari
(see DuRAND 1991 and other studies in the
same volume), for which adft/adé was intro-
duced as a special term in the Neo-Assyrian
period. The etymology is disputed; most
scholars consider it an Assyrian loan from
Aramaic ‘d(y), but the etymology of the
Semitic root remains uncertain (LEMAIRE &
DuRAND ~~ _1984:91-106; 9 SIMIAN- YOFRE
1986:1108-1110). The institution of sworn
agreements seems authentically Mesopota-
mian and older than the Arameans (PARPO-
LA 1987:180-83; DuRAND 1991). DURAND
1991:70 opts for a Mesopotamian etymolo-
gy by assuming a relationship with Sume-
rian 4.du, also attested as Akkadian adiim
‘work assignment’ (CAD A/1 adfi C). This
would imply an Akkadian loan word in
Aramaic, but the initial ‘ayin remains pro-
blematic (LEMAIRE & DURAND 1984:103).
There is evidence for the hypostatized
‘adé of the king’ which became an object of
religious emotion and worship. Firstly, there
is a broken passage in Esarhaddon’s succes-
sion treaty, in which vassal rulers and subor-
dinates are required to guard the treaty tablet
‘like your god’ (ki ilikunu; SAA 2 no.
6:409; cf. K. WATANABE, Die Sieglung der
»Vasallenvertrige Asarhaddons« durch den
Gott Assur, BagM 16 [1985] 388; SAA 2
45). More significant is the occurence of an
oath sworn “by deities and the adá of the
king” in Baylonian texts (ina DN ... u adé
Xa Sarri tami). In other passages this royal
adü can be described as an avenging force
threatening anyone who breaks the agree-
AH — AION
ee SSS SS
ment. “May Anu and [Star and the adit of
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, order
the destruction of whoever changes this con-
tract” (AnOr 8 [1933] 14:30-33; see CAD
A/1 134-135 for other examples). Other pas-
sages mention the possibility of the royal
adá turning into a divine opponent (bel
dini). The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
separates the references to the hypostatized
adii, ‘majesty (2). power (?)’, from adi, ‘a
type of formal agreement’ (CAD A/I s.v.
adû A and adû B), but it has been shown
that this classification is to be abandoned:
all references can be attributed to a single
noun adû (all references and literature col-
lected by WATANABE 1987:6-25). Thirdly
there are personal names of the Seleucid
period with the theophoric element 4Adêšu,
‘his ad’, the personal suffix undoubtedly
referring to the king (Scuorz 1981/82;
DALLEY 1986:91; WATANABE 1987:23 and
25).
It is certain that the adii-agreement, being
a highly important instrument in the Assy-
rian internal and imperial administration,
could be hypostatized and obtain divine
characteristics. The indications adduced to
connect ad with salmu / salam Sarri, the
deified statue (of the king) known mainly
from Late Assyrian texts (DALLEY 1986:91-
93; —image), arc insufficient to warrant an
identification. It seems methodologically
preferable to separate the names.
III. In the Hebrew Bible, “édiir is used as
a term for a treaty or covenant and, by
extension, for the moral and religious requi-
rements contained therein. In 2 Kgs 11:12
‘eédiit occurs as a concrete object which,
together with the diadem (nezer), is given
by the high priest to the newly crowned
king. Commentators have proposed to inter-
pret also this occurrence of “édfir as ‘(divi-
ne) command, testimony’, interpreting it as
a written document, possibly containing
some divine justification for the new reign
(G. von Rap, Das judiüische Kónigsritual,
TLZ 72 [1947] 211-16, esp. 213; K. VAN
DER TOORN, Sin and Sanction in Israel and
Mesopotamia [Assen 1986] 181-82 note 131
& lit: SIMIAN-YOFRE 1986:1126); one could
13
imagine a collection of loyalty oaths or
prophecies, testifying to the divine election
of the new king. Others prefer to consider
“edit in 2 Kgs 11:12 as a material object.
CocGAN & TADMOR connect DT12 in this
passage with the root ‘DH, ‘to deck (onc-
self), and take it as a plural of ‘adi,
‘jewels’, or the like (M. CoGAN & H. TAD-
MOR, /| Kings [AB 11; New York 1988)
128). The suggestion of YEIVIN (1974), fol-
lowed by DaLLEY (1986:92), to translate
mD in 2 Kgs 11:12 as ‘winged solar disk’
scems too bold to be accepted. Their argu-
ment is based on the reading of the damaged
passage KA/ 10:5 and remains therefore
hypothetical. Unlike the related concept of
—curse (^alá), Heb *edáüt has been ncither
hypostasized nor deified.
IV. Bibliography
S. DALLEY, The god Salmu and the winged
disk, /raq 48 (1986) 85-101; J.-M.
DURAND, Précurseurs syriens aux protoco-
les néo-assyriens, Marchands, diplomates et
empereurs: études sur la civilisation méso-
potamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (ed. D.
Charpin & F. Joannès; Paris 1991) 13-71;
A. LEMAIRE & J.-M. DURAND, Les inscrip-
tions araméennes de Sfiré et l'Assyrie de
Shamshi-ilu (Geneva/Paris 1984); S. PARPO-
LA, Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal
Archives of Ninive, JCS 39 (1987) 161-183;
B. ScHoLz, adêšu, AfO 28 (1981/82) 142;
H. Simtan-YOFRE, WY, TWAT 5 (1986)
1107-1128; K. WATANABE, Die adé-Vereidi-
gung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung
Asarhaddons (BagM Beih. 3; Berlin 1987);
S. Yetvin, ‘Edith, /EJ 24 (1974) 17-20.
F. vAN KoPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
AH ^ BROTHER
AION aiov
I. Aion docs not occur as a divine
name or concept in the Bible, although
REITZENSTEIN (1921) followed by others
(BAGD, s.v.) considered Aion in Eph 2:2. 7;
3:9 and Col 1:26 a deity, the evil ruler of
the cosmos. Aion in Greek has a wide range
of meanings, 'lifetime, life, age, generation,
period, eternity’ (LSJ, s.v.; TWNT I, 197-
204), and can even be identical with cos-
mos.
II. REITZENSTEIN (1921) identified Aion
with Persian zervan akarana, ‘the endless
time’, and believed it a deity with a real
cult. He based his opinion on a passage in
Epiphanius, Pan. 52.22.8-10, describing a
feast of Kore in Alexandria in celebration of
her giving birth to Aion on the night of
January 5-6. Aion is represented by a naked
figure of wood on a bier which is carried
seven times round the inner part of the
temple. The same Ptolemaic Aion would be
reflected in an Eleusinian dedication of a
statue of Aion (IG II.4705) and in Ps.Call.
1.33, 2 (cf. Lydus, De mens. iv.1). Later
research makes it highly unlikely that Aion
in these contexts reflects either a Ptolemaic
divine concept or deity or Persian zervan
(Nock 1934:79-99; FRAsER 1972:336-338).
The attribution of a festival to Aion was a
late innovation, perhaps originating in
Alexandrian coins of Antoninus Pius of
138/139 with the legend Aion and a repre-
sentation of a —phoenix celebrating the
beginning of a new era (VAN DEN BROEK
1972:417, 429-430). Aion often is an at-
tribute of the sun god Helios. who repre-
sents the course of time, and as such Aion
occurs in the magical papyri (e.g. PGM I,
200; IV, 1169; FEsrUGiERE 1954:176-199).
Aion as a philosopical concept is frequently
found in the Chaldaean oracles, where it
represents the second god, a middle figure
between the highest deity and the world
(Lewy 1978:99-105). The philosophical
sense going back to Plato, Tim. 37d, also
appears in Corpus Hermeticum XI (FEs-
TUGIÈRE 1954:152-175) and in Philo of
Byblos, Phoenician History, in Eusebius,
Praep. Ev. 1 10,7 (BAUMGARTEN 1981:146-
148).
In particular during the second century of
the common era, when nearly all these texts
were written, there was a certain fascination
with Aion and with all aspects linked with
it, but Aion never was a well-defined divine
concept, and certainly not a personal deity.
III. In the Bible aión is a very common
word which usually has the meaning 'eter-
AL
14
nity’ or ‘world’ (cf. Heb *ólám). It never
occurs as a divine concept or a deity pace
Reitzenstein and his followers.
IV. Bibliography
A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History
of Philo of Byblos (EPRO 89; Leiden 1981)
146-148; R. vaN DEN BROEK, The Myth of
the Phoenix according to Classical and
Early Christian Traditions (EPRO 80; Lei-
den 1972) 128, 429-430; A. J. FESTUGIÈRE,
La rélévation d'Hermes Trismégiste 1V. Le
dieu inconnu et la gnose (Paris 1954) 141-
199; P. M. FRasER, Ptolemaic Alexandria Il
(Oxford 1972) 336-338; M. LE Grav, LIMC
L1 (1981) 399-411; H. Lewy, Chaldaean
Oracles and Theurgy (sec. ed. M. Tardieu;
Paris 1978) 99-105; M. P. NILSSON,
Geschichte der griechischen Religion Il
(München 1950) 478-484; A. D. NoCK, A
Vision of Mandulis Aion, HTR 27 (1934)
53-104 = Essays on Religion and the
Ancient World | (Oxford 1972) 357-400; R.
PETTAZONI, Aion-(Kronos) Chronos in
Egypt, Essays on the History of Religions
(Leiden 1954) 171-207; R. REITZENSTEIN,
Das iranische Erlésungsmysterium, Reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Bonn
1921) 171-207; H. Sasse, aiwv, TWAT I,
197-208; O. WziINRICH, Aion in Eleusis,
ARW 19 (1918/19) 174-190.
H. J. W. Drivers
AL
I. Heb Ali or Eli (« */y) and Alu or Elu
(< ‘lw) have been identified as the shorter
and more ancient forms of the term -*Elyon
(‘lywn), ‘Most High', mentioned in the
Hebrew Bible. Elyon is a well documented
divine name or epithet in biblical traditions
and poetic passages like 2 Sam 22:14 (= Ps
18:14) and Ps 21:8 unequivocally associate
Elyon with the divine name YHWH
(Yahweh). Nevertheless, modern scholar-
ship has identified Elyon as originally the
name of an ancient Canaanite deity or as a
divine epithet, that only with the passage of
time made its way into carly Yahwistic
religious traditions. In support of this recon-
struction, interpreters have cited the Ugaritic
texts, the Hebrew onomastica, Philo of
AL
Byblos’ treatment of the history of Kronos
where Elyon is apparently mentioned, as
well as the biblical form ‘ly.
Il. A passage from one of the Ugaritic
texts describes the deity -Baal as ‘the Most
High’ and in this instance the short form ‘ly,
not ‘lyn, is employed: b'l ‘ly (KTU 1.16
iii:5-9). Another Ugaritic text written in syl-
labic transcription mentions "the fields of
‘aliyu” ASA dal-i-yi (RS 18.22:3'-4
PRU 6 [1970] SS, 11.3 -4^). It has been sug-
gested that on the analogy of the phrase
A.šabia dištar, “the fields of —lshtar",
which appears elsewhere in the same text
(1.6-1 1°), Aliyu in 11.3°-4" might likewise
function as the name of a god or as a divine
epithet: “the fields of the Ascendant’. Al-
though the god -*El at Ugarit is closely
associated with the epithet 'Most High' in
KTU 1|.111:17-18:. "ly[n]//il, "Elyon... //
El... ", the proposed reading and relation-
ship of the two forms remains a matter of
debate (cf. KTU, pace DE Moor 1979:652-
653 and note Old South Arabic ?/ ¢ ‘ly, “El
the Most High". in RES 3882:4-5, 3962:
5-6, 3965:4, 4335:2-3 following U. OLDEN-
BURG, ZAW 82 [1970] 189-190, 195 n.42).
In support of the existence of an ancient
divine name or epithet */y[n] it should be
mentioncd for the sake of completeness that
a deity or divine epithet fal- (= ‘al-?) appar-
ently shows up at Ebla and later at Mari.
Whether or not this form is to be related to
Heb ‘ly[wn], ‘Most High’, however, is diffi-
cult to assess (it might be related to Semitic
hal, ‘maternal uncte’). In any case, Elyon's
Canaanite origins as well as the distinct
identities of Elyon and El appear again a
millennium and a half later in Philo of
Byblos’ Phoenician History. In the frag-
ments that have come down to us via
Eusebius' Praep. Ev. (1.10:15-30), Philo de-
picts Kronos as the offspring of one Elioun
(4 Elyon). Moreover, Eusebius' Philo at-
tributes to Elioun the status of Most High or
hypsistos (-*Hypsistos) and describes him as
the object of ancient Phoenician worship
following his death at the hands of wild
beasts. Kronos on the other hand is equated
with Elos (= El).
Ancient Hebrew onomastics might pre-
serve the divine name or epithet ‘/y in pre-
exilic and exilic Israclite society. Hebrew
inscriptional personal names preserved on
bullae dating from the 6th cent. BCE attest to
the function of the ‘ly element as an epithet
of YHWH or y/w(h): ylw*ly, "Yahu is Most
High", yw'ly, "Yaw is Most High", *Iyhw,
"Most High is Yahu" and ‘lyw, “Most High
is Yaw” (N. AVIGAD, Bullae and Seals from
a Post Exilic Judaean Archive (Qedem
Monographs 4; Jerusalem 1976]). Moreover,
the ‘ly element in the personal name yinv‘ly
inscribed on an 8th cent. BCE ostracon from
Samaria might function as a divine name
"May the Most High give life" (no. 55:2).
III. Scholars have cited several biblical
texts where they conjecture that the short
form of the epithet ‘Most High’, ‘ly occurs.
While most of the proposed passages have
been rejected by scholars owing to the lack
of textual or contextual support, there are a
handful of biblical passages that might
document the possible use of ‘ly as a divine
epithet or name associated with YHWH.
Such passages include Deut 33:12; 1 Sam
2:10; 2 Sam 23:1 and Hos 11:7 and provide
some ancient testimony or contextual indi-
cators that lends support to the reading and
interpretation of ‘ly as ‘Most High’ (for a
lengthy list of additional but less likely pas-
sages from Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the
Psalms and Job, see VIGANO 1976).
Such criteria as the assumed antiquity of
the poem preserved in Deut 33, exclusive
reliance on its consonantal text (with the
goal to reconstruct an original) and the
assumed pervasiveness of the poem's syn-
onymous parallelism have led to the identi-
fication of ‘ly in v 12 (in its first ocurrence)
as the divine name or epithet ‘Most High’
(cf. also NRSV). While on the one hand the
text reflected in the medieval Hebrew co-
dices of Deut 33:12a reads “may the be-
loved of YHWH rest securely beside Him”
(cf. also JPSV) in which a Hebrew form cor-
responding to the ‘Most High’ is lacking,
the ancient Greek manuscripts read on the
other hand “the beloved of the Lorp shall
dwell in confidence, God (ho theos) over-
shadows him always ...". In other words,
the */yw of v 12a was apparently read by the
Greek translators as some form of a divine
name or epithet (perhaps ‘ly ‘Most High’).
Although this could plausibly explain the
Greek reading ho theos and the verse’s
restructured syntax, one would have ex-
pected the Greek equivalent Aypsistos here.
In any case, several of the versions omit the
first ‘lyw of the medieval Hebrew manu-
scripts (Samaritan, Syriac, Vulgate) suggest-
ing that synonymous parallelism was not
inherent to the context. Thus the presence of
the divine name or epithet ‘ly here is doubt-
ful.
The assumed antiquity of a given verse as
well as the presence of synonymous
parallelism has similarly infomed the recon-
struction ‘ly as ‘Most High’ in | Sam 2:10:
“YHWH, his enemies will be shattered, the
Most High will thunder in heaven, YHWH
will judge the ends of the earth” (cf.
NRSV). The medieval Hebrew manuscripts
read however, “YHWH, his enemies will be
shattered, He will thunder against them in
heaven, YHWH will judge the ends of the
earth" (cf. JPSV; -*Ends of the earth) and
there appears some ancient versional support
for the reading of */(y)w here as the preposi-
tion *al- with pronominal suffix (cf. the
Syriac w'lyliwn, Targum *lyhwn, Vulgate et
super ipsos). In any case, the scribes of the
ancient Greek manuscripts read *I(y)w not as
the divine epithet or name ‘Most High’, but
as a form of the verb ‘LH, ‘to ascend’, “the
Lorn has ascended to the heavens and has
thundered".
In a passage from still another supposed
ancient poem, 2 Sam 23:1, the form ‘al has
been rendered as the divine name or epithet,
“the man whom the Most High raised up”.
But in this instance the form could be the
occasionally attested noun ‘al ‘height’ (cf.
also JPSV and Gen 27:39, 49:25, 50:4; Exod
20:4; Hos 7:16, 11:7). In any case, the Qum-
ran manuscript of 2 Sam reads ’é/ at 23:1,
that is ‘El’ or -*'God' for *àl (4QSam?) "the
oracle of the man (whom) El/God exalted"
which is in essential agreement with the
ancient Greek manuscripts "... the man
whom God (ho theos) raised up”.
The identification of ‘ly,*Most High’, in
AL
16
Hos 11:7 is based on the assumption that ‘/
in the book of Hosca denotes the divinc
name or epithet associated with Baal that we
earlier noted appears at Ugarit (cf. also Hos
7:16 and 10:5). According to this view, the
prevalence of Baal polemic throughout the
book justifies such a conjecture “to the Most
High (‘al) they call, but He does not raise
them up at all". The reading of the ancient
medieval Hebrew manuscripts is “when it
(the people) is summoned upward (‘al), it
does not rise at all” while the Greek manu-
scripts preserve an independent reading
"God shall be angry with his precious
things". In the final analysis, the unlike-
lihood of the occurrence of the short form
‘ly ‘Most High’ in the previously treated
passages and the ancient versional witnesses
in favour of the reading of ‘al as anything
other than the divine name or epithet lessens
the plausibility of reading ‘ul as ‘Most High’
in Hos 11:7 (cf. the LXX on Hos 7:16 eis
outhen/ouden “as nothing” = Heb ‘al, LXX
Hos 10:5 epi = the third occurrence of Heb
‘al, ‘over, for’).
The name of the priest at Shiloh, Eli, has
been cited as further evidence for the pres-
ence of the divine name or epithet ‘/y ‘Most
High’ in biblical tradition. Whether the
name indicates that the priest so designated
once served a Canaanite deity ‘ly (like Baal,
cf. Ugarit) other than and prior to the ap-
pearance of YHWH, or that the hypo-
coristicon alludes to a title already appro-
priated by YHWH is impossible to decide
on historical grounds. Although 1 Sam 3:1
states that "the word of YHWH was rare in
those days", this might be taken to refer to
the non-existence of the YHWH cult rather
than to the neglect of YHWH's command-
ments.
In conclusion, while the epithet 'Most
High’ is attested in ancient Levantine
cultures both in the form ‘lywn of biblical
traditions and in the form ‘ly of extra-bibli-
cal sources, the short form of the divine
name or epithet ‘ly does not appear in the
Hebrew Bible.
IV. Bibliography
G. W. AHLSTRÓM, The History of Ancient
ALAY — ALDEBARAN
Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to
Alexander's Conquest (Sheffield 1993) 368-
369, 390: M. Danoop, The Divine Name
‘Eli in the Psalms, Theological Studies 14
(1953) 452-457; G. R. Driver, Hebrew ‘al
(high one’) as a Divine Title, ExpTim 50
(1938-39) 92-93; J. HUEHNERGARD, Ugar-
itic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription
(Adanta 1987) 160; R. Lack, Les origines
de Elyon, le Très-Haut, dans la tradition cul-
turelle d'Israel, CBQ 24 (1962) 44-64; J. C.
DE Moor, Contributions to the Ugaritic
Lexicon, UF 11 (1979) 652-653; H.
NYBERG, Studien zum Hoseabuch (Uppsala
1935) 57-60, 74, 89; NyBERG, Studien zum
Religionskamnpf im Alten Testament, ARW
35 (1938) 329-387; L. ViGANO, Nomi e ti-
toli di YHWH alla luce del semitico del
Nord-ovest, BeO 31 (1976) 34-62 [& lit,
esp. p. 34 n. 4].
B. SCHMIDT
ALAY -* AL
ALDEBARAN JW
I. The noun DY occurs in the Bible in
Job 38:32, vocalized 'ayi$. The term *'àá$,
which appears in Job 9:9, is generally con-
sidered a variant reading or a less correct
form of 'ayis; it has also been considered a
dittography of ‘sh, which immediately pre-
cedes it (B. Duum, Das Buch Hiob erklärt
[KHAT; Tübingen 1897] ad loc.). The con-
text of both occurrences in Job clearly
shows that 'ayis is the name of a -*star or
constellation. Its etymological parallels
Jewish Aramaic yütà? and Syr 'yüto' and
'iyto? always denote a star or constellation.
Some scholars have deduced from these late
occurrences that the correct Hebrew vocal-
isation should be 'avás or *iyii3 (DRIVER &
Gray 1977:335). The Hebrew form is more
likely to be of the type qari, then extended
in Aramaic to the qat! type, reinterpreting
the noun. Among the most noteworthy
derivations are Ar ‘ay(y)it, ‘lion’, ‘ravager’
(KB, 702 and HALAT, 778) and Ar gaitu(n),
‘rain’. The latter derivation is widely ac-
cepted (MOWINCKEL 1928:62-63; DRIVER
17
1956:2: Horst 19743:146).
II. It is difficult to identify the star
named ‘ayi§. Valid reasons have been given
for refuting the suggestion, above all based
on an unsound etymology, of identifying it
as the constellation of Leo. Indeed it is not
easy to explain the entire expression in Job
38:32 'ayis *al-bànéhà, ‘above’ or ‘with her
children’. It has been supposed (KB, 702)
that it may be the large constellation of Leo
according to the ancient Arabic conception
that does not recognize Cancer and includes
the stars of the latter in Leo; furthermore the
‘children’ are the stars B, y, 5, n of Virgo,
that the Arabs call ‘the dogs barking after
the Lion’.
The most widely accepted opinion gocs
back to Ibn Ezra (SCHIAPARELEI 1903:
70-71; MOWINCKEL 1928:55) according to
whom it is the constellation of the Great
Bear (Ursa Major): db, *glh, §b‘h kwkbym.
Most of the dictionaries preceding KB, and
translations of the book of Job offer this
interpretation. Some ancient authors (W.
GesENIUS, Thesaurus Il (Leipzig 1839]
894-896) associate this term with the Arabic
root N'$, from which derives the noun ‘bier’
or ‘litter’, which the Arabs use to denote the
Great Bear. They call the stars £, 6. n that
form the tail of the Great Bear or the shaft
of the Plough banát na'$, daughters of na'$
(the mourning women"), an expression that
is reminiscent of the one in Job 38:32.
The Biblica! context does not secm to
confirm this interpretation. The verbs ‘lead’
and ‘come out’ (at a definite time), do not fit
in well with the Bears, which are entirely
circumpolar constellations for the latitude of
Israel, and do not have periodical appear-
ances but are present at night throughout the
year. Supposing that the identification of the
heavenly bodies mentioned in Job 38:3]
kymh and ksyl with the -»Pleiades and
--Orion is correct, the identification of ‘ys
‘1 bnyh of v 32 with Aldebaran and the
Hyades emerges as the most plausible
answer (ScuHtAPARELLI 1903:72-76; Mo-
WINCKEL 1928:62-64; Driver 1956:1-2;
Horst 19743:146; A. DE WILDE 1981:366-
368), also in view of the many references to
ALIYAN
winter found throughout the text. In Job 9:9
‘S is named along with ksyl and kymh too;
the Pleiades, the Hyades and Orion are
winter constellations grouped in the same
portion of the sky, while the Great Bear is
distant from them. Aldebaran, the giant red
star which represents the eye of the Bull,
seems to guide and overlook the Hyades
arranged in a V formation behind it (the
Assyrians called them is /é, ‘jaw of the
Bull’). The heliacal rising of Aldebaran and
the Hyades in autumn coincides with the
arrival of bad weather and rain. These stars
are therefore believed to bring rain, and this
would justify a derivation of the term *ayi3
from the Ar gaitu(n).
III. In. the book of Job there are un-
doubtedly traces of an ancient divine con-
ception of the stars: sec Job 15:15; 25:5 and
particularly 38:7 where the expression
kékébé boger, moming stars, appears in per-
fect parallelism with béné ?élohim —>sons of
God. However in the passage under exam-
ination the constellations are mentioned to
show the creative power and the organizing
wisdom of the God of Israel.
Some scholars see in the expression ‘ʻayiš
‘al-bdnéha tanhém, “can you guide Ayiš
with her children?” (Job 38:32) a veiled
reference to a myth (MOWINCKEL 1928:52-
54) referring to a divine portent (for
example bringing the lost children back to
their mother). However, MOWINCKEL him-
self (1928:63-64) is sceptical about the
existence of a saga relating to 'ayis, and
thinks that the image of a mother with her
children is an immediate reflexion of the
particular heavenly configuration of the con-
stellation, and ‘leading’ in his opinion refers
to its periodical and punctual appearances in
autumn-winter season.
The LXX and the Vg evidently have
great difficulty in understanding ‘ayis/dS.
The LXX renders the occurrence in Job 9:9
with ‘Pleiades’, and that in Job 38:32 with
‘Vesper’; on one occasion the Vg translates
it ‘Arcturus’ (and renders the Pleiades in the
same verse with 'Hyades'), and on the other
‘Vesper’. For the ancients they were all very
important stars and were often named to-
18
gether. There is an enlightening passage in
the Talmud, b.Berakot 58b-59a: it debates
whether this constellation is the tail of Aries
(the Pleiades) or the head of the Bull (the
Hyades), and it narrates a cosmic legend
according to which in order to stop a flood
on the earth the Lord God took two stars
from 'ayis. But one day He will retum them
to her; reinterpreting tnl; as deriving from
the verb NHM, ‘to comfort’, the Talmud quo-
tes Job thus: "and ‘ayif will be comforted
for her children”.
IV. Bibliography
G. R. Driver, Two Astronomical Passages
in the Old Testament, JTS 7 (1956) 1-11; S.
R. Driver & G. B. Gray, The Book of Job
(Edinburgh 1977) 86, 335; F. Horst, Hiob
(Neukirchen-Vluyn 19743) 137, 146; A.
Konur, Aruch Completum ... auctore Na-
thane filio Jechielis (Vienna 1878, New
York 1892) I 332; IV 121; VI 277; S.
MOowWINCKEL, Die Sternnamen im Alten Tes-
tament (Oslo 1928) 52-64; G. Scuia-
PARELLI, L'astronomia nell'Antico Testa-
mento (Milano 1903) 69-76; G. SHARPE,
Syntagma Dissertationum quas olim auctor
doctissimus Thomas Hyde S.T.P. separatim
edidit (Oxford 1767) I 27-29, 90-91; A. DE
WILDE, Das Buch Hiob [OTS 22; Leiden
1981] 366-368.
I. ZATELLI
ALIYAN
I. The negation /6’ revocalized as le?
has been interpreted as a divine epithet
‘Victor’ (c.g. M. Danoop, Psalms 1 1-50
[AB 16; New York 1966] 46; VicANO 1976;
Cooper 1981) derived from the root L’y.
The same root is at the basis of the Baal
epithets aliyn and aliy qrdin and the element
Py/’r in a number of West Semitic names,
ancient titles of Baal and his consort
(SZNYCER 1963). The name of ~Jacob’s
wife —Leah (nNO, Gen 29:16; Ruth 4:11)
has been connected with the same root
(HALAT 487).
Il. Aliyan, usually translated as ‘al-
mighty, victorious, puissant', is a frequently
used epithet in the mythology of the Ugar-
ALIYAN
itic Baal. It is often seconded by other epi-
thets like r&b *rpt "—Rider-upon-the-Clouds",
also twice in KTU 1.92, zbl b'l ars "the
Prince, the Lord of the Earth, Baal" and aliy
qrdm "the mightiest of heroes". Whenever
used, aliyn always precedes the name of
Baal, as is usual in epithets of gods; com-
pare e.g. ir il ab (>El), rbt atrt ym (— Ashe-
rah), bilt ‘nt (Anat) and ~’ddénay Yahweh
(~Yahweh). Aliyan never occurs as an
independent divine name. From a stylistic
point of view the epithet aliyn describes an
aspect of Baal which distinguishes him from
other gods. Outside Ugarit the epithet is
possibly attested on the so-called Job-stela
from Sheikh Sa‘d dating from the reign of
Ramses II (R. STADELMANN, Syrisch-Palis-
tinensische Gottheiten in Agypten (Leiden
1967] 45-46, but see also J. C. DE Moor,
Rise of Yahwism [Louvain 1990] 126).
In KTU 1.5 ii:17-18 one finds the singular
phrase aliyn bn b‘l, but this is most probably
a scribal error (see CTA, p. 33 n. 1; GESE
1970:122, different ARTU 73). On the basis
of this and other—scanty—cvidence
Dussaud assumed the existence of an orig-
inally independent Canaanite god Aliyan, a
god of -*sources and perennial ->rivers
whose realms are the depths of the —"earth.
This lord of the earth (b! arg) was first
adopted as Baal's son and finally identified
with the Northern Baal in the double name
Aliyan-Baal (Dussaup 1941). Neither the
religio-historical evidence, nor the literary
patterns of the Baal-myth are in favour of
this hypothesis (SZNYCER 1963:26-27; GESE
1970:123-124; vaN ZuL 1972:341-345). R.
DussauD (La mythologie phénicienne
d'après les tablettes de Ras Schamra, RHR
104 [1931] 387), H. Bauer (Die Gottheiten
von Ras Schamra, ZAW 51 [1933] 97) and
EIssFELDT (1939) may be right in their
assumption that the Greek word atAtvos,
either understood as a wailing cry or as a
noun meaning 'dirge', goes back to the
phrase iy aliyn b'l iy.zbl.b'lL.arg as in KTU
1.6 iv:15-16 (cf. —Jezebel). Whether this
implies a connection between Aliyan and
the Greek hero —Linos is less certain. In all
probability the Ugaritic epithet aliyn did not
19
originate as the name of an older god of
vegetation.
The epithet aliy grdm appears only in the
fixed formula that introduces Baal's mess-
ages: thm aliyn b'l hwt aliy grdm (KTU 1.3
iii:13-14 passim); the parallelism with aliyn
suggests that the latter was the shortened
form of this epithet. aliy is usually under-
stood as an adjective on the pattern of
*aqtalu, perhaps with superlative force. A
translation of both alivn and aliy ‘most
vigorous’, indicating Baal’s vigour and
youthfulness as distinctive aspects of his
divinity, is more appropriate than 'victor-
ious’. grdm is most probably a plural noun
to be connected with Akk garrddu or
qurādu, also an epithet of the weather-god
Adad (Hadad). For a similar expression cf.
li--um qar-du 'heroic warrior' (BWL 86:
263). DIETRICH & LonETZ (1980), however,
mention the possibility of a chthonic aspect.
relating qrdm to Mandaic qardum ‘spirit,
demon'. This would tally with Baal's con-
nection to the rpum in XTU 1.6 vi and XTU
1.22 i (Rephaim).
HI. The verbal root L’y (‘to be strong,
vigorous’) is attested in Ugarit (ATU 1.14
1:33; 1.16 vi:2.14; 1.100:68) together with a
number of derivations other than aliyn or
aliy like tliyt ‘victory’ or ‘power’ (KTU 1.19
11:35-36 — /Inghy), dlan ‘strength’ (KTU
1.108:24-25) and perhaps also in the feinale
divine epithet or name alit (KTU 1.90:19; J.
C. pE Moor, The Semitic Pantheon of
Ugarit, UF 2 [1970] 187-228 no. 27).
Nevertheless, the root Lv with the opposite
meaning 'to be weak' also occurs (KTU 1.3
v:18 and parallels). The same semantic pola-
rity was probably developed in Akkadian,
followed by a phonetic distinction la'ü(m)
‘weak, infant’ and le’fi ‘to be strong, able’
(AHW 540; CAD L 151-156; 160-161). It
exists in Aramaic, in which language also a
phonetic vanant L‘y/L° occurs (DISO 133
s.v. CND, 138 s.v. "D9; Jastrow, Dictionary.
714 s.v. ^22), and most probably in Hebrew
too (RINGGREN 1982-84:409; SZzNYCER
1963). In Hebrew, however, contrary to
Ugaritic, the meaning ‘to be weak. ex-
hausted’ prevails. Compare, for instance,
ALLON — ALMIGHTY
téla’a, ‘hardship, trouble’ versus Ugaritic
tliyt ‘victory’ or ‘power’. In Hebrew the
verb sometimes implies strong efforts and
exertion, usually in vain (Gen 19:11; Isa
47:13; Jer 20:9). There is no proof whatso-
ever that it should still have the meaning ‘to
be victorious, vanquish’ in Ps 68:10 (pace
e.g. M. Danoop, Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexi-
cography IV, Bib 47 [1966] 403-419, esp.
408 s.v. 89; E. Lipixsxt, Les conceptions
et couches merveilleuses de ‘Anath, Syria 42
[1965] 45-73, esp. 68 n. 3; DE Moor, Rise
of Yahwism, 120 n. 93). In the light of the
inner-Hebrew semantic development of the
root L’y, the existence of a divine epithet /6’
or /é’, ‘victor’ in Hebrew is most improb-
able (cf. M. Pope apud Cooper 1981:428-
431).
IV. Bibliography
A. Cooper, Divine names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic texts, RSP III (Rome 1981)
333-469; M. DIETRICH & O. Loretz, Die
Baʻal-Titel b‘/ arş und aliy qrdm, UF 12
(1980) 391-392; R. Dussaup, Les décou-
vertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l'ancien
Testament (Paris 1941) 101-102; O. Eiss-
FELDT, Linos und Alijan, Mélanges Syriens
offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud (F.
Cumont et al.; Paris 1939) Vol. 1:161-170 2
KS 3 150-159; H. GESE, RAAM (Stuttgart
1970) 121-122; O. Loretz, Die Titelsucht
Jahwes im Panugaritischen Aberglauben,
UF 10 (1978) 350-352: H. RINGGREN, NN?
la@ah, TWAT 4 (1982-84) 409-411; M.
SZNYCER, A propos du nom propre punique
*bdly, Sem 13 (1963) 21-30; L. ViGANO,
Nomi e titoli di YHWH alla luce del semiti-
co del Nord-ovest (Rome 1976) 34-118; P.
VAN ZUL, Baal. A Study of Texts in Canaan
with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972) 341-345.
M. DIJKSTRA
ALLON — OAK
ALMAH — VIRGIN
ALMIGHTY ravtoxpatwo
I. pantokrator, ‘almighty’, ‘all-sover-
eign’, ‘controlling all things’, as a divine
designation, occurs both as an adjective and
as a noun. Found relatively rarely in pagan
literature, it is used frequently for God in
the LXX and in early Jewish writings. In the
NT this is continued in the Revelation of
John, which calls God pantokratór 9 times.
Otherwise, the word can be found once
more in Paul (2 Cor 6:18), and there it is a
quotation from the OT.
I]. In the pagan sphere, pantokratór
occurs from time to time as an attribute of
deities such as -*Hermes (Epigr. Graeca
815, 11; PGM 7,668), Eriunios Hermes
(CIG 2569,12), Isis (IG V 2,472) and the
Egyptian sun-god Mandulis (SB 4127,19). In
addition there are paraphrases of the term,
as for example in this (Egyptian) inscription:
Dii tói pantón kratounti kai Metri megaléi
téi pantón. kratouséi (SIG 3,1138,2-4). This
could be at least partially due to Jewish
influence (see Kruse 1949).
III. Bearing in mind the sparseness of the
pagan references, there is a remarkable fre-
quency in the LXX’s use of pantokrator as
a divine designation (ca. 180 times). For the
most part (ca. 120 times) it is a rendering of
séb@ét (--Yahweh zebaoth), a feminine
plural of sa@bd’ = armies. This is usually
interpreted as an intensive abstract-plural,
i.c. as an expression of divine might. There
are an additional 60 or so uses of the term
pantokratór in the LXX, 16 of them in the
Book of Job, as a translation of Sadday
(7*Shadday). If the rendering of séba’6ér as
pantokrator is not necessarily conclusive,
then this translation of Jadday, whose ety-
mology can no longer be definitely clarified,
is at least dubious. What is more, the LXX
has some dozen of occurrences of
pantokratór which do not appear in the
Hebrew text. This shows that the concept of
God's power was reinforced by the transla-
tors of the LXX, and sometimes even intro-
duced (as is the case, by the way, with
kyrios as the translation of the tetragram).
This should probably be understood as a
Jewish reaction to the idea of a comprehen-
sive global power, introduced by Alexander
the Great and adopted by the Hellenistic
20
ALMIGHTY
monarchies and, finally, by the Roman
Empire, an idea which, after all, is also
given a religious basis (cf. the religious epi-
thets of the rulers, such as sóter, epiphanes,
deus et dominus, etc. »ruler cult). The Hel-
lenistic and Roman sense of mission and
superiority thus expressed, resulted not only
in the continued political and increasing
economic dependence of Palestine. but also
in greater pressure on Jewish belief, and on
the way of life it conditioned in Israel and
the diaspora, to assimilate to Hellenistic cul-
ture (cf. 1 Macc 1:11-15). In what was prob-
ably a conscious move to keep at a distance
from this concept, the translators of the
LXX emphasised the (already current) con-
cept of the power of their God over the
whole of his created reality.
The early Jewish apocryphal and pseud-
epigraphical literature confirms this inter-
pretation. Presumably written between 150
and 100 sce, the Book of Judith mentions
kyrios pantokratór five times, always in the
context of inimical threat either still existing
or having been repelled (Jdt 4:13; 8:13;
15:10; 16:5.17). Significantly, the final song
of Judith ends with the prospect of the
ultimate victory of kyrios pantokratér
against all the enemies of God's People:
"Woe to the nations that rise up against my
people. The Lord Almighty will punish
them on the Day of Judgement" (Jdt 16:17).
Similarly, also in the context of inimical
threat and inimical repulsion, 2 Macc speaks
of God as the Almighty (cf. 2 Macc 1:25;
3:22.30; 8:24; 15:8). A characteristic exam-
ple of the polemical edge to this divine
designation is the speech of Judas Macca-
beus, who rouses his people to attack with
the words: “They ... trust both in weapons
and audacity, but we rely on the God
Almighty, who is able to overthrow our
assailants and the whole world with a nod of
His head” (2 Macc 8:18). It is therefore
appropriate that this ‘Almighty’ is presented
in 2 Macc as the judge of human deeds and
misdeeds (6:26; 7:35.38; 8:11 cf 15:32).
Also significant is the use of this divine
name in 3 Macc, the work of an Alexand-
rian Jew of the Ist century BCE. In the face
2]
of Ptolemy IV Philopator's intention to enter
the temple (3 Macc 1), the high priest
Simon appeals to God against this arrogant
ruler: “Lord, Lord (kyrios), king (basileus)
of heaven, ruler (despotés) of all creation,
holy among holy ones, sole ruler (monar-
chos), all-sovereign (pantokratór), pay heed
to us who are sorely vexed by a wicked and
corrupt man, reckless in his effrontery and
might. For you who created all things and
govern (epikratón) the whole world are a
just ruler (dynastés) ..." (3 Macc 2:2-3).
With unique intensity, this invocatio heaps
upon God almost all the available titles for
rulers in order to identify him as the true
ruler of this world in the face of strong poli-
tical pressure. Correspondingly, the first part
of the ensuing pars epica recapitulates the
salvation history in the context of God's
resistance to the arrogant ruler. It closes
with the praising of God as ruler
(dynasteuón) of all creation and as all-sover-
eign (pantokratór). The ensuing reminder to
God of his promises (vv 9-12) is in tum
introduced with the invocation to God as
king (basileus), an address that then finally
also introduces the prex ipsa (vv 13-20)
(hagios basileus). A similar structure can be
found in the prayer of Eleazar in 3 Macc 6.
Like the threatened people (3 Macc 5:7), he
too invokes God as pantokratér, and the
God who then comes to the aid of the Jews
against their persecutors is thus named (3
Macc 6:18) and recognised (3 Macc 6:28).
Philo—presumably due to the Stoic doc-
trine of the hégemonikon—prefers the
designation panhégemén for God; he uses
the term pantokratór only twice, more or
less as a formula (Sacr. AC 63; Gig. 64).
Pantokratór is used in a similarly formulaic
way in a few pseudepigraphical writings, as
a form of divine address by mortals (3 Bar
1:3; 4 Bar 1:5; 9:5; Pr Man 1) or angels (T.
Abr. 8:3; 15:12), and in a blessing (Ep.
Arist. 185). But what is noticcable here is
that the address is almost always linked with
God's creation, often with his day of judge-
ment, and sometimes also explicitly with his
sovereignty and his kingdom (cf. Philo, Gig.
64; T. Abr. 8:3; 15:12). Furthermore, 3 Bar
ALMIGHTY
1:3; 4 Bar 1:5; 9:5 and probably also Pr
Man 1 (cf. 2 Chr 33:1-20) are in the context
of enemy repulsion and the request for
God's help and power. Perhaps it is because
of these political implications — that
pantokratór does not occur in Josephus. The
all-sovereignty of God in Ant 10,263 is
paraphrased (by the Persian Great King
Darius) as to pantón kratos echón.
Surveying all this, it is noticeable that in
early Judaism the addressing or designation
of God as pantokratór can be found with
amazing frequency in the context of enemy
threat. The emphasis on ‘all-sovercignty’
seems mainly directed against the claim for
power (also religiously based) by the Hel-
lenistic and Roman rulers. The Jews counter
this claim for power with the declaration of
belief in the global sovereignty of their God
as Creator and Judge. Finally, the divine
designation pantokratór must presumably be
understood as a Hellenistic-Jewish equiv-
alent to the concept of the Kingdom of God
(basileia tou theou), also very important for
the preaching of Jesus.
IV. A look at the NT reveals two con-
trasting tendencies. Outside the Revelation
of St John the word occurs only once in 2
Cor 6:18 at the end of a combination of Old
Testament quotations. The Pauline origin of
the whole section 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is dis-
puted. However that may be, it is remark-
able that the divine predicate occurs in a
passage where the community is urged to
make a radical break away from the ‘unbe-
lievers’ with a harshness of tone that is
without parallel in the whole of the Corpus
Paulinum.
For most of early Christianity, then, the
divine name pantokratór does not seem to
have been of major importance although, as
the example of 2 Cor 6:18 shows, it was not
consciously avoided. The Revelation of St
John offers a picture that deviates complete-
ly from this, with pantokratór occurring
nine times as God's epithet (1:8; 4:8; 11:17;
15:3; 16:7.14; 19:6.15; 21:22). This is no
accident and confirms again the 'political
character of this divine attribute. The Revel-
ation of John, written in a desperate situ-
ation regarded by the seer as a prelude to a
22
satanic attempt to exterminate the Chris-
tians, opposes the Roman Empire and its
claim to power with a harshness that is
unique in the NT. In opposition to this
world power, which, as the ‘whore of Baby-
lon', is -*Satan's henchman, John the seer
announces God's new world, which will
reverse all present injustices and bring about
final salvation. The prerequisite of this hope,
however, is the certainty that God is already
the lord of the whole world and has checked
the apparently triumphant forces of evil, has
indeed even defeated them (cf. Rev 12:7-
12). The shortened expression ho theos ho
pantokratór occurs twice in connection with
God's, or his Messiah's, battle against the
godless people and their Kings (16:14;
19:15). The more detailed expression kyrios
ho theos ho pantokratór is used seven times.
This is the case five times in hymnic pas-
sages; in the initial vision of the throne it is
the four beasts who sing his praises night
and day with the Trishagion (Rev 4:8, with
the sabaóth from Isa 6:3 LXX being trans-
formed into pantokratór). Another three
times God is praised for the judgement he
has carried out—by the 24 elders (11:17),
by those who had been rescued (15:3), and
by the altar (16:7). And finally a great multi-
tude acclaims him because he has begun
reigning his kingdom (19:6). The expression
occurs again at the beginning and the end of
the book. At the beginning God presents
himself as he who is, who was, and who is
to come (1:8). The core of this statement is
‘to come’, i.e. that God as the lord of his-
tory also has the future of this world in his
hands (cf. also 4:8 and 11:17). God is called
Almighty for the last time in 21:22, in the
description of the celestial city that needs no
temple since God himself has his throne in
it (cf. 22:3). This latter point again suggests
the motif of God’s reign over his kingdom,
a motif which occurs astonishingly often in
the Revelation of St John in connection with
the designation of God as pantokrator. It is
directly mentioned in 11:17 (ebasileusas),
15:3 (ho basileus tón ethnón) 19:6
(ebasileusen) and 19:16 (basileus basileón).
The divine attribute pantokratór. therefore
stresses, in opposition to the Roman Em-
ATAR
pire's claim for world power, God's royal
power, which embraces the whole cosmos.
However, this power is—typically apocalyp-
tic—still hidden; God must first bring it to
light in the battle against the anti-divine
forces.
In the early Christian literature,
pantokratér is occasionally used for God
(cf. Did 10,3; / Clem. 2,3; 32.4; 60,4; 62.2).
sometimes explicitly setting off God the
Father against the Son (cf. Pol, 2 Phil,
prol.; Justin, dial. 16,4). But even Clement
of Alexandria calls Christ, the Father's
—Logos, pantokratór (Paed. 1,9; cf. also
Irenacus, Adv.Haer. 5,18,2), and Origen
makes parallel use of the predicate for both
Father and Son (Sel. in Ps. 23:10). Under
the pressure of the anti-Arian controversy,
Athanasius then emphatically called Christ
pantokratór (cf. Or. 2 c. Arian 23).
In summary, the following points can be
emphasized: pantokratór as a divine desig-
nation intends to express something similar
to the more dynamic concept of the king-
dom of God, namely that God is the Lord of
his Creation and that in it he has realised or
shall realise his will. Scen in this way. this
divine designation is a declaration of faith
by means of which the believers adhere to
their God against a reality in which this God
is painfully hidden and in which completely
different beings conduct themselves as lords
and saviours of the world. lt is sensible to
recall this original 'Sitz im Leben’ because
the common idea of the Pantocrator as the
inapproachable celestial ruler is too strongly
influenced by the Byzantine image of
Christ, used by a now Christian empire to
crcate a divine ideal in order to legitimise its
own claim to world power.
V. Bibliography
P. BiARD, La puissance de Dieu (Paris
1960); T. BLATTER, Macht und Herrschaft
Gottes (Fribourg 1962); R. FELDMEIER,
Nicht Übermacht noch Impotenz. Zum bibli-
schen Ursprung des Allmachtsbekenntnisses
(BIibTS 13; eds. W. Ritter & R. Feldmcier;
Gottingen 21997) 13-42; A. GRILLMEIER,
Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche,
Vol. 1 (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 1979) 94-
95; A. DE HALLEUX, Dieu le Pére tout-
23
puissant, RTL 8 (1977) 401-422; D. L. HoL-
LAND, Tavtoxpatwp in NT and Creed, Stu-
dia Evangelica V1 (1973) 265-266; H. How-
MEL, Pantokrator, Theologia Viatorum 5
(1953/1954) 322-378; H. HOMMEL, Schdpfer
und Erhalter (Berlin 1956); G. KRUSE, Nav-
toxpatwp, PW 18,3 (1949) 829-830; H.
LANGKAMMER, llavtoxpütop, EWNT 3
(1982) 25-27; W. MICHAELIS, xpat£o KTÀ.,
TWNT 3 (1938) 913-914; R. ZOBEL, MINDS
*6t, TWAT 6 (1989) 876-892.
s€ba'ó
R. FELDMEIER
ALTAR MIN
I. The word ‘altar’ (nizbeah) occurs
more than 400 times in the text of the Old
Testament. It derives from the root ZBH ‘to
slaughter’: the most important offering con-
sisted of sacrificial animals. Although offe-
rings could be made on natural clevations,
constructed altars seem to be have been
customary. A main characteristic of the
ancient Israelite altar was the presence of
'horns' (géranót). For the OT altar in gener-
al see HAAK 1992. In the Bible there are
hardly any traces of deification of the altar,
but other sources from the ancient Near East
reflect occasional instances of deified altars.
The numinous character ascribed to the altar
is still perceptible in the Bible in proper
names given to altars (Exod 17:15; Judg
6:24) and in the practice of the oath ‘by the
altar’ (Matt 23:20).
Hl. Deification of cultic objects is a
common phenomenon in ancient Near Eas-
tern religions. Objects in close contact with
the divine presence were believed to con-
tract numinous qualities themselves and
could, under circumstances, become objects
of worship (God I; MEvER 1931:10-13.
Extensive relevant evidence from third mil-
lennium Mesopotamia is collected in SELZ
1997). In some sources from Roman Syria
the process of deification of cult objects
focuses on the altar. Greek inscriptions from
the mountain peak Jebel Sheikh Barakat
(ancient Kopvon) from ca. 80-120 CE con-
tain dedications to Zeug Maófaxog and his
consort XeAapaveg (-*Shalman; L. JALA-
BERT & R. MOUTERDE, /GLS 2 [Paris 1939]
ALO —
nos. 465-469 and 471-473). The same deity
could apparently be referred to as Zeug
Boutog 'Zeus of the altar', mentioned in
another inscription that was found nearby
(IGLS 2 no. 569). The divine name Máófa-
xoc has been identified by Ch. Clermont-
Ganneau as Aramaic madbah ‘altar’ (PW
14.1 [1928] 202-203 s.v. Madbachos; JALA-
BERT & MOUTERDE, /GLS 2, p. 259). That
deification of the altar is a phenomenon
older than the Roman Period is proven by
the appearance of madbah as a theophoric
element in the Aramaic personal name DON
M333 (E. BresciaNı, Nuovi Documenti
Aramaici dall’Egitto, ASAE 55 [1958] 277
recto 5, and Tav. II). ]
III. The deity Madbah / Maépaxos has
been linked with the mysterious deity
Nibhaz venerated by the deportees from
Awwah who were forced by the Assyrians
to settle in Samaria. This explanation is now
generally abandoned (-*Nibhaz). MEYER
(1931:12) adduces several Old Testament
passages referring to altars that bear proper
names in support of his theory that the Is-
raelites considered altars to have numinous
qualities. Although his idea seems convin-
cing, not all the passages he cites are perti-
nent. Thus in Gen 33:20 the word mizbeah
(altar) must be emendated into masseéeba
(standing stone, see K. VAN DER TOORN,
Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and
Israel [SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996] 258 n.
94). Exod 17:15 and Judg 6:24, on the other
hand, lend support to Meyer's thesis. An-
other allusion to the deification of the altar
in Israel is to be found in a passage from the
Gospel of Matthew, according to which the
Jews in Palestine took oaths by the sanctu-
ary, the gold of the sanctuary, the altar
(0voYaotmpiov), the victim and heaven
(23:16-31). The inclusion of the altar in this
enumeration implies its numinous associa-
tions (cf. VAN DER TOORN 1986:285).
IV. Bibliography
R. D. Haak, Altar, ABD (1992) 2.162-167;
E. Meyer, Untersuchungen zur phóniki-
schen Religion, ZAW 49 (1931) 1-15; K.
VAN DER Toorn, Herem-Bethel and Elep-
hantine Oath Procedure, ZAW 98 (1986)
282-285; G. J. Sez, ‘The Holy Drum, the
24
AM
Spear, and the Harp’: Towards an understan-
ding of the problems of deification in third
millennium Mesopotamia, Sumerian Gods
and their Representations (CM 7; ed. 1. L.
Finkel & M. J. Geller: Groningen 1997)
167-209.
F. VAN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
ALÛ > AL
ALUQQAH > VAMPIRE
AM 09
I. ‘Am(m) occurs widely as a thco-
phoric element in Semitic proper names, al-
though in the cuneiform texts it is not or-
dinarily marked by the determinative
indicating divinity. Among the names that
are commonly classified as "Amorite", there
are over two hundred with ‘Amun as an el-
ement. This represents by far the largest
group; but *Am(m)-namces are also attested in
epigraphic Arabic (Qatabanian, Safaitic, and
Thamudic), Hebrew, Ugaritic, Old Aramaic,
Phoenician, Punic, Ammonite, Moabite, and,
perhaps, Eblaite. Occurrences of the deity
*Am(m) in the Hebrew Bible are limited to
personal names and place names.
II. On the one hand, ‘Arn(m) occurs fre-
quently in the position normally taken by a
divine name, as in Amorite 7-/f-/ja-mu « "lli-
sammu “My God is ‘Amm™ (RA 57 [1963]
178), Heb "ly'D "My God is 'Am(m)" (2
Sam 11:3; cf. Ammonite —"|y'(Du [HERR
1978:35], Phoen "/*m [CIS 147.6]; Safaitic
‘ml [see RyYcKMANS 1934:244]) and 'dn*m
“My Lord is ‘Am(m)” attested in a Samaria
Ostracon (LAWTON 1984). This suggests that
‘Am(m) was perceived to be a divine name
or a substitute for one. On the other hand,
‘Am(m) also appears as an appellation in
some cases. This is suggested by the occur-
rence of the element with the pronominal
suffix (e.g. Amorite A-a-ha-mu-i= ayya-
‘ammu-hii, BASOR 95 [1945] 23) and/or
with obvious divine names, as in the Akka-
dian names Amma-Siw'en. (A-ma-9EN.ZU in
MDP II, A 5:3), Amorite names analyzed as
‘Ammi-Hl, “Ammi-Hadad, ‘Ammi-Dagan, and
‘Ammmi-‘Anat (sce GELB 1980), Hebrew ‘my’!
AM
(Num 13:12), or Moabite kmS%n (HERR
1974:156). In each case, the meaning of the
personal name is “(the god) so-and-so is
(my) 'Am(m)". In a few instances, ‘n ap-
pears to be hypocoristic, as in Phoenician
‘m, ‘my, ‘m? (see BENZ 1972). Several
Eblaite names, too, may be so analyzed
(KREBERNIK 1988). The names in such cases
probably stood for fuller, presumably theo-
phoric, names.
The element ‘Am(m) is most commonly
connected with Arabic ʻamm “paternal
uncle", a term contrasted with Ad/ “maternal
uncle". Thus, Amorite Harmnurapi has cor-
rectly been compared with Hálurapi (HUFF-
MON 1964). Levy's explanation of the theo-
phoric element in names like Hammurapi as
coming from HMM “to be hot” (hence desig-
nating a solar deity) is belied by the spelling
of the name at Ugarit as Am-mu-ra-pi (PRU
IV, Pl. LVII, 17.355, 12, 16) and *mrpi
(KTU 2.39:2; Levy 1944). The theophoric
element is ‘Amun, which was understood as
“Paternal Uncle” in old South Arabic (so
RES 2775.1-2). On the other hand, in a Kas-
site king-list, Amorite iammu is interpreted
as kimtum "family, kin". Thus, Hammurapi
is interpreted as Kimtum-Rapastum “Ex-
tensive Family” (i.e. ‘Ammu-rabi; cf. Heb
rhb‘m?), and the name Hammisaduqa is
interpreted as Kimtum-Kittum “Legitimate
Family" (5 R 44 i 21-22). It is possible,
then, that ‘Am(m) had a wider range of
meaning than "paternal uncle". The word
originally probably meant “kin”. Hence the
name ‘Ammi-Anat means “(the goddess)
Anat is my Kin".
‘Am(m) is the patron deity of the ancient
Qatabanians of South Arabia, who were
known as bnw ‘m “the children of ‘Anun’’. It
is clear from the inscriptions that ‘Amm was
a lunar deity in Qataban. Among his epithets
are ry‘n w-Shrm “He who waxes and re-
volves”, d-Sgr “The bright shining one’, and
d-ysrm “The little one”, the latter two refer-
ring respectively to the ->moon in full phase
and the new moon (BEESTON 1951). The
worship of ‘Amm in South Arabia is corrob-
orated by an Arabic tradition about an idol
called ‘Amm-anas (“the Paternal Uncle of
Humanity”) that was worshipped in the pre-
25
Islamic period (FAHD 1968).
Since the Qatabanians were called "child-
ren of ‘Amun, it has been suggested that the
name of the eponymous ancestor of the
Ammonites in Gen 19:38, bn “ny, may indi-
cate that the Ammonites also venerated that
lunar deity (HOMMEL 1900). But whereas
‘Amm was the national deity of the Qataban-
ians, there is no evidence that he played
such a prominent role in the Ammonite cult.
Apart from the name ‘mnndb and the single
occurrence of the name "ym (HERR
1978:35), there are no ‘Am(m)-names among
the Ammonites (HUBNER 1992:256-258).
The name bn ‘my is unique as an allusion to
the Ammonites; the most common desig-
nation for them in the Bible is bn(y) *m(w)n.
And that is, indeed, their own designation
for themselves, as is attested in the Tell
Siran Bottle (ll. 2-3; BASOR 212 [1973] 5-
11). The etymology of Ammon remains
uncertain. lt appears, then, that apart from
the Qatabanian moon-god, there are no re-
ferences to ‘Am(m) as the name of a particu-
lar deity. It is more likely that ‘Am(m) in
most Semitic proper names was originally
an appellation, which may have been under-
stood as referring to various deities. In the
case of the Qatabanians, ‘Amm was the stan-
dard designation for their national god.
IIT. It has been suggested that ‘Am(m)
appears in the Bible in Hos 4:4 and Isa 2:6
(NYBERG 1935). In both cases, however, ^m
appears with a pronominal suffix. Indeed,
apart from the personal names and a few
toponymns (notably yqn‘m), there is no
reference in the Bible to the deity known as
*Am(m).
IV. Bibliography
A. F. L. BEESTON, On Old South Arabian
Lexicography III, Muséon 64 (1951) 130-
131; F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the
Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (StPsm
8; Rome 1972) 172.379; *T. FAnp, Le
panthéon de l'Arabie centrale à la veille de
l'Hégire (Paris 1968) 44-46; I. J. GELB,
Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite (AS
21; Chicago 1980) 260-264; *R. M. Goon,
The Sheep of His Pasture (HSM 29; Chico
1983) 10-12.30-31; L. HERR, The Scripts of
Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals (HSM 18;
AMALEK — AMALTHEIA
Missoula, Montana 1978); *M. HÓFNER,
‘Amm (‘M, ‘AMM, *MN), WbMytih VI
(Stuttgart 1965) 494-495; F. HOMMEL,
Aufsätze und Abhandlungen (München
1900) 149-165; U. HÜBNER, Die Ammoniter
(ADPV 16; Wiesbaden 1992) 256-258; H.
B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in
the Mari Texts (Baltimore 1964) 196-198;
A. JAMME, Le panthéon sud-arabe pré-
islamique, Le Muséon 60 (1967) 57-147; M.
KREBERNIK, Die Personennamen der Ebla-
Texte (Berlin 1988) 72.125-126; R. B. Law-
TON, Israelite Personal Names on Pre-exilic
Hebrew Inscriptions, Bib 65 (1984) 333; J.
Lewy, The Old West Semitic Sun-God
Hammu, HUCA 19 (1944) 429-488; H. S.
NYBERG, Studien zum Hoseabuch (Uppsala
1935) 27; G. RYCKMANS, Les noms propres
sud-sémitiques (Louvain 1934) I, 26-27; II,
107.
C. L. SEow
AMALEK pny
l. In the Old Testament, the tribe of
Amalek is one of Israel's enemies of old
(Exod 17:8-16; Num 13:29 etc). Their
ancestor is seen as a grandson of —Esau
(Gen 36:12-16). Amalek can also designate
a topographical area as in the expression har
ha‘dmaléqi ‘the mountain of the Amalekites’
(Judg 12:15). An etymological explanation
of the name Amalek has been impossible
until now (WEIPPERT 1974:252). The
suggestion has been made to relate the name
Amalek to a mountain deity /Amirg known
from an Egyptian source (GöÖrG 1987:14-
15).
lI. The Egyptian Leiden Magical Papy-
rus I 343 + I 345* (ed. Massanr 1954)
mentions in the context of deities venerated
in the Canaanite area a mountain deity /unrg
(III 9; XXHI 3). This deity seems to be re-
lated to a mountainous area probably in the
Eastern Sinai. The identity of the deity is
further unknown. GORG (1987) suggested
the identity of hmrq with Amalek and the
interchangeability of the tribal name with
the divine name. His surmise is based on an
assumed phonetic similarity between Egypt-
26
ian hmrq and Hebrew ‘mig. Egyptian /récan
easily be equated with Hebrew /l/. Egyptian
fy is more problematical. It generally stands
for Hebrew /h/, while Hebrew /‘/ is rendered
in Egyptian with /*/ (as in ‘yaw jV2 lijon);
/q/ (as in qdt 52 Gaza) or /g/ (as in gdt i115
Gaza). Therefore, Górg's surmise is not con-
vincing.
In the OT there are otherwise no traces of
a divine background of the topographic
designation or the tribal name.
Il. Bibliography
*M. GünG, Ein Gott Amalek?, BN 40
(1987) 14-15; A. Massart, The Leiden
Magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345 (Leiden
1954); M. WEIPPERT, Semitische Nomaden
des zweiten Jahrtausends. Uber die Sifw der
ägyptischen Quellen, Bib 55 (1974) 265-
280, 427-433.
B. BECKING
AMALTHEIA ‘ApaAéeta
I. Amaltheia is the name of the goat
that suckled baby -Zeus right after his birth
(so Callimachus, Apollodorus, Diodorus
Siculus), or of the nymph who nursed and
fed him on goat's milk (so Ovid and Hyg-
inus). The 'Horn of Amaltheia' ('AuaA0etag
Képag) was one of the horns of this goat or,
according to others. a horn possessed by the
nymph, which provided in abundance what-
ever one wished, and became the well-
known image of the ‘hom of plenty’ or
comucopia. This occurs in the LXX of Job
42:14 and in T. Job 1, 3 as the name of one
of Job’s second set of three daughters. Ety-
mologically, à-4àA0&-ta is probably a sub-
stantive formed from a privative adjective
*a-padOns. -€¢ meaning ‘not softening’,
said of the goat’s udder, that is, always
tightly full of milk (cf. paA@axds etc., and
for the formation: à-An8e-ia from à-An8ng
‘not escaping notice, not hiding; true’).
II. After Zeus had been born in Crete,
or in Arcadia according to Callimachus,
Hymn on Zeus 244, he had to be hidden
there in a cave, either in Mt Dicte or in Mt
Ida, in which Amaltheia nursed or suckled
him, because his father Kronos devoured all
AMAZONS
his children. He did so in order to thwart the
oracle which had predicted that a child of
his would dethrone him as the ruler of the
universe. One of the horns of the goat, says
Ovid (Fasti 5, 111-128), broke off, was
filled with fruits by the nymph Amaltheia,
and offered to Zeus. Much earlier, however,
Pherecydes (frg. 42) told the story that the
nymph was in possession of a bull's horn,
which, according to desire, supplied any
food or drink in abundance.
A third version has been preserved by
Zenobius, who assigned to the ‘Horn of
Amaltheia’ a place in his collection of prov-
erbial expressions, and stated that it was
equivalent with another saying, namcly
‘Heavenly Goat’. The explanation he gives
is that Zeus, when fully grown, turned the
goat, in gratitude, into a -*constellation, but
gave one of its horns to the two nymphs
Adrasteia and Ida, who had been his nurses
(cf. Apollodorus 1, 1, 6). On that occasion,
he endowed the hom with its famous mir-
aculous power (2.48; cf. 1,26).
HI. According to the MT of Job 42:14
the later three daughters bore the names
respectively of Yémimá 'dovelet' (?), Qésr'á
‘cassia’ (an aromatic), and Qeren-happik
‘horn of antimony’ or ‘stibium’ (used as an
ceyc-liner). In. the. LXX these names are
represented by 'Huépa -*'day' (evidently
deriving Yémimá from vórm), Kaota and
'AuaA0eiag Képag. We have the explicit
statement of Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. pref-
ace 24) that the Latin equivalent of the last
name was 'copiae cornu'. It is interesting,
therefore. to see that the Vulgate version has
retained the former two as ‘Dies’ and
*Cassia', but that the third name is now the
more correct counterpart of the Hebrew
name as in the MT: ‘Cornu Stibii’. This cer-
tainly indicates that Jerome was not content
here with the LXX, and also that the
Hebrew original underlying it must have
been different from the Hebrew text which
he could use when revising the Vetus
Latina. What the LXX-translator read was in
all probability geren tdpiis (‘a horn will
overflow’), the graphical confusion of hé
and taw, and of kaph and sadé being quite
27
possible in handwriting of the 3rd and 2nd
centuries BCE. In this case the rendering
'AuaXO0gtag Képag would be quite under-
standable.
IV. According to Lactantius, Amaltheia
was also the name of the Sibyl of Cumae
who sold a collection of Sibylline Oracles to
Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome
(Div. Inst. 1,6,10-11).
V. Bibliography
H. vox Getsau, Amaltheia, KP | (1975)
287; P. GrimaL (A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop
transl.), Amaltheia, The Dictionary of Clas-
sical Mythology (Oxford [UK] - New York
1986) 35-36; J. Naven, Early History of the
Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic
Epigraphyand Palaeography (Leiden 1982),
see fig. 100 p. 113, line 3 for kaph/sidé and
line 5 for hé/taw; J. B. Bauer, H. Brak-
MANN, D. KonorL, G. Scuwanz, Horn (1).
RAC 16 (1992) 524-574 (especially 'Füll-
horn' 539-547, and 'Horn der Amaltheia'
560-561).
G. MussiES
AMAZONS ‘Apatoves, ‘Apafovides
I. The Amazons were a mythical race
of brave female warriors that lived, accor-
ding to the oldest Greek versions of the
saga, on the southern and western coast of
the Black Sea and were eventually defeated
by men in an Amazonomachia. They do not
occur in the Bible except possibly in an
addition to the biblical text by the Septuag-
int translator of 2 Chron 14:14, where they
scem to be said to have been part of the
booty destroyed or captured by the Judacan
king Asa in his victory over the Cushite
king Zera.
II. The etymology of the name Amazons
is unclear. Ancient popular etymology deri-
ves it from an alpha privans and maza
(‘breast’) on the assumption that “they cau-
terized the right breast so as not to impede
their javelin throwing” (DOWDEN 1996:69).
In figurative art, however, Amazons with
only their left breast do not occur. In
modern etymological studies a host of differ-
ent derivations have been proposed (WITEK
AMUN
1985:289-290). They are traditionally called
antianeirai (‘a match for men’) and they
could not stand the presence of men. Occa-
sionally they engaged in sex with strangers
to preserve their race, but they kept only the
girls. Early mythical traditions relate about
wars between the Amazons and Heracles
(his ninth labour was to get the girdle of the
Amazon queen, Hippolyte), Theseus (who
had to fight off an Amazon invasion of Atti-
ca), and many other heroes. They also play-
ed a variety of other belligerent roles in the
Trojan cycle (Hammes 1981; BLoK 1995).
AS courageous women they are prominent in
various forms of figurative art, many of
them as named individuals (DEVAMBEZ &
KAUFMANN-SAMARAS 1981 catalogue 819
items). Their location at the coasts of the
Black Sea (esp. in Pontic Asia Minor) chan-
ged in the course of time as the Greeks got
to know this area better. As a result it was
moved to further marginal areas at the edges
of the known world (BLOK 1996:575). In
central Greece there were many tombs of
the Amazons which served as cultic sites
and there were also annual sacrifices to
them at Athens. Several cities in Asia Minor
(esp. Ephesus) celebrated their having been
founded by the Amazons (DOWDEN
1996:700).
Ill. It is unclear why the Septuagint
translator inserted the Amazons in 2 Chron
14:14, if the text is about Amazons at all.
Apart from the fact that the list of booty
enumerated there contains mainly items of
cattle, which might suggest that Amazons
are regarded here as a kind of animals, thc
problem is that the text has tovg
“ApaCoveic, an elsewhere completely unat-
tested masculine form (the fourth cent. BCE
rationalistic mythographer — Palaephatus'
interpretation of Amazons as male warriors
found no adherents). MT’s ‘the tents of cat-
tle’ (LXX: oxnvàç xmoewv), to which tovs
“ApaCovets has apparently been added as an
epexegetical apposition, may also have been
taken to mean ‘(the tents of) those who pos-
sessed cattle’ or ‘herdsmen,’ as the Targum
seems to have done (see J. S. McIvon, The
Targum of Chronicles [The Aramaic Bible
28
19; Edinburgh 1994] 177) and as is also
done in several modern translations, but the
problem is that the Amazons were not
known as flockkeepers either. It is, therefo-
re, not improbable that (as RUDOLPH
1955:242 has suggested; see also ALLEN
1974:167) ‘Apaloveic is here a transcrip-
tional error for “AAipafovets (AI being mis-
read as M yields “Appatovetc), which in 2
Chr 22:1 is the faulty rendering of
lammahdneh and made into an apposition
of ‘the Arabs’: ‘the band of robbers that had
attacked them, the Arabs (and) the Alimazo-
nians, ...' (the Lucianic recension has here
“ApaCovietp as well!). In early Jewish lite-
rature Amazons do not play any further role.
In Christian literature from the beginning of
the third century and later, however, they
are mentioned either as a historical reality or
as a symbol for an unnatural way of life or
aggression (WITEK 1985:293-300).
IV. Bibliography
L. C. ALLEN, The Greek Chronicles, vol. |
(Leiden 1974); J. H. BLOK, The Early Ama-
zons (Leiden 1995); J. H. BLOK & A. Ley,
Amazones, Der Neue Pauly I (Stuttgart
1996) 575-576; P. DEVAMBEZ & A. KAUF-
MANN-SAMARAS, Amazones, LIMC 1 (Stutt-
gart 1981) 586-653; K. DOWDEN, Amazons,
OCD (3rd ed., Oxford 1996) 69-70; M.
HaMMES, Die Amazonen (Frankfurt/M.
1981); W. Ruporru, Die Chronikbücher
(Tübingen 1955); W. B. TYRRELL, Ama-
zons. A Study in Athenian Mythmaking (Bal-
timore 1984); F. WITEK, Amazonen, RAC
Suppl. I Lief. 2 (Stuttgart 1985) 289-301.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
AMUN jv8
I. Amun, ;mn, from JMN 'to hide": the
"Hidden one". The Greeks identified Amun
with Zeus because of his function as chief
of the Egyptian pantheon. Amun occurs as
divine name in Jer 46:25 ('àmón minno
Amon of No: Amon of Thebes) and Nah 3:8
(nó? *àmón No-Amon: the city of Amon).
II. The original nature of Amun is deter-
mined by two factors: 1. the close relation-
ship with ~Min of Koptos, the god of
AMUN
kingship, fertility and virility; 2. the role of
Amun as one of the personifications of
preexistence (cf. Pyr. 466: Amun and
Amaunet as feminine counterpart, alongside
Njw and Naunet [water], -*Atum and Ruti
[creator] and Shu and Tefnut [air], see
SETHE 1929:§61). Two further aspects dev-
elop since the lith dynasty with the
equation of Amun with the sun god ->Re
and his establishment as the city god of
Thebes and the state god of a reunified
Egypt, which implies his status as chief of
the pantheon (‘king of the gods’, Eg. Jmn-
R'w-nsw-ntrv, Gk Ammonrasonther, and
other titles of royal character, see SETHE
1929:§11). In this function of state god,
Amun is venerated in the temple of Karnak.
The most important theriomorphic aspect
and sacred animal of Amun is the ram (ovis
platyura aeg.) whose characteristic horns
appear in the iconography of Alexander the
Great after his ritual ‘divinization’ (initiation
as Egyptian king) in the temple of Luxor.
This latter temple (built by Amenophis IIT)
is specifically devoted to the god-king
relationship and the Luxor festival cel-
ebrates the annual renewal of divine king-
ship (L. BELL, JNES 44 [1985] 251-294). A
third Theban temple of Amun, built by
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III on the west
bank at Medinet Habu, is devoted to his pri-
mordial aspect as Kematef, Gk Kneph “who
has accomplished his time" (SETHE 1929:
§§103-110). In Ptolemaic times, the three
Theban forms of Amun are organized as
three generations: Kematef (grandfather),
Amun-Re (father) and Amun-of-Luxor (son)
(SETHE 1929:§115 goes a little too far in
distinguishing even four gencrations).
The theology of Amun as formulated in a
multitude of hymns (see ASSMANN 1975;
1983) develops in two stages: 1. from the
Middle Kingdom until Amarna; 2. from
post-Amama until the Graeco-Roman
period. In the first stage (sec ASSMANN
1983:145-188; 1984:221-232), the nature of
Amun is unfolded in 5 aspects: (1) primor-
dial god, (2) creator god, (3) ruler (city god,
state god and king of the gods), (4) pre-
server, “life god”, sun god and (5) judge and
29
saviour (ethical authority, the god of the
individual). The second stage reacts to the
monotheistic revolt of Akhenaten and must
be interpreted as an attempt to combine both
the monotheistic idea of the uniqueness or
‘oneness’ of god and the polytheistic wor-
ship of the different deities whose ongoing
cooperation and antagonism forms cosmic
reality (ASSMANN 1983:189-286). The result
is the pantheistic idea of a god who is both
hidden and cosmic, both transcendent and
immanent, the “One-and-All”, eg. “the One
who made himself into millions” (ASSMANN
1983:208-218; ZANDEE 1992:168-176). Amun
is the god both of preexistence and of cre-
ation. This means that he did not create the
world out of chaos, but that he transformed
himself into the world. The world in its tri-
partite form as heaven-earth-underworld de-
velops as the realm for the god in his tri-
partite existence as ‘Ba’ (sun), ‘image’ (cult
statue at Thebes) and ‘corpse’ (ASSMANN
1983:241-246). But in his function as life-
god, Amun is immanent in a triad of life-
giving elements viz. light, air and water
(ASSMANN 1983:250-263). The most im-
portant concept in this theology is ‘Ba’, a
kind of soul, which leaves the body at the
moment of death and is able to pass into a
celestial or underworld abode and to come
back to visit the mummy in the tomb. This
anthropological concept has been extended
already in the Coffin Texts to the divine
world in order to explain the relationship of
a deity and his/her cosmic manifestation: the
wind as “the ba of Shu”, the light as “the ba
of Re” etc. In the Ramesside theology of
Amun, the Ba concept is used to work in
two different directions: to designate the
many gods as the Ba-‘manifestation’ of the
hidden ‘One’, but also the hidden ‘One’ as
the ‘soul’ whose body is the cosmos
(ASSMANN 1983:189-218). In this aspect,
the name *Amun' is avoided in the hymns
and the god is called "the mysterious Ba"
(ASSMANN 1983:203-207). The cosmic
body of god comprises -*heaven and -*earth
as head and feet, sun and —moon as the two
eyes, the air as the breath and the water as
the sweat of the god, but there are many
AMUN
other elaborations of the idea of the “cosmic
god”. (ASSMANN 1979; H. STERNBERG-EL
HoranBi, Der Propylon des Month-Tempels
in Karnak-Nord [Wiesbaden 1993] 23-26).
The most elaborated conception of this
Ba-theology appears in temples of the Late
Period (7th and 6th centuries BCE) and dis-
tinguishes ten ‘Bas’ of Amun as modes of
his intramundane manifestion (J. C. Goyon,
The Edifice of Taharqa |eds. R. A. Parker,
J. Leclant & J. C. Goyon; Providence 1979)
69-79, 40-41, pl.27.): the first two Bas arc
sun and moon, the eyes of the cosmic gods,
they stand for ‘time’ as one of the lifc-
giving elements; the next two are the Bas of
Shu and Osiris for ‘air’ and ‘water’. ‘Light,
in this theology, is represented by the Ba of
Tefnut. Then come five ‘Bas’ standing for
five classes of living beings: mankind,
quadrupeds (living on earth), birds (living in
the sky), fishes (living in the water) and
snakes, scarabs and the dead (living in the
earth). Most important is the Ba responsible
for mankind: he is identified with the
"king's ka", ie. the divine institution of
pharaonic Kingship.
Among the Theban festivals, four are
most important: the festivals of Luxor, of
the. valley, of Min and of Sokar. The first
two are closely linked with the Egyptian
concept of kingship. During the Luxor festi-
val (LdA 4:574-579; L. Bett, JNES 44
[1985] 251-294), the barks of the Karnak
triad (Amun, Mut and —Khonsu) and the
bark of the king visit the temple of Luxor.
The king, during this visit, undergoes a
spiritual rebirth as son of Amun. The festi-
val thus performs an annual renewal of
kingship. During the valley festival (LdA
6:187-189), the divine barks cross the — Nile
and visit the mortuary temples of the kings.
Whereas the Luxor festival confirms the
divine descent of the king. the festival of the
valley confirms his genealogical legit-
imation; it performs an annual renewal of
the community with the —dead. Around the
festival of the valley originates a new form
of god-man-relationship which later comes
to be known as “Personal Piety” (ASSMANN
1989:68-82 [& lit]). In the form of a proces-
30
sion the god, who is usually hidden in his
temple and is strictly unapproachable to
everybody except the priests on service,
appears to his people and can be approached
by everyone who wants to appeal to the god
for healing from a sickness or protection
against a danger or persecution etc. Some of
the prayers to the god from the time of
Amenophis ll have been preserved on os-
traca; they seem to have been presented to
the god in this form during his procession
(G. Posener, REg 27 [1975] 195-210).
These texts seem to be first instances of
“Personal Piety”, a movement which was
suppressed during the Amarna period and
which after the failure of this monotheistic
revolution expanded all over Egypt. Amun
remained the exponent of this new religios-
ity. His aspect as judge and saviour of the
poor became central and a model for the
theology of other deities as well. The tradi-
tional ‘theology of maintenance’ concentrat-
ing on cosmic life and its cyclical renewal
now changed into a ‘theology of will’ con-
centrating on historical and biographical fate
and significance. Catastrophical events, as
well as miraculous salvations, are now inter-
preted as divine interventions, a traditional
conception in the Near East (B. ALBREKT-
SON, History and the Gods [Lund 1967)) but
quite new in the Egyptian context (sce
ASSMANN 1989).
Around the festival of Luxor originated a
new form of oracular intervention, which
during the 18th dynasty is restricted to
Amun and to questions of the royal suc-
cession but which after Amarna expanded to
other deities and to all kinds of human prob-
lems (LdA 4:600-606). This development
culminated in the establishment of a regular
theocracy during the 21st dynasty (end of
lith century), when Amun assumed the role
of supreme ruler and exerted this rule by
means of oracular decisions (LdA 2:822-
823). Even after this rather revolutionary
period the Theban region and its neighbour-
ing nomes continued to form a "divine
state" within the state, ruled by Amun, his
clergy and above all by the “god's wife of
Amun”, a royal princess (LdA 2:792-812).
AMUN
The temple and the festival of Luxor are
devoted to Amun as the god of divine king-
ship. This aspect of Amun finds its most
explicit expression in the “myth of the royal
birth", a cycle of pictures and accompanying
texts represented in the funerary temple of
Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahari, the temple of
Luxor and the Ramesseum (BRUNNER 1964;
ASSMANN 1982). It tells and shows how
Amun decides to create a new king, falls in
love with a beautiful woman who tums out
to be the queen of the reigning king, visits
her in the shape of her husband, begets the
future king, orders ->Thoth to announce to
her the approaching events and Khnum to
form the child in the mother’s womb,
vivifies the child and supports the pregnant
woman by his breath. The birth and suckling
of the child are shown, then follow scenes
where Amun recognizes the new-born child
as his son and presents him as the future
king to the Ennead. The cycle ends with
scenes of circumcision and purification. In
all extant versions, this cycle of birth scenes
is complemented by a cycle of coronation
scenes. Both cycles belong together. The
meaning of the birth cycle is the adoption of
the king by Amun as the first step of the
coronation ceremony. Together with king-
ship the king enters a new filiation and
acquires a new biography. In Graeco-Roman
times this cycle was transposed entirely into
the divine sphere and the role of the king
was now played by the child-god of the
divine triad. The festival called msws ner
“divine birth” was performed in a special
building called (in Coptic) "mammisi"
(birth-place). The myth shows close paral-
lels not only to the Greck myth of Amphi-
tryon but also to the birth of -Christ as told
by Luke.
The much debated character of Amun as
‘pneuma’ (SETHE 1929:§§231-235), how-
ever, seems to be based on a misunderstand-
ing. The aspect of Amun as a god of ‘wind’
(SETHE 1929:§§187-230) has to be seen in
context of his other cosmic manifestations:
light and water. The air is just one of his
forms of live-giving intramundane manifes-
tations, but not the original nature of the
31
god. If there are correspondences between
Amun and -Yahweh (SETHE 1929:§§255-
260), they have to be seen in the political,
ethical and social character of Amun, acting
both as god of the state and as judge and
saviour of the poor (sec also J. DE Moor,
The Rise of Jahwism [Leuven 1990)).
Another typical trait of Amun that might
bring him into a certain proximity to
Yahweh is his comparatively non-mythical
and ‘non-constellative’ character. There are
no myths which have Amun for a prot-
agonist. Amun has a female counterpart
(Amaunet, also Mut), but is otherwise un-
related. The association of Khonsu as his
son is a local construction.
III. The deity Amun is referred to in an
oracle against Egypt (Jer 46:25). Within this
context, Amun is the only Egyptian deity
mentioned by name. Therefore, it can be in-
ferred that he was scen as a or the major
deity of Egypt by the sixth century BCE
Judahites. In Nah 3:8 the city No-Amon is
mentioned in comparison. The fate of the
city should be an indication to the Assyrians
that their rule will not remain unchallenged.
The identity of name of the Egyptian deity
Amun with the Judahite king Amon (2 Kgs
21:19-26; 2 Chron 33:21-25) rests on homo-
nymy.
IV. Bibliography
J. ASSMANN, Agyptische Hymnen und
Gebete (Zürich 1975); ASSMANN, Primat
und Transzendenz, Struktur und Genese der
ägyptischen Vorstellung cines 'Hóchsten
Wesens’, Aspekte der spätägyptischen Reli-
gion (ed. W. Westendorf; GOF IV.9; Wies-
baden 1979) 7-40; ASSMANN, Die Zeugung
des Sohnes. Bild, Spiel, Erzählung und das
Problem des ägyptischen Mythos, Funk-
tionen und Leistungen des Mythos (J.
Assman, W. Burken & F. Stolz; OBO 48;
Fribourg 1982) 13-61; ASSMANN, Sonnen-
hymnen in thebanischen Gräbern (Theben 1)
(Mainz 1983); ASSMANN, Ägypten - Theo-
logie und Frömmigkeit einer friihen Hoch-
kultur (Stuttgart 1984); ASSMANN, State and
Religion in the New Kingdom, Religion and
Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (ed. W. K.
Simpson; Yale Egyptological Studies 3;
AMURRU
New Haven 1989) 55-88; J. F. Borcuouts,
Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt and its
Manifestation, Gleanings from Deir el-
Medina, (R. J. Demarée & J. J. Janssen; Lei-
den 1982) !-70; H. Brunner, Der freie
Wille Gottes in der ägyptischen Weisheit,
Sagesses du Proche Orient ancien (Paris
1963) 103-117; BRUNNER, Die Geburt des
Gottkönigs (ÄA 10; Wiesbaden 1964);
BRUNNER, Persönliche Frömmigkeit, LdA 4
(1982) 951-963; E. OTTO, Osiris und Amun
(München 1966); OTTO, Amun, Ldá 1 (1975)
237-248; S. SAUNERON & J. Yovorrz, La
naissance du monde selon l'Egypte ancienne
(SO I; Paris 1959) 17-91; K. SETHE, Amun
und die acht Urgötter von Hermopolis
(APAW; Berlin 1929); J. ZANDEE, De hym-
nen aan Amon van Papyrus Leiden I 350
(OMRO 28; Leiden, 1947); ZANDEE, Der
Amunhymnus des Papyrus Leiden I 344,
Verso, 3 Vols. (Leiden 1992).
J. ASSMANN
AMURRU
I. Amur is the eponymous god of the
nomadic peoples of the western desert that
began to manifest themselves in Mesopota-
mia from the late third millennium BCE
onward. These peoples are known in cunei-
form sources as ‘Amorites’ (Amurru, Sum
MAR-TU). Their god, known as Amurru
(Akkadian) or Martu (Sumerian), is best
characterized as a storm god, comparable in
type with —Hadad or ^Yahweh. References
to Amurru in the Hebrew Bible are either
indirect or debated. As the god is ep-
onymous, his name can be heard in the
ethnic designation ’éméri, ‘Amorite’. The
name Amraphel (Gen 14:1.9) may contain
Amurru as a theophoric element, assuming
it should be interpreted as ‘Amurtu-has-
answered’ (Amurru-ipul). A number of
scholars believe the name —Shadday, usual-
ly found as El-shadday, reflects the epithet
bél šadê, ‘Lord of the Mountain’, currently
carried by Amurru.
II. The Sumerian name of the god
Amuru is still a matter of debate. The pro-
nunciation ‘Martu’ is conventional, since the
32
writing ¢MaR-TU would also permit the pro-
nunciation *Mardu' or 'Gardu'. It is evident
from Old Assyrian theophoric personal
names that Sum Martu is equated at an early
stage with Akk Amurru (H. HIRSCH, Unter-
suchungen zur altassyrischen Religion [AfO
Beih. 13/14; Vienna 1961] 5). Though there
is no proof of a phonetic correspondence
between the two, some such correspondence
must be assumed as the basis for the
equation (cf. the unclarified relationship
between Kiengir and Sumeru, the Sumerian
resp. Akkadian designation for ‘Sumer’).
Sum ‘Maru’ and Akk ‘Amurru’ were pre-
sumably both attempts to render the un-
known vocable by which the Amorite
peoples designated themselves. Alongside
the writing qstAR-TU there is an alternative
orthography AN-AN-MAR-TU, perhaps to be
read as “[]-Amurrim, ‘god of Amurrum’ (see
EpzarD 1989:437 for a full discussion).
The name underscores the fact that the god
must be seen as the personification of the
Amorites.
Amurru was introduced into the Mesopot-
amian pantheon at a rather late stage, since
he was not included in the family of Enlil;
as a ‘novice’ he is presented as a son of An
and Ura’ (KLEIN 1997:104). Marnu has
many traits of a West-Semitic storm god
such as Hadad. According to a Sumerian
hymn, Amurru is a warrior god, strong as a
lion, equipped with bow and arrows, and
using storm and thunder as his weapons (A.
FALKENSTEIN, Sumerische Götterlieder, Vol.
| [Heidelberg 1959] 120-140). His role as a
storm god explains why one of the younger
god lists identifies Amurru as *Adad of the
inundation' (diSKuR 3á a-bu-be, CT 24 pl.
40:48). In addition, Amurru is known as the
'exorcist' (mussipu) of the gods; his curved
staff (gamlu) frees from punishment (patar
ennetti, Surpu VIII 41-47, cf. W. G. LAM-
BERT, Gam Sen not a weapon of war, NABU
1987/3 no. 92). A similar combination is
extant in the theology of ^Marduk. Accord-
ing to the Myth of Martu (also Known as the
Marriage of Martu) Amurru acquired
Adgarudu (others read Adnigkidu) as his
wife (for the Marriage of Martu see J. Bot-
AMURRU
TERO & S. N. KRAMER, Lorsque les dieux
faisaient l'homme [Pars 1989] 430-437; J.
KLEIN, Additional Notes to 'the Marriage of
Martu', Memorial Volume Kutscher [ed. A.
F. Rainey; Tel Aviv 1993] 93-106). Both
goddesses are little known. More common,
however, is the pairing of Amurru with the
West Semitic goddess Ashratu (—^Asherah;
cf. KLEIN 1997:10S; Kupper 1961:59).
According to his mythology, Amurru
inhabits the PA.DUN = hur-sag, literally “the
mountain”, actually a designation of the
steppe (CAVIGNEAUX 1987); Amurru is in-
deed the be! Sadé, ‘Lord of the mountain’
(AKKGE 54), as well as the bel séri, ‘Lord of
the steppe’ (C. B. F. WALKER, apud D. CoL-
LON, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals
in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals II,
Isin/Larsa and the Old Babylonian Periods
[London 1986] 96:140). He bears the epithet
“the -Shepherd who treads on the moun-
tains (i.e. the steppe)” (L. LEGRAIN, The
Culture of the Babylonians from their Seals
in the Collections of the Museum [PBS 14;
Philadelphia 1925] no. 342). The correspon-
dence between the god Amuru and the
Amorites is evident: since the latter have the
steppe as their original habitat, their god is
believed to dwell there as well. His behav-
iour typically reflects the characteristics of
Amorite nomads as perceived by civilized
Mesopotamians. According to a passage in
the Marriage of Martu, the god “dresses in
shcepskins [...], lives in a tent, at the mercy
of wind and rain, [...] does not offer
sacrifice [...]. He digs up truffles in the
steppe, but docs not know how to bow his
knee [i.e. he is not accustomed to sit down
for a meal (?)]. He eats raw meat. [n life he
has no house, in death he lies not buried in a
grave" (E. CHIERA, Sumerian Epics and
Myths [OIP 15; Chicago 1934] no. 58 iv 23-
29).
The earliest attestation to the cult of
Amurru dates from the late Sargonic Period.
His name is a frequent theophoric element
in personal names under the Third Dynasty
of Ur (H. LiMET, L'anthroponymie sumér-
ienne dans les documents de la Je dynastie
d'Ur [Paris 1968] 158). The god gained
33
prominence in the popular religion of the
Old and Middle Babylonian periods, as wit-
nessed by his frequent mention (often
alongside Ashratu) in legends of cylinder
seals (KUPPER 1961:57-60). In his capacity
as family god (‘god of the father’), Amurru
did on occasion receive letter prayers (AbB
12 no. 99). The cult of Amuru was not
limited to Mesopotamia proper. Also in such
‘peripheral’ places as Emar and Alalakh, the
god Amurru was known (note the harranu
ša d[A]murri, Emar no. 169:6', cf. J.-M.
DuRAND, RA 84 [1990] 66 for the correct
reading; a cylinder seal from Alalakh
depicts Amurru as a naked yong man. D.
CoLLoN, The Seal Impressions from Tell
Atchanah/Alalakh [AOAT 27; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1975] 73 no. 135).
III. Though the Amorites arc known in
the Hebrew Bible (as ha’éméri), the god
Amurru as such is not unambiguously at-
tested. The personal name Amraphel
CEN, Gen 14:1.9) might possibly be ana-
lyzed as *Amurru-ipul, but other etymol-
ogies have been proposed as well (note
especially Amar-pi-El, see Ges.!8 78; cf.
also the suggestion by M. C. Astour,
Amraphel, ABD 1 (1992) 217-218).
In spite of the absence of the theonym
Amurru in the Bible, the god nevertheless
plays a significant role in OT scholarship.
The reason for this is the interpretation of
Shadday (often occurring in the combination
El-shadday) as 'Mountaineer' or ‘the Moun-
tain One' (first proposed by W. F. Ar-
BRIGHT, The Names Shaddai and Abram,
JBL 54 [1935] 173-204, esp. 184). Various
authors consider this the Canaanite equiv-
alent of Amurmu’s epithet bél Sadé, ‘Lord of
the Mountain’; they draw the conclusion
that Shadday (or El-shadday) is to be ident-
ified with Amurtu (e.g. E. Burrows, The
Meaning of El Saddai, JTS 41 [1940] 152-
161; L. R. BAILEY, Israelite *£/ sadday and
Amorite Bél sadé, JBL 87 [1968] 434-438;
J. OUELLETTE, More on °E] Sadday and Bél
Sadé, JBL 88 [1969] 470-471; R. DE Vaux,
Histoire ancienne d'Israël des origines à
l'installation en Canaan [Paris 1971) 264;
Cross 1973:57; T. N. D. METTINGER, In
ANAKIM — ANAMMELECH
Search of God [Philadelphia 1988] 71).
Cross explains the combination El-shadday
by assuming that Amurm is the Amorite
name (or form) of El. He argues that El as
the divine warrior of important western
tribes or leagues was reintroduced into
Mesopotamia under the name Amuru
(1973:59). This theory, though speculative,
is not entirely without merit. The cuneiform
orthography AN-AN-MAR-TU could be read as
dEl-Amurrum, ‘the Amorite El’ (K. VAN
DER Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia,
Syria and Israel [Leiden 1996] 90). The pai-
ring of Amurm with Ashratu, moreover,
also suggests an underlying identification
with El (who is customarily associated with
Asherah in Ugaritic texts). The interpreta-
tion of Sadday as ‘the Mountain One’,
however, is far from certain. On the basis of
Ug Sd(y) and Heb fadeh, a meaning ‘of the
field' is much more plausible. The equation
of (El-)Shadday with Amurru must therefore
be regarded as unproven.
IV. Bibliography
A. CAVIGNEAUX, PA.DUN = hursag et le
dieu Amurru, NABU 1987/2 no. 26; F. M.
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic
(Cambridge, Mass. 1973] 56-59; *D. O.
EDZARD, Martu, RLA 7/5-6 (1989) 433-438;
J. KLEIN, The God Martu in Sumerian Lite-
rature, Sumerian Gods and Their Represen-
tations (CM 7; eds. I. L. Finkel & M. J.
Geller; Groningen 1997) 99-116; J.-R. Kup-
PER, Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps
des rois de Mari (Paris 1957) 245-247;
Kupper, L’iconographie du dieu Amurru
dans la glyptique de la l'* dynastie babylo-
nienne (Paris 1961).
K. VAN DER TOORN
ANAKIM > REPHAIM
ANAMMELECH 472
I. Anammelech is a god whom the
people of Sepharvaim, settled in Samaria by
the Assyrians, worshipped beside -+Adram-
melech, 2 Kgs 17:31. On Sepharvaim as a
West Semitic settlement in Babylonia, see
Adrammelech.
34
II. Many explain the divine name as a
combination of Babylonian Anu with West
Semitic melek, ‘Anu is king’ (Gray 1977:
596; cf. J. A. MontGomery & H. S. Geu-
MAN, Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951] 476; M.
Cocan & H. Tapmor, // Kings [AB 11;
New York 1988] 212). However, the ancient
Sumerian sky-god’s name is never written in
cuneiform with any hint of an initial gut-
tural, and where it occurs in Semitic tran-
scription it is written "n (J. A. FITZMYER &
S. A. KAUFMAN, An Aramaic Bibliography,
Part I: Old, Official and Biblical Aramaic
[Baltimore 1992] 170 seal no. 24, 52 Uruk
Bricks), so it is mistaken to seek it here (so
already A. SANDA, Die Bücher der Könige
[Münster 1912] 231-232). Thus there is no
evidence for syncretism of Babylonian Anu
with West Semitic Melek (= Athtar) here, as
Gray (1977) argued. Rather, the initial el-
ement of the name is the male counterpart
of the well-known West Semitic goddess
->Anat (‘nt), written *1 (so DRIVER 1958:19;
ZADOK 1976:117). Personal names from the
early second millennium BCE onwards incor-
porate the form (H. B. HurFMON, Amorite
Personal Names in the Mari Texts
[Baltimore 1965] 199; R. ZADOK, On West
Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean
and Achaemenian Periods [Jerusalem 1977]
39) yet the deity remains "an obscure
figure, known only from personal names”
(S. RIBICHINI & P. XELLA, SEL 8 (1991)
149-170, esp. 166). Alternatively, it is poss-
ible that Anammelech is an assimilation of
*Anat-Melech, a form comparable to Anat-
Yahu known from the Elephantine papyri.
III. No light can be shed on the cult of
this god and his fellow apart from the bibli-
cal narrator’s remark that the people
"burned their children in fire" to them. The
expression fárap (ba'e$), 'to burn (in/with
fire)’, has been interpreted as reflecting the
deuteronomistic polemics against foreign
deities (e.g. WEINFELD 1972). This view,
however, has been seriously challenged (e.g.
by KaisER 1976). The action then suggests
a relationship with the god -*Molech.
IV. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria. An His-
ANANKE
torical and Archaeological Study (SHANE
2: Leiden 1992) 99-102; G. R. DRIVER,
Geographical Problems, Er/sr 5 (1958) 16-
20; J. Gray, / and II Kings (OTL; London
19773); O. Kaiser, Der Erstgeborene deiner
Sohne sollst du mir geben, Denkender Glau-
be (FS C. H. Ratschow; ed. O. Kaiser;
Berlin & New York 1976) 24-48; M. WEIN-
FELD, The Worship of Molech and the
Queen of Heaven and its Background, UF 4
(1972) 133-154; R. Zapox, Geographical
and Onomastic Notes, JANES 8 (1976) 114-
126.
A. R. MILLARD
ANANKE ‘Avayxn
I. Anankė, ‘necessity, constraint’, pres-
ented as the personification of the inevitable
and inescapable, hence of the inexorable
Fate, plays an important role in Greek relig-
ious and philosophical literature (SCHRECK-
ENBERG 1964). The word occurs 43 times in
the LXX and 18 times in the NT with the
meanings ‘necessity, compulsion, obligation;
distress, suffering, calamity; inevitability’
(STROBEL 1980) but never as a personi-
fication of Fate.
II. Ananké is mentioned by Plato in the
myth of Er (Resp. 616c-617c) as the en-
throned governor of the cosmos and as the
mother of the Moirai, the goddesses of Fate,
and he presents her as more powerful even
than the gods (Leg. 818e; SCHRECKENBERG
1964:81-101). The great tragedians, too,
testify to her unrivalled power over all other
beings and her inexorable character
(Aeschylus, Prom. 515-520; Euripides, Or.
1330, Alc. 965, Hel. 514; cf. Sophocles, Ant.
944-954 and the scholion ad loc.), as did
already the Presocratic philosophers, es-
pecially Parmenides, in whose writings she
plays a role of paramount importance
together with -*Diké and Moira (-*Fortuna).
In Stoic fatalism Ananke became indistin-
guishable from Heimarmene. She figures in
(late?) Orphic mythology, e.g. as the mother
of Heimarmene and of the triad Aither,
~Chaos and Erebos (FautH 1975; but see
SCHRECKENBERG 1964:131-134 against the
35
theory of her Orphic origin); and Proclus
indicates that she played an important role
in the beliefs of several mystery religions in
late antiquity (Comm. in Remp. Il 344-5
KRoLL). In two Hermetic excerpts in Stoba-
eus the author discusses the mutual demar-
cation of the roles of ->Pronoia, Heimarme-
ne and Ananké (fr. XII in Anth. 1 5, 20. and
fr. XIV in Anth. 1 5, 16, with the comments
of A.-J. FEsrUGIERE & A. D. Nock, Corpus
Hermeticum Ml [Paris 1954] Ixxix-Ixxx).
Her role in the magical papyri as a ‘Zauber-
gottheit’ (ScHRECKENBERG 1964:139-145)
still needs further investigation; cf. also her
function in the Oracula Chaldaica and in
Gnostic sources (F. SIEGERT, Nag-Hammadi-
Register [Tübingen 1982] 211). The growing
‘popularity’ of Ananké in late antiquity is
certainly connected with the increasing
influence of astrology and its accompanying
fatalism. People often felt themselves
“dominated and crushed by blind forces that
dragged them on as irresistably as they kept
the celestial spheres in motion” (F.
CumonT, Oriental Religions in Roman
Paganism (New York 1911] 181; for the
astrological setting also Nitsson 1961:
506). Pausanias mentions a sanctuary of
Ananké and Bia (Force) in Corinth, "into
which it is not customary to enter" (Descrip-
tio Graeciae 1l 4,6; note the same combina-
tion of deities in the Gnostic NHC VII 61).
III. Although the personified Ananké
occurs neither in the Greek Bible nor in the
Jewish pseudepigrapha, there is an interest-
ing Jewish prayer in a Berlin magical papy-
tus (PGM I 197-222, with a parallel in PGM
IV 1167-1226) in which Adam prays to be
saved from the @pa aváyxng (221) As
PETERSON (1959:124) has demonstrated, this
must be interpreted in the light of an earlier
petition in the same prayer in which Adam
asks to be protected from the power of the
Saipwv aéptos and of eipappévn (for the
connection of ànp and Ananké sec Proclus,
Comm. in Remp. ll 109 KRoLL). This rather
syncretistic prayer depicts the situation of
Adam (= Man?) as one who is helplessly at
the mercy of Fate, over which only the God
of Israel can exercise power, a motif also
ANAT
adumbrated in other magical papyri.
IV. Bibliography
P. DRÄGER, Ananke, Der Neue Pauly I
(Stuttgart 1996) 653-654; W. FAuTH,
Ananké, KP I (München 1975) 332; *W.
GUNDEL, Beiträge zur Entwicklungsge-
schichte der Begriffe Ananké und Heimar-
mene (Giessen 1914); M. P. NILSSON,
Geschichte der griechischen Religion ll
(München 19612); E. PETERSON, Die Befrei-
ung Adams aus der avayxn, Frithkirche,
Judentum und Gnosis (Rome 1959) 107-
128; *H. SCHRECKENBERG, Ananké. Unter-
suchungen zur Geschichte des Wort-
gebrauchs (München 1964); E. SiMON,
LIMC 1.1 (1981) 757-758; A. STROBEL,
àváyxy etc., EWNT I (Stuttgart 1980) 185-
190.
P. W. VAN DER Horst
ANAT MY
I. The MT makes no direct reference to
the goddess Anat, though several scholars
have proposed interpretations and conjec-
tural emendations that would create refer-
ences or allusions to her in the biblical text.
As the MT stands, however, her name ap-
pears unequivocally only as a component of
one personal and one place name, Shamgar
ben Anat (Judg 3:31) and Beth Anat (Josh
19:38 and Judg 1:33) respectively. Her
name might also be evidenced in the place
names Anathoth and Beth Anot and the per-
sonal name Anathoth.
In Ugaritic Anat’s name is written ‘nt,
and in Akkadian (which cannot represent ‘)
it is written Hanat, Anat, and (once) Kanat.
Given the Hebrew spelling with ‘ayin, and
given that the Ugaritic alphabet included the
consonants g and A, it seems clear that the
first radical of her name goes back to proto-
Semitic *‘. In texts from Emar the name of
the goddess may be hidden behind the
Sumerogram SNIN.URTA (Na?’aMAaN 1990:
254),
There has been a great deal of specu-
lation concerning the etymology of the name
Anat, with no conclusive results. For collec-
tions of the various suggestions, which typi-
36
cally are based on scholars’ perceptions of
Anat’s character, see GRAY (1979:32] and n.
42), DEEM (1978:25-27 and notes), PARDEE
(1990:464-466) and SmitH (1995). Of these,
Kapelrud's proposal to understand Anat's
name in connection with the verb ‘dnd “to
sing" (1969:28: KB's ‘nh IV) can be dismis-
sed on the grounds that the first radical of
the Arabic cognate is g, and DEEM's sugge-
stion of a hypothetical root *‘nh "to make
love" lacks evidence. The most attractive
proposal is GRAY's suggestion to compare
Anat's name with Arabic ‘anwar “force, vio-
lence” (KB’s 'nh IL, *‘v). This accords
well with a primary feature of Anat's char-
acter, and dovetails with W. G. LAMBERT'S
(VTSup 40 [1986] 132) proposal to see an
etymological connection between Anat's
name and the Hanaeans (Ha-nu-ti; see Kup-
PER 1957:1 n. 1). The Hanaeans were an
Amorite/north-west Semitic group who are
referred to numerous times in the eighteenth
century BCE Mari archives. Also mentioned
numerous times in the archives is Sha-na-at,
and a place called Sha-na-atki or bit dha-na-
atki, which was located about 125 kilome-
ters downstream from Mari. While no text
explicitly calls the goddess Hanat goddess
of the Hanaeans, Lambert’s proposal seems
nevertheless attractive. However, it should
be noted that the city of Hanat was not loca-
ted in primarily Hanaean territory (M.
ANBAR, Les tribus amurrites de Mari (OBO
108; Gottingen 1991]).
II. The available evidence indicates that
Anat was originally a north-west Semitic
goddess. The main source of information
about her in this context is the Ugaritic cor-
pus of texts. The predominant view among
scholars is that the Ugaritic texts present
Anat as a "fertility goddess" who is the
consort of the god -*Baal. It is also often
stated that she is the mother of Baal's
offspring. Some scholars further allege that
the texts present her as acting like a prosti-
tute, either to entice Baal specifically, or in
her general conduct. Even when she is
described in what seems to be more respect-
ful terms as Baal's sacred bride, this carries
overtones of illegitimate sexuality because it
ANAT
implies cultic enactments of the so-called
sacred marriage, which is also referred to by
many scholars as ritual prostitution. For a
critique of the widely held scholarly
assumption that all ancient Near Eastern
goddesses are sexually active "fertility" god-
desses. see Hacketr (1989:65-76) and
WALLs (1992:13-75; for Anat in particular,
cf. AMiCO 1989:457-492). For a review and
evaluation of theevidence for the alleged prac-
tice of ritual prostitution in north-west Se-
mitic religion, see ODEN (The Bible Without
Theology (San Francisco 1987] 131-153).
The view that Anat is depicted in the
Ugaritic texts as a sexually active and poss-
ibly reproductive deity has been recently
challenged by Day (1991 and 1992) and
WALLS (1992), who argue that there is no
clear reference in the Ugaritic texts to Anat
engaging in sexual intercourse. Rather,
Anat's alleged sexual activity has, in some
cases, been entirely reconstructed in avail-
able lacunae, and hapax legomena and other
cryptic words and episodes have been
invested with appropriately supportive
meanings. The argument based on ident-
ifying Anat with cows that Baal has sex
with is demonstrably erroneous. In. KTU
1.10 ii:26-29 Anat is clearly distinguishable
from a cow that Baal presumably mates
with, as 1.10 iii:33-36 clearly announces the
birth of his bovine children. The heifer that
Baal mates with in KTU 1.5 v:18-22 is also
clearly not Anat, for Anat subsequently does
not know where Baal is, and her search
leads her to the place where he and the
heifer mated (1.5 vi:26-31). The fact that
Anat is both described and depicted as
horned is surely not a feature to be literally
understood and physically attributed to
female bovines, but rather is a symbol of
royal or divine authority. Anat's frequent
designation as the sister (ahr) of Baal is not
conclusive evidence of a sexual liason. Her
epithet ybmt limm has thus far defied
confident translation and hence cannot be
used as a basis for arguing that she is pro-
creative. KTU 1.3 iii:4-8 is most plausibly
interpreted as Anat singing about the mutual
attraction between Baal and Pidray, Tallay
37
and Arsay (N. WaLLs 1992:116-122). The
description of Anat as a wetnurse (ATU 1.15
1i:26-28) denotes her special associations
with warriors and with royalty (WALLS
1992:152-154; cf. Isa 49:23; 60:16) and
does not necessitate viewing her as procre-
ative (Dav 1992:190 n. 63). Arguments for
Anat's alleged procreativity that are based
on theophoric personal names evidenced at
Ugarit and elsewhere (c.g. EATON 1964:14),
such as a-na-ti-um-mi ("Anat is my mo-
ther") and bin-anat (“son of Anat” [both
names cited by GRÓNDAHL 1967:321]) can
be challenged by interpreting such kinship
names as metaphorically denoting status
relationships, and by viewing these names
alongside other names such as adanu-ummu
(“the Lord is mother"), *ttr-um ("Ashtar is
mother” [both names cited by GRÖNDAHL
1967:46]) and ha-mi-4Ha-na-at ("Anat is
my paternal uncle (?]" [H. HUFFMON, Amo-
rite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Bal-
timore 1965) 201) cf. Am). Finally, recent
advances in epigraphic analysis have confir-
med that KTU 1.96 does not mention Anat
(Lewis 1996:116-118) and hence the tablet
can no longer be used as evidence for
Anat's alleged sexual activity.
Anat is depicted in the Ugaritic mythol-
ogical texts as a volatile, independent, ado-
lescent warrior and hunter. Her epithet btlr
indicates that she is (as defined by her cul-
ture) a marriageable adolescent female, but
it is precisely because she “refuses to grow
up" and take her place in the adult, female
sphere of marriage and reproductivity that
she can remain active in the male spheres of
combat and hunting. As a warrior she van-
quishes both human (KTU 1.3 ii) and super-
natural (KTU 1.3 111:38-46) foes, employing
typical weapons of combat such as the bow
(ATU 1.3 ii:16) and sword (KTU 1.6 ii:31).
Her bloodthirsty nature is shockingly ex-
plicit in one well-known text (KTU 1.3 ii:3-
30) in which she is described as joyously
wading thigh-deep in the blood of slain war-
riors. She claims (KTU 1.3. iii:38-42; cf.
1.83 8-10) to have defeated Yamm/the twist-
ing -serpent (-*Sea, Leviathan), a con-
quest elsewhere attributed to Baal (KTU 1.2
ANAT
iv; 1.5 i:l-3) and a necessary step towards
Baal's aquisition of kingship. Though sup-
portive of Baal’s quest for a palace and
kingship in the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.3 v), her
interests and actions run contrary to Baal's
in the Aqhat Epic. In the Aghat Epic,
Aghat’s existence is attributed to Baal’s
petitioning —El on Danel's behalf for a
royal heir. Yet Anat resolves to murder
Aqhat in order to obtain his hunting bow,
which he has denied her partially on the
grounds that bows and hunting belong in the
male domain (KTU 1.17 vi:39-40; 1.18 iv;
Dav 1992:181-182). Vowing revenge for
Aqhat's refusal to give her his bow, Anat
storms off and threatens El with violence in
order to secure his support for her retali-
ation. She then feigns reconciliation with
Aghat, and possibly offers to teach him how
to hunt (KTU 1.18 i:24, 29; Day 1992:181-
182). When it becomes clear that Anat
intends to murder Aghat in order to obtain
his bow and arrows, the method she is
described as employing to achieve her pur-
pose clearly befits a huntress: she uses her
accomplice Yatpan like an eagle (nr), a
bird of prey used by hunters in the ancient
Near East, to attack and kill Aqhat, her
quarry (1.18 iv; cf. BARNerr 1978:29*
n.10). Two other texts also portray Anat as a
huntress. In KTU 1.22 i:11 birds are her
prey, and in KTU 1.114 22-23 she leaves
El's banquet to go hunting. In addition to
being a huntress, KTU 1.10 and 1.13 poss-
ibly portray Anat as a benefactress of ani-
mals (Day 1992:183-188).
Extrabiblically, and in addition to the
Ugaritic texts, the following evidence for
Anat on Syro-Palestinian soil has been ad-
duced. In a document from Hazor that W.
Hallo and H. Tadmor date to the 18th-16th
centuries BCE, the personal names "DUMU-
ha-nu-ta and ™Su-um-ha-nu-ta are explained
by HALLO & TADMOR as Anat names (A
Lawsuit From Hazor, /EJ 27 [1977] 1-11).
EA 170:43 mentions a person from Byblos
named Anati, and a Syrian ship captain
named bn ‘nt is mentioned in the time of
Ramesses I] (compare EATON 1964:28 with
BowMAN 1978:225). Several campaign
38
records from Egypt mention a Levantine
Beth Anat (BOWMAN 1978:210-212) and a
place named gqrt-‘nt also might be Levantine
(EATON 1964:31). A 13th c. Bce Egyptian
ostracon mentions a festival of Anat at Gaza
(B. GnpsELorr, Les Débuts du Culte de
Rechef en Égypte [Cairo 1942] 35-39), and a
stele depicting Anat was found in a temple
built by Ramesses HII at Beth Shan. Both
Gaza and Beth Shan were important Egypt-
ian military posts of the time. The Beth
Shan stele refers to Anat (spelled ‘nit, but
the final ¢ is simply a graphic marker of
feminine gender [personal communications,
T. O. LAMBDIN and J. F. BORGHOUTS]) as
"the —queen of heaven, the mistress of all
the gods” (A. Rowe, The Four Canaanite
Temples of Beth-Shan [Philadelphia 1940]
33) which echoes KTU 1.108 6-7, where she
is called “the mistress of kingship, the
mistress of dominion, the mistress of the
high heavens" (bit mlk blt drkt b'lt. $mm
rmm) and which is also consistent with 19th
Dynasty evidence from Egypt (see below).
An arrowhead that F. M. CRoss (1980:4 and
6-7) thinks belonged to the El-Khadr hoard
and dates ca. 1100 BCE is inscribed with the
personal name *bdlb't bn ‘nt. Commenting
on this arrowhead in light of other onomas-
tic evidence, including the Biqa‘ Dart, which
he reconstructs as containing the reading bn
bn 'n[t], Cross notes that the sumame Bin
‘Anat is associated with military families,
and that in this context “names bearing—as
an element—the epithet or proper name of
the war goddess were no doubt deemed
fitting if not phylactic” (Cross 1980:7). The
sumame bn ‘nt is also found on a Hebrew
seal of unknown provenance that N. AVIGAD
(Two Seals of Women and Other Hebrew
Seals, Erisr 20 [1989] 95 [Hebrew], 197*)
dates to the 8th-7th centuries BCE. Two 7th
c. BCE Esarhaddon treaties can be confident-
ly reconstructed in light of each other to
refer to a West Semitic deity $A-na-ti-Ba-a-
a-ti-DINGIR.MES, though scholars are di-
vided over whether the component A-na-ti
should be understood as the name Anat or
as a common noun (e.g. compare VAN DER
TooRN 1992:80-85 and nn. with OLYAN
ANAT
1987:170). BOWMAN (1978:247-248) at-
tributes to Gaza an inscribed situla of Prince
Psammetichus upon which there is a repre-
sentation of a goddess identified by the
inscription as Anat, "Lady of Heaven".
HvipBERG-HANSEN (1979:86) asserts. that
the situla dates from the time of Psammeti-
chus 1, following GRDSELOFrF (op. cit., 28),
who originally published the situla. Yet
there seems to be no evidence linking this
situla to Gaza, nor any confirmation that the
Psammetichus in question is Psammetichus
l. Indeed, J. LECLANT (1973:257 n. 37)
expresses doubts about the authenticity of
this situla (as well as about the uninscribed
frontispiece of U. Cassuto's The Goddess
Anath which, some scholars have argued,
depicts Anat as pregnant), based upon re-
peated documentational irregularities regard-
ing pieces in the Michaelides collection
(personal communication). Finally, numer-
ous scholars still follow W. F. ALBRIGHT
(1925:88-90) in understanding the divine
name Atta as the Aramaean equivalent of
Anat, and in understanding the divine name
—Atargatis as evidence that Anat and
-Astarte merged to become this single
deity. However, due to the general tendency
among many scholars of the Hebrew Bible
and the ancient Near East to presume that
goddesses are not clearly distinguishable
from one another in terms of their roles and
functions (HACKETT 1989:65-76), the valid-
ity of proposals to equate goddesses or to
see in a single divine name the blending of
goddesses needs critical reassessment on a
case by case basis. For Atta personal names
in Syria, see BOWMAN 1978:218-219.
Four Phoenician inscriptions from Ida-
lion, Cyprus, three of which were found in
the vicinity of the Athena/Anat temple,
mention Anat. Her name is written on an
equestrian blinder and on a spearhead (RES
1209a and 1210), thus attesting to her con-
tinued martial associations. O. Masson &
M. SzNYcER (Recherches sur les Phéniciens
à Chypre [Paris 1972] 110) date the blinder
to the 7th century BCE, and E. Puecn
(Remarques sur quelques inscriptions phéni-
ciennes de Chypre, Sem 29 [1979] 29) dates
the spearhead late fifth/early fourth c. BCE.
Both publications interpret these items as
votive. RES 453, found in the church of St.
George, reads [‘nt in a broken context and
her name is written on a piece of bronze (M.
OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, the Bible
and Homer [1893] pl. CXLI, no. 4). Also on
Cyprus, Anat is named in the Phoenician
portion of a bilingual text from Larnaka that
names ->Athena in the corresponding place
in the Greek portion of the inscription (C/S
95). Given Athena’s well-known martial
associations as well as her characterization
as a non-sexually active, non-reproductive
goddess, once again the Cypriot evidence is
consistent with the Ugaritic and other main-
land evidence. For Anat as a component of
Punic personal names, see F. L. BENZ (Per-
sonal Names in the Phoenician and Punic
Inscriptions {Rome 1972] 382) and
HviDBERG-HANSEN (1979:143 n. 328)
Contra OLvAN (1987:169) and ACKERMAN
(1992:19), the relative paucity of Phoenicio-
Punic Anat names should not be considered
an accurate indicator of Anat's waned popu-
larity or lack of importance in mythology in
the Phoenicio-Punic world. At Ugarit, where
she clearly plays a central role in the myth-
ology, her name seldom appears as a com-
ponent of personal names (GRONDAHL
. 1967:83). Note also that Olyan and Acker-
39
man neglect to cite the evidence from
Idalion mentioned above as well as much of
the first millennium Egyptian evidence cited
by Leclant and Bowman (see below) in their
discussions of first millennium data relevant
to Anat.
As stated in section one, Hanatv/Anat is
mentioned numerous times in the 18th c.
BCE Mari archives, as is a place called 4Ha-
na-at\i or Bit 4!/a-na-atki, an important city
in the extreme south-east of the territory
controlled by Mari. For example, ARM 26
1/1 no. 196 makes reference to an oracle of
dHanat conceming troops from Eshnunna
advancing towards her city (J.-M. DURAND,
ARM 26 1/1, 423 note e) and ARM 26 1/2
no. 507 mentions her temple, presumably in
the city of Hanat. ARM 21 no. 110 lists
offerings that Zimri-Lim took to Hanat for
ANAT
the goddess. The city is mentioned several
times in Assyrian and Babylonian campaign
annals (B. K. IsMRIL [sic, Ismail] et al.,
*Ana in the Cuneform [sic] Sources, Sumer
39 [1983] 191-194). A recently published
text (CAVIGNEAUX & ISMAIL 1990, text no.
17) indicates that HanaVAnat continued to
be an important deity in this city into the 8th
C. BCE. Indeed, in this eighth century text
she is called “the most exalted of the god-
desses, the strongest of the goddesses, the
greatest of the Igigi...whose valour among
the goddesses has no counterpart” (šá-qa-a-
at i-la-a-ti gaš-rat SES ,,.DAR™ GAL-ar di-
gig-gig-e ... ša i-na $EŠ4.DAR™®S la iš-šá-
an-na-nu qur-di-šu). For Anat and Atta
personal names in Mesopotamia, see EATON
(1964:20) and Bowmax (1978:205-208). D.
ARNAUD (Emar VI.3 no. 216) finds the PN
A-nat-um-mi at Emar.
Evidence for Anat in Egypt has been col-
lected by J. LECLANT (1973:253-258; add
the Memphite bowl published by D. B.
REDFORD in the same year [1973:36-49]),
whose article is a necessary corrective to
BowMAN's (1978:223-259) generally well-
informed discussion. The available evidence
indicates that Anat made her debut in Egypt
in conjunction with the Hyksos (for Sinai,
see M. DUKSTRA & I. BRiGGS, Proto-Sinaitic
Sinai 527- A Rejoinder, BN 40 [1987] 7-10),
and she continued to be worshipped in
Egypt into the Greek and Roman eras.
What follows is a selective rather than
comprehensive presentation of the Egyptian
cvidence. The inscriptions, stelae and statu-
ary of Ramesses II provide the earliest
sustained body of evidence for Anat in
Egypt (LECLANT 1973:253-254 and nn. 5-
15; BOWMAN 1978:225-234). Ramesses
regularly calls her the Mistress or Lady of
(the) Heaven(s) in the context of claiming
Anat’s support in battle and legitimation of
his right to ‘universal’ rule. It is in this con-
text that he claims a mother/son relationship
with her (cf. the royal ideology of Pss 2:7-9;
89:10-11.21-28; 110:3). Also in the context
of an assertion of Ramesses’ prowess in
battle he is called mhr of Anat, most likely
to be translated “suckling” on the basis of
40
an Egyptian etymology rather than “soldier”
on the basis of an Ugaritic etymology. He
had a hunting dog named “Anat is Protec-
tion” and a sword inscribed “Anat is Vic-
torious". In short, the picture that emerges is
remarkably consistent with what we know
of Anat from the Ugaritic texts. With regard
to Anat's alleged sexual activity and procre-
ativity, papyrus Chester Beatty VII can no
longer be rallied as evidence. Prior to its
collation with an unnumbered Turin papyrus
(A. Roccat, Une légende égyptienne
d'Anat, REg 24 [1972] 154-159) Anat's
name was read into the lacuna that named
—Seth's sexual partner. The Turin papyrus
demonstrates that it is The Seed, not Anat,
who copulates with Seth. Two other texts
(Chester Beatty I = The Contendings of Horus
and Seth and Harris Magical Papyrus III)
which are typically cited as evidence of
Anat’s sexual activity and procreativity are
amenable to other interpretations (WALLS
1992:145-146, 149-152). Even if it should
be undoubtedly established, however, that
Anat is portrayed as sexually active/repro-
ductive in Egyptian mythology, the Egyptian
evidence should not automatically be used
as a basis for reconstructing Anat’s persona
in northwest Semitic mythology (WALLS
1992:144-145). With regard to the conten-
tion that Anat and Astarte are not always
distinguished from one another, Anat and
Astarte are indeed sometimes paired in
Egyptian sources but perhaps this is because
both were originally foreign goddesses from
an Egyptian point of view, and so they
could both, under certain circumstances, sig-
nify similar things. For example, in magical
texts both are invoked as protection against
wild animals and to ward off demons, ‘logi-
cal' functions for goddesses who are at the
same time both familiar/assimilated into
Egyptian mythology and strange/of foreign
origin. This is not to say, however, that their
identities had been completely merged. To
my knowledge, for pre-Hellenistic times,
only the Winchester relief, which depicts a
single goddess but names three (Qudshu,
Astarte and Anat) provides possible evi-
dence for the actual merging of northwest
ANAT
Semitic goddesses in Egypt. According to I.
E. S. Epwarps (A Relief of Qudshu-
Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College
Collection, JNES 14 [1955] 49-51 and
pl.III), who originally published the relief, it
is of unknown provenance and peculiar in a
number of ways. His overall evaluation is
that the piece departs from strict convention
both representationally and textually, which
he interprets as an indication that "the piece
was the work of an artist who did not
belong to the orthodox school and who was
not completely familiar with the Egyptian
script" (ibid., 51). The present whereabouts
of the relief is, according to collection's
curator, apparently unknown (S. WIGGINS,
The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Ser-
pent Goddess, UF 23 [1991] 387). Finally,
mention should be made of evidence from
Aramaic texts in Egypt. The DN Anat may
be a component in two DNs at Elephantine,
‘ntyhw and ‘nibyrl. Again, scholars are di-
vided over whether to understand the com-
ponent ‘nr as Anat or as a common noun. If
it is indeed correct to read Anat as the initial
component of these names, it does not inevi-
tably follow that the names should be inter-
preted to mean “Anat (consort of) — Bethe!”
and "Anat (consort of) Yahu". Indeed, it
would be most odd to find a single goddess
sexually paired with two gods on a standard
basis at the same time in the same location.
Dupont-Sommer's decision to read "Baal,
spouse of Anat” in the last line of a stele of
unknown provenance (Une stéle araméenne
d'un prétre de Ba'al trouvée en Égypte,
Syria 33 [1956] 79-87) is largely based on
his understanding that Anat is represented as
Baal's wife at Ugarit and thus proceeds
from a debatable reading of the Ugaritic cvi-
dence with which 1 do not agree. S. ACKER-
MAN (1992:17-18) raises doubts about the
authenticity of an Aramaic inscription that
names a certain mi/?l as a priest of Anat.
The piece was in the Michaelides collection
(see above).
IH. The MT makes no direct reference to
the goddess Anat. However, proposals to
conjecturally emend two texts to include
mention of Anat have attracted serious
4]
scholarly attention, two additional texts have
been interpreted as referring to her by epi-
thet, and two more texts have been under-
stood to allude to her. In addition, one text
may make a veiled reference to the Anat
temple at Beth Shan.
Several scholars have maintained that
MT's ‘annét in Exod 32:18 either should be
conjecturally emended to read Anat or
makes an allusion to Anat. When explana-
tions for the appropriateness of such propo-
sals are offered, one is that the golden -*calf
constructed by the Israelites was a represen-
tation of Anat in bovine form, and another
(not necessarily separate) explanation is that
the licentious behaviour that the Israelites
were allegedly engaging in as part of their
celebration is consistent with Anat’s ‘na-
ture’. In response to the former, it has been
demonstrated above that there is no text that
portrays Anat in bovine form, and in any
event the calf in Exod 32 is ‘gi, “a young
bull”, and not a heifer (‘g/h). In response to
the latter, while there is ample evidence in
the Hebrew Bible of both the metaphorical
equation of non-Yahwistic worship and il-
licit sexual behaviour as well as the charac-
terization of non-Yahwistic worship as
including extraconjugal intercourse, there is
no evidence that licentious behaviour should
be associated with celebrations in honour of
Anat. Hence the plausibility of understand-
ing ‘anndt to mean “revelling” or the like
does not entail positing an allusion to Anat.
A number of scholars have recently put
forward arguments in support of emending
Hos 14:9b (English 14:8b) to refer to Anat
and —Asherah (or an 'ásérá ). The plausibil-
ity of the emendation is seen to be enhanced
by the discovery at Kuntillet Ajrud of an
inscription referring to Yahweh of Samaria
and his 'áXerá /Asherah. (For discussion of
the interpretation of the inscription, sec S.
OLYvAN, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in
Israel [Atlanta 1988] 23-34.) While this
inscription certainly advances our un-
derstanding of biblical references to Ashe-
rah's/her cult symbol's relationship to
Yahweh, it does not shed light on the al-
leged pairing of Anat and Asherah in Hos
ANAT
14, nor does it clarify in what sense Yahweh
allegedly affirms that he is Ephraim's Anat
and Asherah. lt is not a sufficient explana-
tion to say. as M. WrINFELD (1984:122)
does, that Anat and Asherah are similar in
character and that both are responsible for
'fertility', hence Hosea's alleged point is
that Yahweh is claiming the goddesses’
powers of fertility. In short, no convincing
argument has been made to support the pro-
posed emendation, and MT as it stands
makes good sense.
In his detailed discussion of Job 31:1, A.
CERESKO (1980:105-108) proposed under-
standing MT's bétülá as a reference to Anat
by the Hebrew equivalent of brlr, the epithet
frequently applied to Anat in the Ugaritic
texts (cf. M. PopE, Job [Garden City ?1973]
229). The form-critical and other issues
involved in determining the plausibility of
Ceresko’s suggestion within the broader
context of Job 29-3] are too complex to
present here: the interested reader should
consult the standard commentaries for dis-
cussion and bibliography. Broader issues
aside, the more conventional interpretation,
which draws attention to Sir 9:5, makes
plausible sense, while following Ceresko's
line of reasoning it is unclear why Job's
author would choose a veiled reference to
Anat to make the general point that Job has
not worshipped other gods.
Largely on the basis of Ugaritic and
Egyptian evidence that Anat was referred to
as the Mistress of the Heavens and like titles
(see above), several scholars have suggested
that the ~Queen of Heaven referred to in
Jer 7:18 and 44:17 is Anat. The issue of the
Queen of Heaven's identity has been treated
recently and in depth by S. OLYAN
(1988:161-174) and S. ACKERMAN (1992:5-
35). Although they do not reach the same
conclusion, their arguments militate against
secing Anat as Jeremiah’s Queen of Heaven.
Two proposals to see allusions to Anat in
the biblical text can be mentioned briefly. P.
G. CRAIGIE (Deborah and Anat: A Study of
Poetic Imagery (Judges 5), ZAW 90 [1978]
374-381) argued that five specific features
are shared by Anat and the biblical judge
42
Deborah. The features elicited are uncon-
vincing. A similarly unconvincing argument
to see an allusion to Anat in Cant 7 has
been made by M. Pore (Song of Songs
[Garden City 1977] 606). In light of the dis-
covery of an Anat temple at Beth Shan (see
section two, above) A. Rowe (The Four
Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan [Philadel-
phia 1940] 31) suggested that the Beth Shan
temple mentioned in 1 Sam 31:10 as the
place where the Philistines took the slain
Saul’s armour was the Anat temple. Though
Rowe arrived at this conclusion based in
part on the erroneous presupposition that
Anat and Ashtoreth were names of a single
goddess, the proposition differently argued
is a plausible one. The MT refers to the
place where Saul’s armour was deposited as
the bêt, "temple", of the 'ástárót, and other
references to *dstárót in the Deuteronomistic
history (Judg 2:13; 10:6; 1 Sam 7:3; 12:10)
make it clear that this plural form had the
generic meaning "goddesses" (cf. the con-
temporaneous Akkadian plural ištarātu,
"goddesses") Thus MT does not identify
the temple as belonging to Ashtoreth/
Astarte, but rather altogether avoids naming
any particular goddess by using the vague,
dismissive, and possibly inaccurate plural.
Given Anat's clear portrayal as a warrior
and a patron or guardian of warriors and
royalty in extrabiblical sources, and given
that we know she had a temple in Beth
Shan, it makes good sense to suggest that
the armour of a vanquished warrior-king
would be brought to her temple by the
grateful victors.
Aside from the possibility that Anat is
mentioned or alluded to in one or more of
the above texts, her name appears in the
Hebrew Bible as a component of the name
Shamgar ben Anat, a warrior reputed to
have slain with a mere oxgoad six hundred
Philistines (Judg 3:31; cf. SHUPAK 1989 and
sec also the El Khadr arrowhead and
Hebrew seal discussed in section two) and
in the place name Beth Anat (Josh 19:38;
Judg 1:33). It has also been argued that a
dialect variant of her name is found in the
place name vocalized in the MT as bêt
ANAT
*üánót. A. G. AuLD 1977:85-86 can be con-
sulted for references and a counter argu-
ment. For a discussion of whether the place
name Anathoth (e.g. Jer 1:1) and the per-
sonal name Anathoth (Neh 10:20; 1 Chr 7:8)
should be derived from the name Anat, see
BOWMAN 1978:209-210 and EATON 1964:
33.
IV. Bibliography
S. ACKERMAN, Under Every Green Tree.
Popular Religion in’ Sixth-Century Judah
(Adanta 1992) esp. 5-35: E. B. Amico, The
Status of Women at Ugarit (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation University of Wisconsin
1989) esp. 457-492: A. G. AULD, A Judean
Sanctuary of ‘Anat (Josh. 15:59)?, Tel Aviv
4 (1977) 85-86; R. D. Barnetr, The
Earliest Representation of ‘Anath, Er/sr 14
(1978) 28*-31*; C. H. BOWMAN, The God-
dess ‘Anane in the Ancient Near East (un-
published Ph.D. dissertation: Berkeley 1978)
[& lit; A. CaviGNEAUX & B. K. ISMAIL,
Die Statthalter von Suhu und Mari im 8. Jh.
v. Chr, BagM 21 (1990) 321-456; A. R.
CERESKO, Job 29-31 in the Light of North-
west Semitic (Rome 1980); I. CORNELIUS,
Anat and Qudshu as the «Mistress of Ani-
mals». Aspects of the Iconography of the
Canaanite Goddesses. SEL 10 (1993) 21-45:
F. M. Cross, Newly Found Inscriptions in
Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,
BASOR 238 (1980) 1-20; J. CROWLEY, The
Aegean and the East (Copenhagen 1989); P.
L. DAv. Why is Anat a Warrior and Hun-
ter?, The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis
(eds. D. Jobling et al.: Cleveland 1991) [&
lit.J; Day, Anat: Ugarit’s “Mistress of Ani-
mals”, JNES 51 (1992) 181-190 [& lit}; A.
DEEM, The Goddess Anath and Some Bibli-
cal Hebrew Cruces, JSS 23 (1978) 25-30;
M. DELcon. Une allusion à *Anath, déesse
guerriére en Ex 32:18?, JJS 33 (1982) 145-
160; A. W. EATON, The Goddess Anat: The
History of Her Cult, Her Mythology and
Her iconography (unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation; Yale 1964): R. M. Goop, Exodus
32:18, Love and Death in the Ancient Near
East (eds. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good; Guil-
ford 1987) 137-142 [& lit}; J. Gray, The
Blood Bath of the Goddess Anat in the Ras
43
Shamra Texts, UF 11 (1979) 315-324; F.
GrONDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte
aus Ugarit (Rome 1967); *J. HACKETT, Can
a Sexist Model Liberate Us? Ancient Near
Eastern ‘Fertitity’ Goddesses, Journal of
Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (1989) 65-76;
J.-G. HEINTZ, Une tradition occultée? La
déesse cananéenne ‘Anat et son 'aséráh [sic]
dans le livre du prophéte Osée (chap. 14, v.
9b). Ktema 11 (1986) 3-13; F. O. HVIDBERG-
Hansen, La déesse TNT (Copenhagen
1979); A. S. KAPELRUD, The Violent God-
dess: Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (Oslo
1969); J.-R. KUPPER, Les nomades en Méso-
potamie au temps des rois de Mari (Paris
1957); J. LECLANT, Anat, LdÁ 1 (1973) 253-
258 [& lit]; T. J. Lewis, The Disappearance
of the Goddess Anat: The 1995 West Semi-
tic Project on Ugaritic Epigraphy, BA 59
(1996) 115-121; O. Loretz, ‘Anat-Aschera
(Hos 14:9) und die Inschriften von Kuntillet
*Ajrud, SEL 6 (1989) 57-65; N. NA'AMAN,
On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the
Amama Letters. UF 22 (1990) 247-255; W.
L. MICHEL, “BTWLH, “Virgin” or “Virgin
(Anat)” in Job 31:12", Hebrew Studies 23
(1982) 59-66: S. M. OLYAN. Some Observa-
tions Concerning the Identity of the Queen
of Heaven, UF 19 (1987) 161-174; D. Par-
DEF, Ugaritic Proper Names, AfO 37 (1990)
390-513 (esp. 464-466) [& lit]: D. B. RED-
FORD, New Light on the Asiatic Campaign-
ing of Horemheb, BASOR 211 (1973) 36-49;
N. SuupPAK, New Light on Shamgar ben
‘Anath, Bibl 70 (1989) 517-525; M. S.
Smitn, Anat’s Warfare Cannibalism and the
West Semitic Ban, The Pitcher is Broken:
Memorial Essays for G. W. Ahlström (JSOT
Sup 190; eds. S. W. Holladay & L. K.
Handy: Sheffield 1995) 368-386; K. VAN
DER Toorn, Anat-Yahu, Some Other Dei-
ties, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39
(1992) 80-101; A. vaN SELMS, Judge Sham-
gar, VT 14 (1964) 294-309; *N. H. WALLS,
The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (Atlanta
1992) [& lit]; M. WEINFELD, Kuntillet *Aj-
rud [nscriptions and their Significance, SEL
| (1984) 121-130.
P. L. DAv
ANCIENT OF DAYS
ANCIENT OF DAYS
I. In a throne vision with mythological
traits, God is depicted as the ‘attig
yóminlyómayyd', traditionally rendered as
‘the Ancient of Days’ (Dan 7:9.13.22). The
expression is to be interpreted as a construct
chain expressing a genctivus partitivus. The
basic meaning of the common Semitic root
‘TQ is ‘to be advanced". The expression then
can be rendered as ‘advanced in days’ im-
plying that the deity was seen as one ‘far
gone in years’ or ‘ancient of days’. The
background of the imagery in Dan 7 has
been looked for in Canaanite mythology
(EMERTON 1958; CoLLiNs 1977; 1993); ina
Mesopotamian text (KVANVIG 1988); and in
contemporary Hellenistic/Egyptian mytho-
logical patterns (VAN HENTEN 1993). The
imagery of the Ancient of Days has influ-
enced the throne visions in / Enoch.
II. The struggle between Antiochus IV
Epiphanes//‘the —Sea' and the ‘one like a
—Son of Man' in Dan 7 has been inter-
preted as a late rewriting of the mythic
themes in the Ugaritic Baal-cycle in which
the younger god -*Baal enpowered by the
older >El defeats the inimical Yammu (Sea;
c.g. EMERTON 1958; COLLINS 1993). Al-
though this view does not go unchallenged
(Fercn 1980) and although it provokes
problems on the level of interpretation, it
must be conceded that in the Uganitic texts
El has some traits in common with the im-
agery of the ‘Ancient of Days’. El is de-
picted as venerably aged; the grey hair of
his beard (3br dqn) is referred to (KTU 1.3
v:2. 25; 1.4 v:4: 1.18 i:12 [restored]). More-
over, he receives the epithet ab Snm, ‘father
of the years’, by which he is portrayed as
the oldest among the gods. A proto-sinaitic
inscription has d tb, to be read as *zu
Siba(ti), ‘the grey(-haired) one’, as an epi-
thet of El, which is here probably a designa-
tion of >Ptah (M. Duxstra, Semitic Wor-
ship at Serabit el-Khadim (Sinai), ZAH 10
[1997] 92-93).
However, the rendition ‘father of the
years’ for ab $nm read as *abu šanima has
not remained unchallenged. This challenge
is provoked by two different features. 1) The
plural of the Ugaritic noun for ‘years’ is
normally construed in the feminine šnt and
not the masculine Sm, Therefore, scholars
have been arguing for different interpreta-
tions of the noun 3nm. J. REIDER (Etymol-
ogical Studies in Biblical Hebrew, VT 4
[1954] 283-284) and A. A. WIEDER (Three
Philological Notes, Bulletin of the Institute
of Jewish Studies 2 [1974] 108-109) pro-
posed a translation *—Exalted Ones'. M.
Pore (El in the Ugaritic Texts [VTSup 2;
Leiden 1955] 34-36) suggested 'Father of
the Eldest? which would indicate both the
high age and the consequent weakness of El.
2) §nm occurs as the second element in the
binomial deity Tkmn-w-Snm, ->Thukamuna-
wa--Shunama. H. GrsE (RAAM 97-98.
193-104), A. JiRKu ($num (Schunama), der
Sohn des Gottes "Il, ZAW 82 [1970] 278-
279) and C. H. Gorpon (El, Father of
Snm, JNES 35 [1976] 261-262; FERCH
1980:82-83) read the expression ab 3nm as
an epithet for El: ‘the father of Shunama'.
Besides, J. AISTLEITNER (WUS Nr. 312)
interprets šnm as “Die Bezeichnung der
hochgelegenen himmlischen Wohnung Els”.
These alternative interpretations, however,
are not convincing: 1) The epithet ab snm
occurs only in a formulaic sentence: “She/
He/They appeared in the encampment of El
and entered the camp of the King, the Father
of Years” (Baal-epic: KTU 1.1 iii:23-34; 1.2
v:6; 1.3 v:7-8; 1.4 iv:23-24; 1.5 vi:l-2; 1.6
1:35-36; Aghat: KTU 1.17 vi:48-49). 2) Al-
though §nm is the regular plural for the
feminine noun ‘year’, it should be noted that
other nouns have variant plural-forms; e.g.
ri§, ‘head is attested in the plural as rigt as
well as ri§m (COLLINS 1993:127n. 25). 3)
The deity Shunama occurs in Ugaritic texts
only together with Thukamuna (D. PARDEE,
Tukamuna wa Sunama, UF 20 [1988] 195-
199). Although Shunama, together with
Thukamuna, is presented as a son of El in
the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.65:1-4; 1.114) and
the deity Thukamuna-wa-Shanuma holds a
relatively prominent position in the Ugaritic
pantheon-lists (J. C. DE Moor, The Semitic
Pantheon of Ugarit, UF 2 [1970] 215-216) it
is not quite clear why the formulaic epithet
ANGEL I
ab §nm should refer to a deity not attested
on its own in the mythological texts.
KvaNviG (1988) has tried to relate el-
ements of the throne vision in Dan 7 with a
seventh century BCE Assyrian text: ‘The
Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince’
(SAA III, No. 32) in which 15 deities are
portrayed in hybrid forms. Although this
might give some religio-historical back-
ground to the vision of the four beasts, the
depiction of God as ‘ancient of days’ is not
elucidated by it, since in the Assyrian text
an expression or epithet parallel to ‘attig
yéminlyémayy@ cannot be found (COLLINS
1993:128-131).
Van HENTEN (1993) has related the im-
agery of Dan 7 with contemporary Hel-
lenistic-Egyptian material. He interprets the
‘eleventh horn’ as referring to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes and as a character framed on the
model of -*Seth-—Typhon. As regards the
designation ‘Ancient of Days’, VAN HENTEN
(1993:227-228) refers to the fact that Zeus
has been regarded as the “author of days
and years" and that >Thot was venerated as
“lord of time” and “lord of old age”.
III. In the designation ‘Ancient of Days’
two traits of Gods are interwoven. The con-
cept of God’s eternal existence (e.g. Ps 9:8;
29:10; 90:2; sec also -*El-olam) expressed
in epithets as "dbi 'àd, 'everlasting father’
(Isa 9:5) and melek ‘ôläm, ‘eternal king’ (Jer
10:10). The notion of God as an old man
popular in Hellenistic times (HARTMAN &
DI LELLA 1978:217-218) may have traces in
the OT (e.g. Job 36:26).
In the throne vision of Dan 7 the Ancient
of Days appears sitting at the head of the
divine —Council. From the continuation of
the vision it becomes clear that the Ancient
of Days is identical with Yahweh, the God
of Israel. He takes away the power from the
fourth beast and empowers the one like a
—Son of Man with 'dominion, glory and
kingdom' in order to rule righteously over
the Saints of the Most High.
The designation *Ancient of Days' has
influenced the imagery in the Similitudes of
I Enoch. In various throne visions, God is
depicted as ré’3a mawa‘él, ‘Head/Sum of
45
Days’ (J Enoch 46:1. 2; 47:3; 55:1; 60:2;
71:10-14) who likewise will empower the
forthcoming Son of Man with everlasting
rule.
IV. Bibliography
J. J. Cotuins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the
Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula 1977);
Co.uins, Stirring up the Sea. The religio-
historical Background of Daniel 7, The Book
of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (A.
S. van der Woude, ed.; BETL 106; Leuven
1993) 121-136; J. A. EMERTON, The Origin
of the Son of Man Imagery, JTS 9 (1958)
225-242; A. J. FERCH, Daniel 7 and Ugarit:
a Reconsideration, JBL 99 (1980) 75-86; L.
F. HARTMAN & A. A. DI LELLA, The Book
of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City 1978); J. W.
VAN HENTEN, Antiochus IV as a Typhonic
Figure in Daniel 7, The Book of Daniel in
the Light of New Findings (A. S. van der
Woude, ed.; BETL 106; Leuven 1993) 223-
243, H. KvanviG, Roots of Apocalyptic
(WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988); H.
SCHMOLDT, ‘tq, TWAT 6 (1987) 487-489.
B. BECKING
ANGEL I RN
I. The consonants L'K in the Semitic
languages signify ‘send’, with a more fo-
cused nuance in certain languages of
specifically ‘send with a commission/mess-
age’ (CUNCHILLOS 1982). The mém- prefix
and a-vowels of Heb mal’ak conform gen-
erally to what is expected for an instrumen-
tal noun (magqtal) identifying the vehicle or
tool by which the action of the verb is
accomplished (in this case, the means by
which a message is sent, hence 'messen-
ger). Because the verb is not attested in
Hebrew, some suspect that this noun is a
loan word from another language. However,
since the root is widely attested in the Sem-
itic languages, and since even the verb is
attested in north-west Semitic (Ugaritic), it
is best to see the Hebrew noun as a relic of
a once more generative root that otherwise
disappeared in Hebrew because of a seman-
tic overlap with a preferred and less specific
term SLH ‘send’.
ANGEL I
The Bible characteristically uses mal’ak
to designate a human messenger (e.g. 1 Sam
11:4; 1 Kgs 19:2). A smaller number of the
over 200 occurrences of the word in the OT
refer to. God's supernatural emissaries. As
God's envoys, they represent extensions of
God's authority and activity, beings "mighty
in strength, who perform His word" (Ps
103:20).
Supernatural messengers in other ancient
Near Eastern cultures typically arc identified
by the lexical item in that language also
used to identify human messengers or subor-
dinates sent on missions (Sum kin-gi,-a,
sukkal; Akk mar šipri; Eg wpwty; Ug glm,
mPak, Eth malak). There is therefore no
specially reserved term to distinguish a class
of such gods from other gods on the one
hand or from human messengers on the
other. This is in contrast to the English
‘angel’, which is just such a specialized
term qualitatively distinguishing God from
his assistants, and a term which cannot be
used of humans apart from metaphor (cf. the
Vulgate’s consistent use of angelus for di-
vine messengers in contrast to human mess-
engers identified by the noun nuntius). It is
possible that the proper name of one Meso-
potamian messenger deity (Malak, CT
XXIV 33.24-31) preserves the West Semitic
noun as a loan word in Akkadian.
IIl. The gods of the ancient Near East,
like humans, communicated with each other
over great distances by means of mess-
engers. They were neither omniscient nor
capable of immediately transporting them-
selves from one location to another. Al-
though the gods were privy to knowledge
largely unavailable to humans (cf. 2 Sam
14:20), they communicated and learned
information about events and the cosmos in
the same way humans did. Although many
aspects of human communication find their
counterpart in the divine realm, there are
nevertheless several discontinuities (for data
on generalizations below with respect to
human messenger activity see MEIER 1988).
Those gods who cluster near the upper
echelons of the pantheon typically dispatch
as their envoys a single messenger who is a
46
high official, often the sukkal in Mesopot-
amia (a Sumerian term that early on could
designate a position of intimacy and author-
ity second only to one’s lord or mistress).
Just as human messengers normally travelled
alone unless there were special circum-
stances, so in the Mesopotamian god lists,
there is a tendency to identify one specific
messenger (mār šipri) in the employ of a
god who needs such a figure. This reflects
the general pattem found in mythological
texts as well, where a god typically sends a
single, specific, lower-ranking messenger
god. Nuska and Kakka are messenger gods
who appear frequently in Mesopotamian
sources, serving different masters. One does
find exceptions where larger numbers of
messenger gods are in the employ of high
ranking gods (e.g. seven and even eighteen
messenger deities are attested for a single
god [CT XXIV 33.24-31]). The war or
storm god is unusual in typically dispatching
more than one messenger god on errands
(cf. GINZBERG 1944), perhaps safety or
strength in numbers being a concomitant of
his more belligerent profile.
The story of -*Nergal and Ereshkigal
suggests that a messenger deity might have
abilities or privileges unparalleled among
the other gods. In that account, the boundary
between the underworld and the upper realm
of the gods could be described as safely
bridged only by a messenger deity, as the
gods articulate: “We cannot descend to you
nor can you ascend to us” (Amarna version
lines 4-5; in the Sultantepe version, the
messengers bridge the distance by employ-
ing a stairway connecting the two realms;
cf. the rainbow as the path along which the
Greek divine female messenger Iris travels).
The perception of the privileged status of a
messenger god in bridging the gap is com-
parable to that of the Greek divine herald,
~ Hermes, who as the god of communica-
tion across boundaries is specifically asso-
ciated with the boundary between the living
and the -*dead.
Some features of human messenger activ-
ity are not duplicated in the divine realm.
The provision of escorts for human mess-
ANGEL I
engers was a common courtesy, if not a
necessity. for safe or trouble-free communi-
cation. Passports and the circumvention of
bureaucratic hurdles were persistent features
of human communication. Provision for
lodging and meals along an extended route
was a necessity. None of these aspects of
human communication reappears in depic-
tions of divine messenger activity.
HI. The translation of mal’ak by ‘angel’
in English Bibles obscures the ancient
Israelite perception of the divine realm.
Where English ‘angel’ is the undifferentiat-
ing term for all of God's supernatural assist-
ants, mal'àk originally could be applied only
to those assistants whom God dispatched on
missions as messengers. Thus, an carly
Israelite from the period of the monarchy
would probably not have identified the
theriomorphic -cherubim and -*seraphim as
mal'ákim ‘messengers’, for the frightful
appearance of these creatures made them
unlikely candidates to serve as -*'mediators
of God's message to humans (and indeed,
there is no record of their ever having done
so in the Old Testament). Even the Greek
word angelos meant at first simply ‘mess-
enger’ (Angel II). It is only in later texts
in the Old Testament, and everywhere in
Apocryphal and NT texts, that the words
mal'ák and angelos become generic terms
for any of God's supernatural assistants,
whether they functioned as messengers or
not. When English borrowed the term
"angel" from Greek, it was not in its carlier
sense ‘messenger’ but in its later
significance of any supernatural being under
God's authority.
Not all sections of the Bible describe di-
vine messengers. In the D and P sections of
the Pentateuch they are never mentioned,
nor do they appear in most of the pre-exilic
prophetic literature where prophets receive
their messages directly from God. In texts
where God speaks frequently and directly to
humans, there is of course less need for a
messenger to mediate God's message to
humans. A tension is evident in the Bible
between an earlier worldview evident in
some texts where God speaks freely and
47
comfortably with humans, while in other
later passages God prefers to send subordi-
nate emissarics to deal with humankind.
When God's messengers are portrayed in
Narratives as primary actors interacting with
other characters, they typically are presented
as individuals who work alone. The most
obvious example of this is the -angel of
Yahweh. Only occasionally are supernatural
messengers (mal’akim) identified in groups
of two or more in the OT. God is assumed
to have a numerous pool—at one place
described as a "camp" (Gen 32:2-3[1-2])—
of these figures at his behest who bless and
praise him (Pss 103:20; 148:2), employ a
ladder to travel between heaven and canh
(Gen 28:12), protect from physical harm the
traveller who trusts in God (Ps 91:11-12),
and are as swift and inscrutable in the per-
formance of their task as the wind (Ps
104:4; both the masculine nrhy and femi-
nine rw/rwt plural construct of this word for
"wind, spiri become very common designa-
tions for angels at Qumran). More than one
messenger may appear where Yahweh's
envoys enter hostile territory or confront ini-
mical humans (Gen 19:1-22; Ps 78:49).
A frequent role played by a messenger in
the ancient Near East was to act as an escort
to individuals who were travelling under the
protection of the sender. Similarly, a divine
messenger despatched by God accompanies
humans on their travels to protect them en
route in order to bring them safely to jour-
ney’s end and the accomplishment of their
tasks (Gen 24:7.40; Exod 14:19; 23:20-23;
32:34; 33:2; Tob 5:21), even providing food
and drink for the traveller (1 Kgs 19:5-6).
The later angelic protection of God's people
in any context can be perceived as an exten-
sion of this original messenger task (Dan
3:28; 6:23[22]: Bar 6:6 [2 Ep Jer 6]).
It is important to distinguish this protec-
tion en route from the custom of dispatching
messengers in advance of distinguished
travellers in order to inform their future
hosts of their soon arrival. The Mari ar-
chives in particular point to an elaborate
system of advance notification of arrivals
and departures of significant travellers with-
ANGEL I
in a kingdom’s territory. This aspect of
messenger activity is not reproduced fre-
quently in the divine realm, but it is found
in a highly charged eschatological context
that becomes the object of frequent attention
in Judaism and Christianity: God sends his
messenger in advance "to prepare a way
before me" (Mal 3:1; cf. David b. Kimchi).
The primary burden of the messenger in
the ancient Near East was not the verbatim
delivery of a memorized message but the
diplomatically nuanced explication of the
sendér's intent. It is appropriate, then, for a
supernatural messenger from God not only
to give messages from God to humans (1
Kgs"13:18; Zech 1:14), and even to other
divine messengers (Zech 2:7-8[1:3-4]), but
also to entertain questions from humans and
explain perplexing features of messages
from God (Zech 1:9; 2:2[1:19]; 4:1-6; 5:5-
11; 6:4-5). This interpretative and her-
meneutical role (the latter adjective derived
from Hermes, the Greek divine herald who
played a similar role) also accounts for the
mediatorial function that divine messengers
fulfilled in representing humans before God
(Job 33:23-24, Tob 12:15): in the same way
that human messengers completed their task
by bringing the response of the addressee
back to the sender, so God’s messengers
were responsible for bringing back and
explicating the response of the humans to
whom they were dispatched.
Human messengers were often respon-
sible for the collection of debts and fines,
and in general the satisfaction of outstanding
obligations owed to their senders. When an
obligation was not satisfied, appropriate
measures were taken to enforce payment
and punish the offender. God's supernatural
messengers can function in a similar capac-
ity, appearing in a combative and bellicose
role vis-à-vis those who resist or rebel
against God (Gen 32:25-29[24-28]; Hos
12:4; Ps 78:49; sce — Destroyer).
Messengers were typically given provi-
sions by the hosts to whom they were sent,
and indeed Genesis 18 depicts God's mess-
engers eating and drinking with humans.
But other traditions insist that this is only
48
apparent and not real (Pal. Tgs. Gen 18:8,
“It seemed to him as if they were eating"),
for divine messengers do not eat or drink
terrestrial fare ("I did not eat or drink, but
you saw a vision", Tob 12:19; cf. Judg
13:16; b. Yoma 75b). It is unconscionable
for a messenger to refuse a friendly host's
offer of food among humans, but the seem-
ingly brusk behaviour of God's messengers
in this regard may be tolerated in consider-
ation of the fact that the food they are
accustomed to is of a higher quality, more
like manna (Ps 78:25; Wis 16:20; 4 Ezra
1:19 see F. SiEGERT, Kónnen Engel essen?,
in his Drei hellenistisch-jildische Predigten
II [Tubingen 1992) 253-255).
A divine messenger dispatched by God
has considerable authority and is to be
obeyed as the representative of God that he
is (Exod 23:20-22). This should not be
taken, however, to imply that God's mess-
engers were cast of the same moral rectitude
and deserved the same trust as God himself.
As humans invariably had problems with the
veracity of their messengers, so divine mess-
engers could not always be trusted to tell the
truth or to reveal the entire purpose of their
errands. God does not trust his own mess-
engers (Job 4:18), and there are accounts of
prevaricating and misleading messengers
sent by God (1 Kgs 22:19-23; 2 Kgs 19:7;
cf. 1 Kgs 13:18). Even Paul anticipates this
possibility (Gal 1:8).
Divine messengers are usually depicted
as indistinguishable from human beings
(Heb 13:2; Gen 19:1-22; 32:25-31[24-30];
Dan 8:15; Tob 5:8.16; Luke 24:4; cf. Judg
13:3-23), while it is in the later books of the
OT that they are depicted in overwhelming-
ly supernatural terms (Dan 10:6). Therefore,
since humans could also be perceived as
messengers sent from God—notably
prophets (Hag 1:13), priests (Mal 2:7), and
kings (1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17.20; 19:
28[27])—the use of the same term mal’ak to
identify both human and supernatural mess-
engers results in some passages where it is
unclear which of the two is intended if no
further details are provided (Judg 2:1-5;
5:23; Mal 3:1; Eccl. 5:5).
ANGEL I
It is frequently asserted that messengers,
when delivering their messages, often did
not distinguish between themselves and the
one who sent them. lt is true that mess-
engers do speak in the first person as if they
were the sender of the message. but it is
crucial to note that such speech, in un-
equivocal messenger contexts, is always pre-
ceded by a prefatory comment along the
lines of “PN [the sender] said to you” after
which the message is provided; thus, a
messenger always clearly identifies the
words of the one who sent the message. A
messenger would subvert the communica-
tion process were he or she to fail to ident-
ify the one who sent the messenger on his or
her mission. In texts that are sufficiently
well preserved, there is never a question as
to who is speaking, whether it be the mess-
enger or the one who sent the messenger
(MEIER 1992).
There is therefore no evidence for the fre-
quently made assertion that messengers need
not make any distinction between them-
selves and the ones who sent them. In its
extreme form, this argument will even claim
that messengers could be called by the
names of the ones who sent them (cf. David
b. Kimchi on Zech 3:2). The only contexts
in biblical and ancient Near Eastern litera-
ture where no distinction seems to be made
between sender and messenger occur in the
case of the -*"angel (literally "messenger")
of Yahweh” (maľak YHWH). it is precisely
the lack of differentiation that occurs with
this figure, and this figure alone among
messengers, that raises the question as to
whether this is even a messenger of God at
all. Some see it as originally Yahweh him-
self, modified through the insertion of the
word maľäāk into the text in order to distan-
ce God from interacting with humans (possi-
ble motivations including a reticence to
associate God with certain activities, or a
developing tendency toward God’s transcen-
dence). It must be underscored that the
angel of YHWH in these perplexing biblical
narratives does not behave like any other
messenger known in the divine or human
realm. Although the term ‘messenger’ is
49
present, the narrative itself omits the indis-
pensable features of messenger activity and
presents instead the activities which one
associates with Yahweh or the other gods of
the ancient Near East. "We can, omitting the
word mal’ak, find in the J and E messenger
stories exactly the same motifs and the same
literary pattems as are common in all
ancient Near Eastem literature” pertaining to
the gods themselves, not their messengers
(Irvin 1978:103).
Some features of divine messenger activ-
ity elsewhere in the ancient Near East are
not duplicated in Isracl’s religion by the
very nature of Isracl’s monotheism. Enlil,
for example, sends his envoy Nuska to
negotiate a marriage for Enlil in the story of
Enlil and Sud, a task in which human mess-
engers are frequently attested (cf. Genesis
24). Since God has no spouse (apart from
his metaphorical bride Israel), he needs no
messengers to arrange his nuptials. The
angel who assists Tobit in overcoming the
dangers of his marriage is a completely dif-
ferent matter, a function of the envoy who
assists God's people in their endeavours
(Tob 6:15-17).
IV. In literature written after the Old
Testament, including the Apocrypha and
New Testament, the functions typical of
messengers continue to apply to what are
now better termed in English as “angels”.
Thus, angels continue to serve as protectors
to those who travel (T. Jud. 3:10), to relay
and interpret God's messages to humans (2
Bar 55:3-56:56), or to requite disobedience
to God (Acts 12:23). However, in this later
literature, which continues to use the same
messenger vocabulary (mal"àk, angelos), the
role of messenger per se becomes less
significant than the exalted, supernatural
status of the marvelous being who now
communicates God's message to humans.
As a result, there is usually no problem in
the later literature in distinguishing an angel
from a human being, for the former's ap-
pearance is often quite awe-inspiring and
frightening (e.g. Matt 28:3), and these later
angels are carefully categorized according to
an intricately complex hierarchy hardly
ANGEL II
detectable in the Old Testament. The reti-
cence in the Old Testament to provide di-
vine messengers with personal names is also
abandoned in post-biblical literature, which
even returns to the laconic biblical texts and
supplies them with the names they originally
lacked (e.g. Zagnugael in Tg. Ps.-J. Exod
3:2; see OLYAN 1993).
In Semitic texts, the word mal’ak, there-
fore, broadens its original significance of
“messenger” and tends to become the word
of choice to designate all supematural
beings who do God's work. If it applies to
supernatural creatures opposed to God, it
usually is qualified by an adjective such as
"evil". Mandacan gnostic texts are a note-
worthy exception, employing the word
mal'ák not to describe good angelic-type
beings (for which they instead employ the
term *uthra) but instead the genii of sorcery
or -*evil spirits.
V. Bibliography
H. BigrENHARD, Die Himmlische Welt im
Urchristentum und Spátjudentum (Tübingen
1951); P. Bonescii, Is malak an Arabic
Word?, JAOS 65 (1945) 107-111; J.-L. Cun-
CHILLOS, La'ika, mal'à et Melà'kàh en
sémitique nord-occidental, RSF 10 (1982)
153-160; H. L. GiNzBERG, Baal's Two
Messengers, BASOR 95 (1944) 25-30; D.
InviN, Mytharion. The Comparison of Tales
from the Old Testament and the Ancient
Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978); S.
Meter, The Messenger in the Ancient Semi-
tic World (HSM 45; Atlanta 1988); MEIER,
Speaking of Speaking. Marking Direct Dis-
course in the Hebrew Bible (Leiden 1992)
277-291; S. M. OLYAN, A Thousand Thou-
sands Served Him. Exegesis and the Naming
of Angels in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen
19935; A. Ror£, The Belief in Angels in
Ancient Israel (Jerusalem 1979); P. SCHAF-
ER, Rivalitdt zwischen Engeln und Men-
schen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen
Engelvorstellung (Studia Judaica 8; Berlin
1975).
S. A. MEIER
50
ANGEL II àyyeAoc
I. Angelos ("messenger Vg and VL
angelus) is in Greek, Early Jewish and
Christian literature the most common
designation of an otherworldly being who
mediates between —^God and humans. In
LXX the word is usually the translation of
maak. It occurs 175 times in NT (accord-
ing to the editions of Nestlc-Aland?$ and the
Greek New Testament, including Luke
22:43, which is often considered as a later
addition). It is used sometimes of human
messengers (e.g. Jdt 1:11; in the NT Luke
7:24; 9:52; Jas 2:25, and the OT quotation
referring to John the Baptist in Mark 1:2-3
and parallels). The most detailed ‘angel-
ology’ in the NT is found in Rev (67 occur-
rences of angelos).
II. Angels are self-evident figures in
Early Jewish and Christian literature, al-
though not all Jewish groups accepted their
existence (see Acts 23:8 concerning the Sad-
ducces). OT conceptions of the Mal’ak
Yhwh (-Angel of Yahweh) and the divine
-council underlie the early Jewish and
Christian ideas (MACH 1992), but pagan
influences should be taken into account too.
The etymology of angelos is not clear. The
word originated somehow from the East (cf.
&yyapog "mounted courier" in Persia). The
connection with Sanskrit ángiras is based on
the assumption that this name refers to
- mediators between gods and men and is
not certain (H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymo-
logisches Wörterbuch 1 [Heidelberg 1960]
7-8). To a certain extent angels could corre-
spond to the demons in Greek religion (cf.
Philo, Gigant. 6; 16; -*Demon). The Greeks
were familiar with messengers from the
gods since the archaic period, as appears
from the /liad and Odyssey where birds
bring divine messages to humans (il.
24:292, 315) and Hermes acts as the
angelos of the gods (Od. 5:29). For most of
the appearances and functions of angels
pagan parallels can be found, and in some
cases the absorption of pagan conceptions is
quite probable. This does apply already to
older ideas like the heavenly army of
YHWH (Josh 5:14, -*Yahweh zebaoth) and
ANGEL II
the ~sons of the gods (Béné élim/éléhim),
which have parallels in North West Semitic
mythology (MULLEN 1980); it is certainly
also true for the Hellenistic period with its
intensive cultural exchange. The traditions
concerning (mounted) angels in 2 Macca-
bees are connected with the common motif
of the epiphaneia of the patron god of the
temple (2 Macc 2:21; 3:24), who protects
his temple by causing natural phenomena or
by sending his messengers. In the descrip-
tion of the rescue of the sanctuary of Delphi
from the Gauls in 279 BCE by Pausanias the
heroes Hyperochus, Laodocus, Pyrrhus and
Phylacus appear in this role (10.23.1-2). The
angels who assist the Jews on the battlefield
(e.g. 2 Mace 10:29-31) correspond to pagan
supernatural helpers like the -Dioskouroi.
Compare also the guardian angels with cer-
tain Mesopotamian gods (A. FiNET 1989:37-
52), the fiery appearance of angels and di-
vine messengers in North West Semitic texts
(M. S. Smitu, Biblical and Canaanite Notes
to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice From
Qumran, RQ 12 [1985-1987] 585-588), and
angels as companions of the soul (psycho-
pompos) after death (e.g. T. Job 52; cf. Luke
16:22; sec Demon, and ->Hermes).
From the third century BCE onward the
appearances of angels increase, their mani-
festations are described more extensively
and their functions diverge more and more
(see for instance / Enoch, Tob, Dan, Jub., 2
Macc). This development should not be
explained by the coming into being of
apocalyptic literature only (cf. MICHL 1962:
64: “Dabei ist es die mit dem Buche Daniel
aufkommende Apokalyptik, die den frucht-
barsten Boden für diese Entwicklung bie-
tet"; also MAcH 1992:115), but also by the
assimilation of popular ideas (see e.g. Tob)
and the absorption of pagan conceptions,
(e.g. Jos. and As. and 2 Macc, MACH 1992:
242-249 and 265-278). In LXX ayyeAog-ot
can be an interpretative translation of
Hebrew or Aramaic expressions conceming
sons of God or members of the divine coun-
cil (e.g. LXX Job 2:1 for Béné 'élóhim;
LXX Dan 3:92 opoimpa ayyéAov @eov for
3:25 MT PONTIS 107; Theodotion dif-
51
ferently); LXX Dan 4:13.23 for Opi Ty
Dan 4:10.20 MT (-*Watcher). According to
Maci (1992:65-113) the translators tried to
avoid references to a (polytheistic) concep-
tion of scveral figures acting as gods/sons of
God and to relate certain actions which were
ascribed to God in MT rather to angels,
because it was not appropriate for God to do
these things (esp. LXX Job).
III. In Early Jewish and Christian litera-
ture thc angelic messenger of the Lord is
very common (angelos kyrioultheou). He
appears on earth (e.g. -*Gabricl in Luke 1-2)
or manifests himself in a dream (Matt 1:20;
2:13.19) to bring a message from God or to
help people (e.g. Acts 5:19). -*Raphael
accompanies Tobias (Tob 5:4-12:22) and
helps him to get rid of the demon who
caused the death of the earlier husbands of
his bride Sarah (8:2-3). As a consequence of
the fusion of the conceptions of the mess-
enger of the Lord and the divine council,
angels usually reside in heaven, i.e. near the
throne of God (Rev 5:2.11), where they
worship and praise him. The saying of
-»Jesus that the risen will live like angels in
heaven (Mark 12:25 and parallels) can be
connected to sources which refer to a
coming community of humans and angels or
a transformation to angels or stars (e.g. /
Enoch 39:4-5; 71:11; 104:6; 4 Ezra 7:85.
95; in Qumran texts a common worship by
humans and angels can be realized also in
the present). Angels move forward in the
air, but are rarely represented with wings (/
Enoch 61:1 according to some manuscripts).
The angel of the Lord transports Habakkuk
in one day from Judah to Babylon and back
by carrying him by his hair to bring Daniel
a meal in the lion-pit (Bel 33-39; cf. Ezek
8:3). Angels often resemble humans (Dan
8:15; 10:18; Jos. As. 14:3) and can have a
shining or fiery appearance (Dan 10:5-6).
Angels engage in a variety of activities.
They act as intermediaries for the revelation
of the ->Torah (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19), reveal
divine knowledge and explain revelations
(Zech 1:9; 4:5-6; Dan 8:16; 4QSerekh Shirot
*Olat ha-Shabbat [Newsom 1985]; -*Uriel
in 4 Ezra). The angel of the Lord gives the
ANGEL II
spirit of understanding to —Daniel (LXX
Sus 44-45). The angel of Jesus reveals to
John’s hearers his testimony for the
churches (Rev 22:16). The heavenly visitor
(7*Michael) mentions the angel Metanoia as
his sister to Asencth after her confession
(Jos. As. 15:7-8). Metanoia is a daughter of
the Most High (STROTMANN 1991) and will
intercede for Asencth and all who repent in
the name of the Most High (cf. Phanuel as
angel of repentance in / Enoch 40:9, and the
anonymous angel of repentance in Hermas,
Vis. 5:8; Clemens Alexandrinus, Quis dives
42:18; Test. Gad 5:7-8 and the personi-
fication of metanoia in pagan texts, e.g.
Tabula Cebetis 10-11). Angels bring death
to the enemy and godless people (-*Angel
of Yahweh) according to 2 Kgdms 19:35
(parallels Isa 37:36 and 2 Chr 32:21; remi-
niscences in 1 Macc 7:41; 2 Macc 15:22-23;
Sir 48:21; Josephus, Bell. 5:388; cf. Exod
12:23; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:12.15; Sus
55; 59 and LXX Sus 62; Acts 12:23 and
LXX Job 33:23 aggeloi thanatéphoroi
[GAMMIE 1985]). Similar functions are men-
tioned in an eschatological context: angels
are witnesses of the events on carth and
write down the acts of men in the heavenly
books (/ Enoch 89:62-64). They take part in
the final judgement, intercede on behalf of
the faithful, bring charges against the god-
less and execute the sentence (cf. the seven
angels with the final plagues in Rev 15-17;
21:9 and the angel of the abyss —Apollyón
or —^Abaddón in Rev 9:11: 20:1).
As far as names of angels are concerned
in biblical literature only, the names of
Gabriel (Dan 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:26),
Michael (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Rev 12:7),
Abaddóm/ Apollyón and Beliar (2 Cor 6:15;
Belial) occur. In Tob 5-12 Raphael
Azarias already appears. Several Jewish and
Christian extra-canonical writings contain
numerous names of angels (e.g. / Enoch
and Jub.; sce further Enoch for Metatron,
—Melchizedek and the overview by MICHL
1962:200-254; OLYAN 1993). Several cat-
egories of angels are (later) connected with
the heavenly court; some of them guard the
heavenly throne of God: -*Seraphim,
—>Cherubim, Ophannim, Zebaoth, Béné
Elohim, —>Saints and — Watchers, Further
groups of four, six or seven higher angels
(-*Archangel) occur. The angels of the
nations appear e.g. in 4QDeut 32:8-9 and
LXX Deut 32:8-9, Jub. 15:31-32, 7 Enoch
89:59; 90:22.25 and Dan 10:20-21; 12:1
(Michacl). Other groups of angels perform-
ing the same duty are the angels of death
and those who accompany the Son of Man
at his second coming (e.g. Matt 13:41;
16:27; 24:31 and 25:31 (cf. 2 Thess 1:7;
—Son of Man). ->Satan has his own angels
(cf. 2 Cor 12:7) waging war with Michael
and his angels (Rev 12:7). The fall from
heaven of Satan (-*Dragon) and his angels
in Rev 12:7-9 (cf. John 12:31), which causes
the suffering of the people of God in the
final period of history might be an adapta-
tion of the idea of the fall of certain angels
(^Giants) in primaeval time (Gen 6; /
Enoch 6-11).
IV. Bibliography
J. H. CHARLESWORTH, The Portrayal of the
Righteous as an Angel, Ideal Figures in
Ancient Judaism. Profiles and Paradigms
(SBLSCS 12; eds. J. J. Collins & G. W. E.
Nickelsburg; Chico 1980) 135-151; F.
CuMONT, Les anges du paganisme, RHR 72
(1915) 159-182; M. J. DAVIDSON, Angels at
Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch
1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from
Qumran (JSP SS 11; Sheffield 1992) [& lit];
J. DiLLoN & D. WiNsrON, Philo's Doctrine
of Angels, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexan-
dria. A Commentary on De Gigantibus and
Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis (BJS 25; Chico
1983) 197-205; A. FINET, Anges et démons.
Actes du Colloque de Liège et de Louvain-
La-Neuve 25-26 novembre 1987 (ed. J.
Ries; Louvain-La-Neuve 1989) 37-52; J. G.
GAMMIE, The Angelology and Demonology
in the Septuagint of the Book of Job, HUCA
56 (1985) 1-19; *M. MacH, Entwicklungs-
stadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vor-
rabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tübingen 1992)
[& lit; *J. Micur, Engel (I-IX), RAC 5
(Stuttgart 1962) 53-258; E. T. MULLEN, The
Divine Council in Canaanite and Early
Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico 1980);
52
ANGEL OF DEATH — ANGEL OF YAHWEH
C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice:
A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985),
esp. 23-38 and 77-78; Newsom, He Has
Established for Himself Priests:, Human and
Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath
Shirot, Archaeology and History in the
Dead Sea Scrolls (JSP SS 8; ed. L. H.
Schiffman; Shefficld 1990) 101-120; S. M.
OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him.
Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in
Ancient Judaism (Tübingen 1993); A. RoFE,
The Belief in Angels in Israel in the First
Temple Period in the Light of the Biblical
Traditions (Jerusalem 1969) [Hebrew]; C.
ROWLAND, The Open Heaven. A Study of
Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christian-
ity (London 1982) 78-123; C. ROWLAND, A
Man Clothed in Linen. Daniel 10.6ff. and
Jewish Angelology, JSNT 24 (1985) 99-110;
P. SCHÄFER, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und
Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbini-
schen Engelvorstellung (SJLA 8; Berlin/
New York 1975); E. Scuick. Die Botschaft
der Engel im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart
1940; Bascl? 1946); A. R. R. SHEPPARD,
Pagan Cults of Angels in Roman Asia
Minor, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981) 77-101;
A. SHINAN, The Angelology of the “Pales-
tinian" Targums on the Pentateuch, Sefarad
43 (1983) 181-198; A. STROTMANN, "Mein
Vater bist Du!" (Sir 51,10). Zur Bedeutung
der Vaterschaft Gottes in kanonischen und
nichtkanonischen — frühjüdischen Schriften
(Frankfurt 1991) 271-276; G. A. G.
STROUMSA, Another Seed: Studies in
Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden 1984);
D. W. Suter, Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest:
The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6-
16, HUCA 50 (1979) 115-135; M. ZIEGLER,
Engel und Dämon im Lichte der Bibel mit
EinschluB des ausserkanonischen Schrift-
tums (Zürich 1957).
J. W. vAN HENTEN
ANGEL OF DEATH ~> ANGEL
ANGEL OF YAHWEH nM GNUR
I. The word - ‘angel’ in this phrase is
literally ‘messenger’. The juxtaposition of
53
the common noun “messenger” with a
following divine name in a genitive con-
struction signifying a relationship of subor-
dination is attested elsewhere in the ancient
Near East (e.g. mlak ym, KTU 1.2; mdr Sipri
ša DN, cf. CAD M/1 265). However, most
of the appearances in the Bible of the phrase
maľak YHWH are not easily explicable by
recourse to Near Eastern paradigms, for the
maľak YHWH in the Bible presents a num-
ber of unique problems.
H. [t is typical for gods in the ancient
Near East to have at their disposal specific,
lower-ranking deities who do their bidding
in running errands and relaying messages.
These messenger deities function primarily
as links between gods and not between gods
and humans; when a major god wishes to
communicate with a human, he or she can
be expected to make a personal appearance.
When supernatural messengers are named at
Ugarit, those of -*Baal are characteristically
Gapnu (-Vinc) and Ugaru, while Qadish
and Amrar serve Athirat (—Asherah).
Papsukkal is a typical envoy of the high
gods in Sumerian texts, and in Akkadian
texts Kakka or Nuska is the messenger of
their choice. In Greece, -*Hermes is the
messenger and herald par excellence, with a
female counterpart in Iris. These deities all
behave in a fashion similar to their human
counterparts who function as messengers on
earth for all humans, from royalty to com-
moners.
It is precisely these features of ancient
Near Eastern messenger gods that make
analysis of the malak YHWH so vexing, for
these features do not always characterize the
latter. In contrast to the messenger deities of
the ancient Near East, the mal’ak YHWH is
never given a name in the OT, and he does
not always behave like a human messenger.
Because the OT is reluctant to provide
names for God's angels (angels arc given
proper names only in Daniel 8-12; cf. Gen
32:29; Judg 13:17-18), there is no onomastic
evidence from within the Bible to determine
if Yahweh, like other deities in the ancient
Near East, prefers dispatching a particular
supernatural being on missions. Further-
ANGEL OF YAHWEH
more, although in many early narratives
Yahweh himself appears to humans (just
like other ancient Near Eastern deities), in
later texts there is a marked preference for
Yahweh to send a messenger in his place.
HI. The phrase mal’ak YHWH (where
mal'ák is singular) is not uniformly distrib-
uted in the Bible. It can refer to a human
messenger sent by -*God (priest and prophet
respectively in Mal 2:7 and Hag 1:13; cf.
what may be a personal name “Malachi”
meaning “my messenger” in Mal 1:1; cf.
however, LXX Maìayiaç ‘Messenger of
Yahweh’). Elsewhere, the phrase is either
unclear or certainly supernatural in its orien-
tation. The single book with the most ap-
pearances of the phrase is Judges (2:1.4;
5:23; 6:11-22; 13:3-21). It appears in only
two psalms which are contiguous (34:8;
35:5.6), four contexts in the Pentateuch
(Gen 16:7-11; 22:11.15; Exod 3:2; Num
22:22-35), one passage in the books of
Samuel and Chronicles (2 Sam 24:16 // 1
Chr 21:12-30), and three contexts in the
books of Kings (1 Kgs 19:7; 2 Kgs 1:3.15;
19:35). In the prophets the single occurrence
in Isaiah (37:36) is a passage parallel to onc
already mentioned in 2 Kings (19:35), and
apart from a single reference in Hosea
(12:5) it is confined to Zechariah (Zech 1:11
bis; 3:1-6; 12:8).
Since the Hebrew definite article cannot
be employed in the construct when the
nomen rectum is a proper name, and since
not all construct phrases with a proper name
are to be construed as definite (ZBHS 13.4c;
HirTH 1975:25-26), a problem of specificity
` arises that can be seen by contrasting two
recent Bible translations: the New Jewish
Publication Society typically translates
maľak YHWH when it first appears in a nar-
rative as “an angel of the Lord” where the
New Revised Standard Version translates
“the angel of the Lord”. If the tatter transla-
tion is more accurate, then another problem
arises: is this figure a unique envoy who is
always sent by God, or can a number of dif-
ferent supernatural beings be dispatched as
“the angel of Yahweh”? In other words, is
the phrase “angel of Yahweh” a description
54
of an office held by different creatures, or is
the phrase a title borne by only one unique
figure?
Because Greek, like English, usually
must distinguish definite from indefinite in
genitive constructions (unlike Hebrew and
Latin), early evidence from Greek is invalu-
able in discerning how the Bible’s earliest
accessible interpreters understood the
phrase. The NT knows of no single “The
angel of the Lord/God", for the definite ar-
ticle never appears when a figure identified
by this phrase makes its first appearance—it
is always “an angel of the Lord" (Matt 1:20;
2:13.19; 28:2; Luke 1:11; 2:9; John 5:4;
Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3 [“of God"]; 12:7.23;
Gal 4:14). The Septuagint generally follows
suit in translating mal’ak YHWH in the OT,
although there are a few exceptional cases
where the definite article appears when the
figure first appears in a narrative (Num
22:23; Jud 5:23 [LXX cod. A]; 2 Sam
24:16; contrast the far more numerous cases
where LXX presents the figure as indefinite:
Gen 16:7; 22:11.15: Exod 3:2; 4:24 [LXX];
Judg 2:1; 5:23 [LXX cod. B]: 6:11.12 [LXX
Cod. A].22a22b [LXX Cod. B]: 13:3.6.16b.
21b: 2 Kgs 1:3.15; 19:35 [// Isa 37:36]; 1
Chr 21:12; Zech 3:1; 12:8).
Parallel passages within the MT support
the early perception of a figure which was
not definite: 2 Chr 32:21 rephrases the
"angel of Yahweh" of 2 Kgs 19:35 to read
simply “an angel". Even within a single pas-
sage, “an angel” (indefinite) will first be
introduced only later to be reidentified as
mal'ak YHWH (1 Kgs 19:5-7; | Chr 21:15-
16); this sequence confirms that the latter
phrase in these contexts means no more than
simply an angel of no particular significance
sent from Yahweh. Extra-biblical Jewish
literature presents the “angel of Yahweh” as
a designation applicable to any number of
different angels (STIER 1934:42-48). Other
early witnesses who are forced to make a
choice in this regard will be noted below,
and their overwhelming consensus is that
the phrase is to be translated as indefinite.
When one scrutinizes the OT itself, a
major obstacle for analysis lies in the many
ANGEL OF YAHWEH
passages that are textually problematic. Few
generalizations can be made about all the
passages, and each must be discussed on its
own terms. If one can trust the evidence of
early translations such as the LXX, Vulgate,
and Syriac, these translations presume a
Vorlage that is often at variance with the
Hebrew text in its description of this figure.
This obstacle seems to be related to a fur-
ther problem that resists an easy solution,
namely, the figure of the mal’ak YHWH is
often perplexingly and inconsistently ident-
ified with Yahweh himself. One or both of
these difficulties can be found in the follow-
ing ten passages: the phrase “messenger of
Yahweh” appears six times in Judg 6:11-23
to identify a figure who is also described as
a "messenger of God" (v 20) and as
Yahweh (vv 14.16). The LXX and Pscudo-
Philo (35:1-7) level all descriptions so that
everywhere he is called "messenger/angel of
Yahweh” (even in vv 14.16. 20). Josephus
recounts this event about “a spectre (phan-
tasmatos) in the form of a young man” (Ant.
V.213-14). The figure speaks but never
claims to have been sent from Yahweh nor
to be speaking words that another gave him.
At only one point does he possibly refer to
Yahweh as distinct from himself, but as a
grecting the statement may be purely con-
ventional (“Yahweh is with you”, v 12). He
seems to have sufficient authority in his own
right, never claiming it is grounded in an-
other: “Have not I sent you?” (v 14) and “I
will be with you" (v 16) are most comfort-
able as statements coming from God's
mouth, but the mal’ak speaks these himself.
He works wonders in touching meat with his
staff, causing it to be consumed with fire,
after which he vanishes (v 21). The final
reference to Yahweh who verbally comforts
Gideon after the disappearance of the mal’ak
is disorienting, for it raises the question why
the mal’ak was ever sent at all if Yahweh
can speak this easily to Gideon (v 23).
In Judg 13:3-23, the figure in question is
identified in the MT by a number of differ-
ent designations in the first part of the story
where he is “the man” (vv 10-11), “the man
of God" who seemed to be a mal’ak of God
55
(v 6) sent by YHWH (v 8), and who actual-
ly was a mal’ak of God (v 9). In the second
part of the story (as well as the very first
reference in the story) he is identified as
maľak YHWH (vv. 13.15.16bis.17.18.20.
21bis), until the final allusion where he is
called ?élóhím (v 22). The LXX once inserts
an additional reference to simply “the mess-
enger" (v 11). Josephus' summary of this
account (Ant. V.277-84) speaks of "a spectre
(phantasma), an angel of God in the like-
ness of a comely and tall youth”. Pseudo-
Philo 42:3-10 unambiguously portrays an
“angel of Yahweh” with the name Fadahel.
The mal’ak refuses an hospitable offer of
food, recommending instead that an offering
be made to Yahweh (v 16). This mal'ák
talks about God as someone distinct from
himself (v 5), but never refers to the fact
that he has been sent from God, nor that the
words he speaks come from God. Indeed, it
is not God's word that is to be heeded, but
“Let her take heed to all that I said” (v 13),
and “Take heed to all that I commanded
her” (v 14). He is reluctant to identify him-
self by name, describing his name as “full of
wonder” (v 18). It is not clear if it is Yah-
weh or the mal’ak who performed wonders
in v 19 while Manoah and his wife looked
on. The mal’ak ascends to heaven with the
flame from the sacrifice (v 20).
In Numbers 22:22-35, Yahweh himself is
active (opening a donkey’s mouth and
Balaam's eyes) in the midst of an extended
description of the malak YHWH'’s activity.
The versions are not in agreement as to how
to identify this figure: the Hebrew text pre-
sents the malak YHWH at work everywhere
(except of course for Yahweh's activity in
vv 28.31a); the LXX generally identifies this
figure as the messenger of "God" and not
Yahweh (with some exceptions and even
variations within the manuscript tradition);
the Vulgate mentions the "angel of the
Lord" only in v 22 and everywhere elsc
simply calls the figure an angelus or omits
reference to it entirely (vv 25.34). Josephus'
summary of the account (Amt. IV.108-111)
refers to it as “an angel of God” and a “di-
vine spirit” (theiou pneumatos) in contrast to
ANGEL OF YAHWEH
the LXX “the messenger of God” (v 23).
The narrative describes this mal’ak YHWH
as an adversary (§dfdn, vv 22.32), standing
in roads and vineyards (vv 22.23.24.26.31)
with drawn sword in hand (vv 23.1),
receiving homage from a human (v 31).
Balaam treats this mal"àk—and not God—as
the ultimate court of appeal ("If it is dis-
pleasing in your eyes”, v 34). The mal’ak
does not indicate that he has been sent by
God, for he speaks of himself as an indepen-
dent authority (“I came out as an adversary
because your way was contrary to me”, v
32; “I would have killed you”, v 33; “Only
the word I speak to you shall you speak”, v
35).
In Gen 16:7-13, all texts agree that a
figure identified as “messenger of Yahweh”
(vy 7.9.10.11) speaks (LXX adds a further
reference to this figure in v 8, while Vg
deletes its mention in vv 10-11). When it
first appears in Josephus (Ant. 1.189), it is
simply called “a messenger of Yahweh” (cf.
Jub. 17:11, "an angel of the Lord, onc of the
holy ones”). Only once does the mal’ak
seem to speak of Yahweh as someone dis-
tinct from himself (v 11), but he never inti-
mates that Yahweh sent him or that the
words he speaks come from Yahweh. In-
stead, the mal’ak speaks as if he were God:
“T will greatly multiply your descendants” (v
10). Even the narrator closes by noting that
it was Yahweh who spoke to Hagar,
prompting her to be surprised that she still
remained alive (v 13).
In Judg 2:1-4, where MT clearly has a
lacuna in the introduction, the phrase mal'ak
YHWH appears twice (vv 1.4). The words
spoken by the rmal'àk in the MT are entirely
in the first person as if God were speaking
("the land which I swore to your fathers").
But LXX Cod. B prefaces these words with
a citation formula ("Thus says the Lord,
‘the land which I swore...’”), while
LXXA modifies the person in the first half
of the speech without the citation formula
("the land which he [i.e., Yahweh] swore...").
The Targum interpreted this messenger as a
human prophet (for a similar interchange, cf.
apocryphal Ps 151:4 “his prophet" in 11 QPs^
56
which appears as “his aggelos” in Greek).
God's revelation to -^Moses at the bum-
ing bush (Exod 3:2-4:17) encompasses 38
verses in which Yahweh is explicitly and
repeatedly described as speaking with
Moses. But the entire account is made prob-
lematic when it is prefaced with the phrase,
"mal'ak YHWH appeared to him in a blazing
fire” (Exod 3:2), which is quoted in the NT
as an indefinite "an angel" with no reference
to "the Lord" (Acts 7:30; cf. vv 35.38). On
the other hand, the Vulgate simply reads,
"Yahweh appeared...." preserving no refer-
ence to a mal'àk (Josephus refers only to a
"voice" that speaks from the bush before
God is identified in Ant. 1I.264-2).
Although most versions present Yahweh
as the one who intends to kill Moses in
Exod 4:24 over the issue of circumcision,
the LXX identifies "an angel of the Lord" as
the aggressor (the Targums also insert the
word mal’ak, cf. b. Ned. 32a; Jub. 48:2-4
sees it as the wicked angel -*Mastemah; sce
— Destroyer).
Although God himself had earlier com-
manded -»Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen
22:1-2), in Gen 22:1 1-18 it is only a mal’ak
YHWH that speaks “from heaven” with
Abraham when the sacrifice is in progress
(vv 11.15). Jubilees calls it the "angel of the
presence". (mal'ak happánim; 18:9-11; cf.
2:1) and Demetrius the Chronographer spe-
aks simply of "an angel" (OTP 2.848), but
Josephus depicts only God speaking (Aut.
1.233-236) and Pseudo-Philo 32:4 talks of
God who "sent his voice". With the excep-
tion of a reference to God in the third pers-
on (v 12), the speech of the mal’ak sounds
like God talking: “You have not withheld
your son from me™ (v 12), “I will greatly
bless you" (v 17), “you obeyed my voice”
(v 17). Nowhere does this mal’ak indicate
that he was sent from God or that he speaks
these words at God's command. Although
the phrase "says (n&'üm) the Lord” is inser-
ted in the midst of the mal’ak’s speech at
one point (v 16), this phrase is found only
here in Genesis, and no other biblical mal’ak
YHWH ever employs it.
As Elijah flees from —>Jezebel in
ANGEL OF YAHWEH
Kings 19, he is twice provided in the MT by
a mal'ük with food and drink for his long
journey (vv 5.7). This mal’ak is called a
mal'ak YHWH only when it is mentioned on
the second occasion (some Vulgate MSS
also call the first. appearance a mal’ak
YHWH). In the LXX the first mention of the
mal'àk does not identify it as such, simply
saying "someone", while the second appear-
ance appears with the definite article.
Josephus never mentions a mal’ak in his
account (Ant. VITI.349), simply saying
"someone".
The phrase mal’ak YHWH appears three
times in Zechariah’s vision of the High
Priest Joshua in Zechariah 3. Joshua stands
before this angel (vv 1.5; cf. v 3) who
admonishes him with words prefaced by,
“Thus says Yahweh” (v 6), and who orders
bystanders to remove Joshua’s filthy gar-
ments (vv 5-6). Because Yahweh speaks
awkwardly in v 2, one should take seriously
the Syriac rendition of v 2 which includes
instead another reference to the figure: "and
the angel of the Lord said...."
In contrast to the ten preceding passages.
the following two passages present neither
textual problems nor internal conflicts in
identifying who is speaking: the words and
actions of the mal’ak YHWH present no con-
ceptual difficulties. Nevertheless, the texts
evince certain peculiarities that require
attention.
In 2 Kings l, a maľak YHWH (vv 3.15)
appears and twice gives orders to Elijah as
to what he is to say and do. Thus, Elijah
himself is to function as God's malàk
“messenger” in relaying a message from
God (“Thus says the Lord”, vv 4.6), but
Elijah does not receive the commission
directly from God. This fact is striking since
God elsewhere in the Elijah stories typically
speaks directly to this prophet (or the phrase
appears “the word of Yahweh came to
Elijah"). Josephus summarizes this account
without mentioning a mal’ak: it is God who
speaks (Ant. [X.20-21.26).
In the Song of Deborah, the sentence
appears, “‘Curse, Meroz,’ said the angel of
the Lord, ‘utterly curse its inhabitants’
57
(Judg 5:23). The sudden, unmotivated, and
unclear significance of a reference to malak
YHWH at this point prompts many to be
uncomfortable with the originality of the
phrase "said the angel of the Lord."
The following four passages pose no
problems in analysing the mal’ak YHWH,
for there is nothing inconsistent with this
being's function as a supernatural envoy
sent by Yahweh, and any textual variants
are not problematic. 2 Kgs 19:35 (2 Isa 37:
36; cf. 2 Chr 32:21) narrates tersely how a
mal’ak YHWH (LXX indefinite) “went out”
and destroyed Sennacherib’s army as it
besieged Jerusalem (-*Destroyer). When 2
Mace 15:22-23 records a later request by
second century BCE Jews to re-enact this
miracle for them, it is simply "an angel"
(indefinite) that they anticipate from God.
An “angel of Yahweh”, clearly distinct
from Yahweh, does not speak but does act
in accord with Yahweh's commands regard-
ing the devastation of David’s kingdom (2
Sam 24:16; cf. 1 Chr 21:12.15.16.18.30).
This creature is also described as “the
destroying angel”, the “smiting angel” and a
“destroying angel of Yahweh”.
In the only two psalms to mention mal’ak
YHWH, one of the benefits accruing to God-
fearers is that a maPak YHWH camps (HNH
participle) around them and delivers them
(Ps 34:8(7]). The phrase appears twice in
imprecations in Ps 35:5-6 summoning a
maľak YHWH to pursue relentlessly (DHH,
RDP) the enemies of the psalmist. LXX
treats all three as indefinite.
The last group of texts confirms that
Yahweh can, indeed, send out a supernatural
envoy to do his bidding, much like the
messengers sent out by other gods of the
ancient Near East. Unlike the other cultures.,
however, there is no firm evidence that
Yahweh had a panicular subordinate who
fulfilled this role.
The first group of ten texts, however, pre-
sents a different picture with their textual
variants and vacillating identifications of the
“angel of Yahweh” (distinct from Yahweh?
identical to Yahweh?). Among proposals
offered to explain the evidence, one finds
ANGEL OF YAHWEH
the angel of Yahweh in these passages inter-
preted as Yahweh in a theophany, the prein-
camate -*Christ, a means of crystallizing
into one figure the many revelatory forms of
an early polytheism, a hypostatization, a
supernatural envoy of Yahweh where the
confusion in identity results from messenger
activity that merges the personality or
speech of the messenger with the sender, or
an interpolation of the word mal’ak into the
text where originally it was simply Yahweh
speaking and at work.
The notion that the identity of messenger
and sender could be merged in the ancient
Near East is incorrect: any messenger who
failed to identify the one who sent him sub-
verted the entire communication process
(see -*Angel). On the other hand, those who
posit an identity (whether by theophany or
hypostatization) between Yahweh and the
mal'ak YHWH apart from this theory do not
do justice to the full significance of the term
mal'ak which must mean a subordinate (in
contrast to other later terms such as
-'Logos, Memra, Shekinah, Kabod, sec
-'Glory). The biblical poetic parallelism
Yahweh // mal’ak (Isa 63:9; Hos 12:4-5[3-
4]; Mal 3:1) does not justify the necessary
equation of the two terms any more than the
parallelism of Saul // David (1 Sam 18:7) or
heaven // earth (Deut 32:1) identifies the
respective elements. The identification of the
mal'ak YHWH with the preincarnate Christ
violates the original intent of the texts'
authors. Instead, the remarkable textual
instability in identifying the figure is best
resolved by the interpolation theory. es-
pecially since there are passages where the
interpolation is undeniable when it is not
found in all witnesses (e.g. Exod 4:24).
According to this theory, the figure is ident-
ified with Yahweh in some texts because it
was, in fact, Yahweh before the interpola-
tion of the word mal’ak. The behaviour of
the mal’ak YHWH in many of these disputed
passages is precisely that of a deity and not
a deity’s messenger (IRVIN 1978). The word
maak was inserted in certain contexts
because of theological discomfort with
Yahweh appearing as a Satan adversary
58
(Numbers 22), or in visible form or with the
actions of a man (Gen 16:13; Judges 6; 13;
cf. Gen 22:14), or in contexts where the
actual presence of God was otherwise theol-
ogically troublesome (Exod 4:24). In many
passages, inadequate data hinder confidence
in determining if the mal’ak YHWH is in
fact an envoy or an interpolation.
In the Apocrypha, Susanna provides fur-
ther evidence that there was a time when a
choice between either the activity of God or
an “angel of Yahweh” was a live option for
writers. The Theodotian text indicates that
“an angel of the Lord” gave a spirit of
-"wisdom to -*Daniel in contrast to the
LXX that specifies God as the source (v 45).
LXX texts picture Daniel twice referring to
"the angel of the Lord" who with his sword
will slay the wicked (vv 55.59); Theodotian
texts. here. preserve. instead. "an angel of
God" and "the angel of God" respectively.
Finally, LXX (not Theodotion) describes
“the angel of the Lord” casting fire upon the
two wicked men (v 62).
Elsewhere in the Apocrypha, there is
never any question of identifying the “angel
of Yahweh” with God, for the figure con-
sistently conforms to the pattern of a mess-
enger despatched by God (usually without
the definite article). Each time the figure is
mentioned in Bel and the Dragon (LXX and
Theodotion vv 34.36.39(LXX "of God"]).
he is transporting Habakkuk by his hair to
and from Babylon (no definite article when
first mentioned), and when the angel speaks
to Habakkuk, Theod prefaces its words with
"Thus says the Lord", omitted by the LXX.
In a prose interlude in the Song of the Three
Children, "an angel of the Lord" (LXX;
Theod "the angel of the Lord") descends to
join the youths in the furnace and to dissi-
pate the flames.
In the book of Tobit, no reference ap-
pears to an "angel of the Lord" until the
close of the book. In 12:22 -*Raphael, who
has been active throughout the book and
referred to elsewhere by the narrator simply
as “an angel” (5:4) and by other characters
as merely a "man" (5:8.16). ascends to God,
at which time the onlookers in 12:22 refer to
ANTHROPOS
him as “the angel of the Lord” (LXXBA;
LXXS "an angel of God"). Before he does
so, he identifies himself as one of the seven
holy angels who bring the prayers of God's
people into God's presence (12:15).
In conclusion, there is in the Bible no
single “The angel of Yahweh". The phrase
maak YHWH is better translated as “an
angel (or messenger) of Yahweh” when it
first appears in a narrative, for it represents
the appearance of an unspecified supernat-
ural envoy sent from Yahweh. In cases
where a simultaneous identity and discontin-
uity is uncomfortably present between
Yahweh and his messenger, the term mal’ak
is probably a secondary addition to the text
in response to changing theological perspec-
tives.
IV. The phrase mal’ak YHWH is not yet
attested in published, non-biblical materials
from Qumran, despite a sophisticated and
extensive angelology in these texts. This
omission correlates with the non-specificity
of the figure in early witnesses, for in spite
of the proliferation of details about angels in
extra- and post-biblical texts, the “angel of
Yahweh” receives in general no special
attention in Judaism. It is true that one may
trace in Jewish apocalyptic the development
of a single exalted angel that some have
tried to derive from the earlier mal’ak
YHWH (ROWLAND 1982:94-113), but the
connection between the two remains un-
demonstrated and the terminology is differ-
ent. Quite the contrary, a vigorous clement
in early Judaism resisted sectarians who be-
lieved that a certain principal angel was a
special -*mediator between God and man
(SEcAL 1977:70). Developing descriptions
about the highest-ranking angels tend to
avoid the phrase “angel of the Lord” in
favour of more elaborate titles. Extensive
gnostic speculations about demiurges and
the cosmic hierarchy likewise tend to by-
pass the nomenclature of the "angel of the
Lord", although the "Messenger" is a
significant divine emanation in some gnostic
traditions such as Manichaeism (cf. Samarit-
an gnosticism [Fossum 1985]).
V. Bibliography
J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord - Samaritan and Jewish
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985);
F. GuccisBERG, Die Gestalt des Mal’ak
Jahwe im Alten Testament (Dach 1979); V.
HırTH, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament
(Theologische Arbeiten 32; Berlin 1975); D.
Irvin, Mytharion. The Comparison of Tales
from the Old Testament and the Ancient
Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978); H.
RÖTTGER, Maľak Jahwe - Bote von Gott.
Die Vorstellung von Gottes Boten im hebrä-
ischen Alten Testament (Frankfurt 1978); C.
ROWLAND, The Open Heaven - A Study of
Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christian-
ity (London 1982); A. F. SEGAL, Two
Powers in Heaven - Early Rabbinic Reports
About Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden
1977); F. STER, Gott und sein Engel im
Alten Testament (Alttestamentliche Abhand-
lungen 12,2; Münster 1934).
S. A. MEIER
ANTHROPOS “Av@pwxos
Il. One designation, with or without
qualification, of the highest being in many
gnostic systems: quae est super omnia
virtus, et continet omnia, Anthropos vocatur
(Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.12.4). The name
draws attention to the direct or indirect link
between supreme divinity and humanity,
esp. the ‘unwavering race’, thanks to which
redemption from the world created by the
-*Archons is possible. The name Anthropos
signifies that -God is the prototype of Man
(anthropos), because man is made, directly
or indirectly, in his image. The Religions-
geschichtliche Schule and others claimed
that an. oriental. Urmensch-myth lay behind
the gnostic doctrine. This account has been
invoked to explain the Pauline passages (1
Cor 15:21-2, 45-49; Rom 5: 12-21) in which
Christ is compared and contrasted with the
first man, Adam. Neither of these views
has worn well.
II. There are two related types of
gnostic anthropological myth, both of which
draw upon a motif, an image reflected in
59
ANTHROPOS
water, that goes back to Satornil and thus
‘Samaritan’ gnosis (Irenaeus, Adv. haer.
1.24.1) (ScHENKE 1962:64-68). They share
the basic premise that (human) man is at
least potentially a higher being than the
demiurge of the world, who enviously with-
held this knowledge (the forbidden fruit of
Gen 2:16-17) from Adam. The simpler is
best exemplified by the long recension of
the Apocryphon of John (NHC 1.1, 14:13-
21:16). This envisages Adam's ‘choic’ or
material body as modelled by the Archons
of the demiurge directly upon a glimpsed
reflection of the image of the Perfect Man
(the highest god) (14:24-15:12). His psyche
is likewise created by the Archons; but his
divine pneuma derives from Sophia. Coming
directly from the world of light, it in fact
pre-exists choic and psychic bodies. The
second type, exemplified by the Naassene
exegesis (in the distorted and lacunate
account of Hippolytus Ref. haer. 5.7.3-9.9),
protects the transcendence of the highest
divinity by interpolating a hypostasis
between Anthropos and Man: the hypostasis
or -*image (eikón) supplies both the mode!
for physical man and the divine particle of
light. The Perfect Man, the Father of All,
Adam, produces a son ‘of the same sub-
stance’. The physical body of human Adam
made by the Archons of the demiurge Esal-
daios is (indirectly) modelled upon this son.
When the son, probably in the form of di-
vine light, descends to vivify the creature,
he is trapped: over the generations descend-
ing from Adam, the light is split up into
innumerable fragments, each of which may
retum to the Light World (FnickEL 1984:
263). This principle could be indefinitely
extended: any emanation from the Perfect
Man may be named Anthropos, even the
female Barbelo in Apocryphon of John,
because she is 'the image of the Father' (14:
23; cf. 5:7; 6:4). In Eugnostos, a series of
emanations from the First-Father, also called
Anthropos (NHC III.3, 77:14), is named in
turn First Man, Immortal Man, -*Son of
Man, -*Saviour (78:3; 85:10-14).
As a key gnostic motif, Anthropos has
figured in all accounts of the genesis or
60
proto-history of gnosticism. Older accounts
may be briefly summarized. W. BoussET
claimed that an ancient oriental myth, thc
creation of the world from the parts of a
sacrificial victim, the prototypical man, must
underlie the narratives of Poimandres 12-15
and several Christian accounts of gnostic
systems (Hauptprobleme der Gnosis [Gót-
tingen 1907, repr. 1973] 160-223). The best-
known of these myths, that of the Iranian
Gayómart, stimulated R. REITZENSTEIN in
turn to propose the existence of an Iranian
popular cult of a redeemed redeemer, which
ultimately inspired the gnostic myth as a
whole (e.g. Das iranische Erlósungsmysteri-
um, Bonn 1921). C. H. KRAELING attempted
to link Bousset's view to Jewish Messianism
(Anthropos and the Son of Man, New York
1927), G. WIDENGREN to find the redeemed
redeemer in carly Iranian texts (The great
Vohu Manah, Uppsala 1945). None of these
views survived the criticisms of COLPE
(1961:140-70; cf. 1969:411) and SCHENKE
(1962:69-114), though it was still possible
for RUDOLPH in 1964 to stress the supposed
Iranian antecedents of gnosticism. The deci-
sive considerations, as SCHENKE showed,
were the new texts from Nag Hammadi,
which provided far more reliable accounts
of gnostic Anthropos than had been avail-
able, and an appreciation of the character of
post-Biblical Jewish techniques of exegesis
(cf. TROGER 1980:155-168). There is simply
no evidence for the redeemed redeemer in
gnosis until Manicheism. The key texts that
inspire all gnostic anthropology are Gen
1:26-27; 2:7 & 2:21-24, together with the
post-Biblical Jewish exegeses of these pas-
sages (cf. QuispPEL 1953:215-217, 226;
PEARSON 1973:51-81; 1990). Certainly,
gnostic ‘systems’ are syncretic, but no pre-
cise antecedent of the basic macro-/micro-
cosmic scheme is required; and syncretism
is only one of the processes involved in the
elaboration of the complex gnostic scen-
arios. TARDIEU (1974) has provided a con-
vincing account of the varied sources of
inspiration, and the narrative logic, of one
such anthropology, in the Origin of the
World (NHC II.5). Iran, to say nothing of
ANTHROPOS
ancient oriental myths, has disappeared
totally from RUDOLPH’s most recent sum-
mary (1990:99-130).
III. Within NT studies, the authority of
R. BULTMANN, who tended to accept the
'oriental' origins of gnosis as a fact (e.g.
1964; 1984), caused it to be widely can-
vassed, and not only among his pupils (sec
e.g. J. JEREMIAS, s.v. Adam, TWNT | [1933]
142-143; H. SCHLIER, RAC 3 [1956] 437-
53), that the Christology of Pauline Chris-
tianity was significantly influenced by
"Urmensch und Erlóser', however they
came to be combined into an eschatological
Adam (cf. SiNN 1991). But the objections to
any direct relation between gnostic myth
and Pauline Christology are decisive
(SCHENKE 1973). Thus COLPE argued that
‘Son of Man’ has no genetic link with
Gnostic ideas (1969:414-418). The basic
premises of W. SCUMITHALS’ Die Gnosis in
Korinth 3 (1969) were undermined by
SCHENKE & FIscHER, Einleitung in die
Schriften des NT (Berlin 1978-1979) 1:103-
5. The contrast between pneumatikos and
psychikos in 1 Cor 14:44-46 derives from
Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom speculation, and
was thus freely available both to Gnostics
and to early Christians (PEARSON 1973).
The differences in the structure and meaning
of gnostic anthropology by contrast with the
Pauline scheme have been noted by FISCHER
1980:289-294.
Although the inverse assumption viz.,
that the Pauline Adam-Christ inverted
parallelism has Judaic sources, can also not
be conclusively demonstrated, there have
been adequate treatments of the Pauline
Adam-Christ typology which do not con-
cede even the limited gnostic influence
allowed by BRANDENBURGER (1962) or
SCHOTTROFF (1970). Corre (1969:475-477)
showed that I Cor 15:45-49 is an elabor-
ation through reduplicated antithesis of
15:21, and that no prior schema underlies
the passage. In Rom 5:12-21, which is de-
rivative from the Cor passage, an apoca-
lyptic notion, -*Jesus as the -*Son of Man,
has been recast into the prototype Man of
the resurrection, contrasted with the death
61
brought about by Adam. The origin of the
typology in Alexandrian wisdom speculation
was pointed out by SANDELIN (1976:91-
113), thus undermining Reitzenstein's view
of Philo Leg. Alleg. 1.31; the same scheme
lies behind Phil 2:6-9. BARRETT (1985) like-
wise analysed the role of exegesis of Gen 1-
2 in 1 Cor 15, but stressed the probable allu-
sion to the representative Man of Dan 7:13
and the implied rejection of Philo’s Plato-
nism in Leg Alleg. 1:31 (cf. LIETZMANN ad
1 Cor 15:45-49). FISCHER has urged that 1
Cor 15:45-49 is a unique melding of strands
of belief derived both from Jewish Apoca-
lyptic (4 Ezra, 2 Apoc. Bar.) and from gnos-
tic myth (1980:294-298), but that no coher-
ent gnostic doctrine inspired Paul negatively
or positively. The most recent discussions of
| Cor 15 draw on both CoLPE and BARRET
(WITHERINGTON 1992:184-193; 1994:308f.)
- the analogies Paul uses are merely partial
ones and not to be pressed. Attention has
switched to the construction of the rhetorical
argument as a whole in favour of the resur-
rection of the dead.
IV. Bibliography
F. ALTERMATH, Du corps psychique au
corps spirituel (Beitr. Gesch. bibl. Exeg. 18;
Tiibingen 1977); C. K. Barrett, The
Significance of the Adam-Christ Typology
for the Resurrection of the Dead, Résurrec-
tion du Christ et des chrétiens (ed. L. de
Lorenzi; Sér. monogr. Bénédict., sect. bibl.-
oec. 8; Rome 1985) 99-122; E. BRANDEN-
BURGER, Adam und Christus (WMANT 7;
Neukirchen 1962); R. BULTMANN, Adam
und Christus nach Rémer 5, Der alte und
der neue Mensch in der Theologie des
Paulus (Darmstadt 1964) 41-66, repr. from
ZNW 50 (1959) 145-65; BULTMANN, Theo-
logie des NT (Tübingen 19849) 166-186; C.
CoLPE, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule
(Göttingen 1961); CorrE, ó vidg tov
av@pojrov, TWNT 8 (1969) 403-481; K. M.
FISCHER, Adam und Christus, Altes
Testament - Frithjudentum - Gnosis (ed. K.
Tróger; Berlin 1980) 283-98; J. FRICKEL,
Hellenistische Erlósung in christlicher Deu-
tung: der gnostische Naassenerschrift (NHS
19; Leiden 1984) 259-269; B. A. PEARSON,
ANTICHRIST
The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in
1 Corinthians (SBLDS 12; Missoula 1973);
PEARSON, Gnosticism, Judaism and Egypt-
ian Christianity (Minneapolis 1990) 29-38;
G. QuisPEL, Der gnostische Anthropos und
die jüdische Tradition, ErJb 22 (1953) 195-
234; K. RUDOLPH, Stand und Aufgabe in
der Erforschung des Gnostizismus (1964),
repr. in Gnosis und Gnostizismus (ed. K.
Rudolph; Darmstadt 1975) 510-553:
RupoLPH, Die Gnosis (Góttingen 19903);
K-G. SANDELIN, Die Auseinandersetzung
mit der Weisheit in 1 Kor. 15 (Abo 1976);
H-M. ScHENKE, Der Gott ‘Mensch’ in der
Gnosis (Göttingen 1962); M. SCHENKE, Die
neutestamentliche Christologie und der
gnostische Erlöser, Gnosis und Neues Testa-
ment (ed. K. Tröger; Berlin 1973) 205-229;
L. ScHotrrorr, Der Glaubende und die
feindliche Welt (WMANT 37; Neukirchen
1970); G. SıNN, Christologie und Existenz:
Rudolf Bultmann’s Interpretation des pauli-
nischen Christuszeugnisses (TANZ 4;
Tübingen 1991); M. TARDIEU, Trois mythes
gnostiques (Paris 1974) 86-139; B. WrruE-
RINGTON III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the
World (Downer's Grove, Ill. 1992); WITHE-
RINGTON, Conflict and Community in
Corinth (Grand Rapids/Carlisle 1994).
R. L. GORDON
ANTICHRIST avtixptotos
]. The word antichristos is found only
in 1 John 2:18.22; 4:3; 2 John 7, and in
post-biblical Christian literature. Morpho-
logically the closest analogy is antitheos
which was in use since Homer (Od. 11:117;
13:378; 14:18). In Homer antitheos means
‘godlike’. In later times it comes to mean
‘contrary to God’ (for instance Philo,
Poster. 37:3; 123:4; Congr. 118:1; Fug.
140:3). The term antichristos is ambiguous
(‘opponent of —Christ’ or ‘false Christ’)
owing to the twofold meaning of anti in
composita: it can mean ‘against’ (anti-
stratégos: ‘the enemy’s general’, Thucy-
dides 7:86) or ‘instead of? (antipsychos:
‘something offered instead of one’s life’,
Dio Cassius 59:8; neuter in 4 Macc 6:29;
17:21).
62
In the Epistles of John antichristos is
used as a designation for the ultimate escha-
tological opponent of -*Jesus Christ. The
appearance of the anticliristos is expected to
precede the parousia of Christ. The author
of 1 and 2 John refers to this expectation as
an existing tradition (1 John 2:18: 'as you
have heard ...'), although the tradition of
Antichrist is not attested in its full form
before Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5:25-30). After
having referred to the tradition the author
uses the word antichristos to characterize
his opponents who as antichristoi deny
Christ (1 John 2:18—plural; 1 John 2:22; 2
John 7—singular). Their teaching is inspired
by the spirit of Antichrist, and presented by
the author as proof that Antichrist has al-
ready come (1 John 4:3). By interpreting the
conflict with those who deny Christ (1 John
2:22) by means of the expectation of Anti-
christ, the author of the Epistles of John
argues the neamess of the end (1 John
2:18).
Il. Neither the word antichristos nor a
Hebrew or other equivalent is used in any of
the versions of the OT or in extra-biblical
literature of the period. But although thc
word is not used before the Epistles of John,
the concept of eschatological opposition
reaching its climax in the appearance and
activity of a single person is already found
in some OT passages: Ezek 38-39 mentions
—Gog of -*Magog as Israel's final enemy
(cf. Rev 20:8); Dan 7-8.11 describes the
appearance of an evil tyrant who will act as
the final enemy of God and Israel. The tradi-
tion of an evil tyrant as the climax of escha-
tological evil should be understood as a
specification of the tradition of the escha-
tological enmity of the pagan peoples and
Israel (cf. Isa 5:25-30; 8:18-20; 10:5-7;
37:16-20; Nah 3:1-7; Joel 4; Zech 14). This
expectation of eschatological hostility
between Israel and the peoples is also
expressed in extra-biblical sources. Some-
times the hostility is thought to reach a cli-
max in the rise of an eschatological tyrant (7
En. 90:9-16; Ass. Mos. 8; 2 Apoc. Bar. 36-
40; 70; 4 Ezra 5:1-13; 12:29-33; 13:25-38).
Among the various passages of the Qumran
literature containing forms of eschatological
ANTICHRIST
dualism, the account of Melchizedek and
Melchiresha in 4Q280-282 and 4QAmram
takes a special place as an analogy: as in the
case of Christ and Antichrist the typology of
agent (= prototype) and opponent (= anti-
type) appears to have been constitutive.
There are a number of passages in the NT
that predict or record the appearance of
eschatological opponents without using the
word antichristos. In Mark 13:22 false
Christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets
(pseudoprophétai) are described as appear-
ing before the end (cf. v 6). They will de-
ceive people by doing signs and wonders
(cf. Matt 7:15; 24:11.23-24). Obviously, the
evangelist is referring here to people of his
own time. Some interpreters wrongly regard
the ‘desolating sacrilege’ of Mark 13:14 as
referring to Antichrist (see for instance J.
GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus
[EKK II/2; Neukirchen 1979] 195-196). As
there is no hint whatsoever in this direction,
the masculine participle /testékota should be
explained in a different way (for instance as
a reference to ‘the Roman’).
In 2 Thess 2:3-12 the coming of the
‘Lawless One’ is described as preceding the
parousia of Christ. This Lawless One will
act haughtily, and proclaim himself as a
god. He will act with the power of ->Satan,
and deceive people by doing signs and won-
ders. Ultimately, he will be vanquished by
Christ (v 8). Although the word antichristos
is not used, the Lawless One is often re-
garded as the earliest description of Anti-
christ. This interpretation is attested at least
since Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 11:8.7). Still it
should be noted that the Lawless One is
rather a future, eschatological ‘anti-God’
than an Antichrist (v 4).
In Revelation there are a number of
eschatological opponents. The most promi-
nent of these are the -*Dragon and the two
Beasts mentioned in chaps. 12-13; 16:13;
20:10. The Dragon is presented as "the Old
—Serpent", "Satan" (20:2) The second
Beast, the Beast from the Land (13:11-18),
is identified as "the false prophet" (16:13;
20:10). The first Beast is only spoken of as
"the Beast" (to thérion), and is also dc-
scribed without the Dragon and the second
63
Beast (11:7; chap. 17). This adversary is
often wrongly spoken of as Antichrist. With
the images of the Beasts the author of Rev-
elation is referring to the dangers of his own
time.
At least three different traditions form the
background of the tradition of Antichrist,
which is attested in its full form from
Irenaeus onward: that of Satan / Belial,
that of the coming of eschatological false
prophets (cf. MEEKS 1967), and that of the
final eschatological tyrant as described in
Daniel. Possibly, also the myth of Nero-
redivivus played a part. The old view of an
esoteric, pre-Christian tradition of Antichrist
(GuNKEL 1895; Bousset 1895; CHARLES
1920) was successfully refuted by ERNST
1967, Jenks 1991 and LiETAERT PEERBOLTE
1996. They rightly argued that the concept
of Antichrist is a Christian idea and that it
was not fully developed until the late 2nd
century CE. As a result, the various passages
before Irenaeus that describe eschatological
opponents should be regarded as witnesses
of separate traditions, not of one continuous
tradition. The agreement between these pas-
sages lies in the fact that they all reflect
upon events that were thought to precede the
parousia of Christ. Yet the ways in which
these events are described differ widely: in
the Epistles of John the tradition of Anti-
christ is used for the interpretation of the
conflict with the deniers of Christ. Thus the
nearness of the end is argued. In 2 Thess the
coming of the Lawless One is predicted in
order to justify that the end will not come
shortly. The images of the Beasts in Rev
describe the contemporary situation of per-
secution and argue that Christ will overcome
this situation of distress. And Mark 13:22
(and par.) speaks about false prophets and
false Christs as a standard feature of the last
days, but assuming that those last days had
already begun.
IJI. Of post- and extra-biblical literature
Did. 16 and Asc. Isa. 4 contain the earliest
and most extensive descriptions of an escha-
tological opponent of Christ. The word
‘Antichrist’ is used in neither of these
descriptions, however. It is mentioned for
the first time in post-biblical literature in
ANU — APHRODITE
Polycarpus’ Phil. 7:1, a reference to 1 John
4:2-3. Extensive speculations on the rise,
character, outlooks, etc., of Antichrist are
found in Christian literature from the latter
part of the second century onward: one
could mention Tertullian, Res. Car. xxiv:
60,24; xxvit: 64,26; 65,10; Adv. Marcionem
122,1; 118,2; v:16,4; Hippolytus, De Anti-
christo, passim; Comm. Dan. 1v:24,7-8 and
numerous other passages (sce JENKS
1991:27-116).
IV. Bibliography
O. Bécuer, Antichrist II, TRE 3 (Berlin,
New York 1978) 21-24; *W. Bousset, Der
Antichrist in der Uberlieferung des Juden-
tums, des Neuen Testaments und der frühen
Kirche (Göttingen 1895); R. E. Brown,
The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City,
New York 1982); *R. H. CHanLES, The
Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh 1920) II,
76-87; *J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen
Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen
Testaments (Regensburg 1967); M. FRIED-
LANDER, Der Antichrist in den vorchrist-
lichen jüdischen Quellen (Gottingen 1901);
K. Grayston, The Johannine Epistles,
(NCB; Grand Rapids / Basingstoke 1984)
76-82; H. GuNKEL, Schópfung und Chaos
in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen 1895); *G.
C. JENKS, The Origins and Early Develop-
ment of the Antichrist-Myth (BZNW 59;
Berlin & New York 1991); L. J. LIETAERT
PEERBOLTE, The Antecedents of Antichrist.
A Traditio-Historical Study on the Earliest
Christian Views of Eschatological Oppo-
nents (JSJS 49; Leiden, New York, Köln,
1996); E. LoHMEYER, Antichrist, RAC 1
(1941), 450-457; W. A. MEEKS, The Proph-
et-King. Moses Traditions and the Johanni-
ne Christology (Leiden 1967) 47-55; B.
RiGAUX, L'Antéchrist et l'opposition au
royaume messianique dans l'Ancien et le
Nouveau Testament (Gembloux 1932); G.
STRECKER, Die Johannesbriefe (KEK 14;
Góttingen 1989) 337-343; SrRECKER, Der
Antichrist. Zum religionsgeschichtlichen
Hintergrund von 1 Joh 2:18.22; 4:3 und 2
Joh 7, Text and Testimony (eds. T. Baarda,
A. Hilhorst, G. P. Luttikhuizen & A. S. van
der Woude; Kampen 1988) 247-254; R.
ScHNACKENBURG, Die Johannesbriefe
(HTKNT XH/3; Freiburg 1979) 145-149.
L. J. LIETAERT PEERBOLTE
ANU -* HEAVEN
APHRODITE "Aópoóitn
I. Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of
love whose sacred animal is the -*dove
(PIRENNE-DELFORGE 1994). The Greeks
derived her name from áópóg "foam", and
explained it from her birth myth (Hesiod
Theog. 191). Modern etymologies found no
general consent, be it the rare Indo-Euro-
paean ones or those deriving her name from
a Semitic language (BURKERT 1977:240
n.18). The goddess was identified with
several Oriental goddesses, from Egyptian
Nephthys to Phoenician -*Astarte, Assyrian
-]shtar and Arabian Alilat (Herodot. 3,8.
131; M. HórNER, WbMyth V1, 423; MORA
1985:86-90). The Romans identified her
with the Italian Venus (from *venus,
"beauty, grace"; ScHiLLING 1954), the
Etruscans with Turan (PFIFFIG 1975:260-
263). In the Bible, Aphrodite occurs only as
a theophoric element in the anthroponym
Epaphroditus (and its shortened form
Epaphras), e.g. Phil 2:25; Col 1:7.
II. Already in Homer, Aphrodite is the
goddess of sexual pleasure. In /liad 5,429
Zeus assigns her the erga gamoio; while
gamos stresses her social functions as the
divinity responsible for the sexual function-
ing of marriage, this does not exclude extra-
marital relationships, exemplified in her
patronship over Helen (/liad 3, 383-388) or
her relationship to Hephaestos her husband
and —>Ares her lover (Od. 8, 266-269); in
archaic poetry, she protects Sappho and her
girls (e.g. Sappho frg.1 L.-P.) and the love-
making of youth in general. This differen-
tiates her from -*Hera, who protects mar-
riage as a social institution but who, though
the legitimate wife of -*Zeus, needs the
assistance of Aphrodite in order to seduce
him (Homer Iliad 14, 187-196). Several
divinities who symbolize her powers consort
with her. Eros, “Love” as sexual passion,
and Himeros “Longing” accompany her
after her birth, when she enters the assembly
APHRODITE
of the gods (Hesiod Theog. 201); later, Eros
and Himeros - or his equivalent Pothos,
“Desire”, Aeschylus, Suppl. 1040 - are her
children (SHAPIRO 1993:110-124). The
Charites (“Graces”) accompany her (Hom.
Od.8, 364, see 18, 194 Charites himero-
entes), or the Horai, "Seasons, Youths,
Beauties" (Hom. hymn. 6, 5); other fol-
lowers are Harmonia (SHAPIRO 1993:95-
109) and Peitho, “Persuasion” (BUXTON
1983; SHAPIRO 1993:186-207), who is also
said to be her daughter (Aeschylus Suppl.
1040). Together, these personifications add
up to a picture of erotic seduction around
the goddess of love; the negative conse-
quences are expressed in a fragment from an
Orphic poem, where she is escorted by
Zelos, “Rivalry” and Apate, “Deceit” (Orph.
frg. 127 Kem; hellenistic?).
Since her main field of influence and
action is private rather than public, Aphro-
dite lacks important public festivals. The
Aphrodisia were mostly festivals of hetairai,
as in Athens (DEUBNER 1932:216) or in
Corinth, where /retairai and free women
celebrated the festival separately (Alexis ap.
Athenaeus 13,33, who attests to the drinking
and reveling [kóntos] of the hetairai).
Besides, Aphrodite is involved in the pre-
nuptial and nuptial rituals of the young girls.
Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 2) lists her among
the divinities necessary for the marrying
couple, Zeus Teleios and Hera Telcia,
Artemis, Aphrodite and Peitho. In some
places, she receives sacrifices from marrying
girls or remarrying widows (Hermione
Pausanias 2,34,12; Sparta ibid.3,12,8-9, see
also Naupactus ibid. 10,38,12); in the Hel-
lenistic age, Aphrodite Laodikeia, the divine
form of queen Laodike, received the
sacrifices from marrying couples (Annuario
della Scuola Archeologica di Atene 45/46
[1969] 445 no. 2). Sometimes, the ritual
background of girls' initiation rites is still
visible, as in Athens, where the Arrhephoroi
descend to the sanctuary of Aphrodite in the
Gardens, at the end of their year of service
on the Acropolis and before returning to a
life closer to adulthood (BRuLÉ 1987:83-
98). The same background lies behind the
cultic association of Aphrodite and
65
—Hermes which has been analyzed es-
pecially for Locri in Southern Italy (SouR-
VINOU-INWOOD 1991:177-178) and the well-
documented sanctuary of Hermes and
Aphrodite in Cretan Kato Syme (LEBESSI
1985).
As early as Sappho (frg. 140. 168 Lobel-
Page. see also Hes. frg. 139), the Adonia
attest another form of women's festival con-
nected with Aphrodite and her sphere. The
Athenian festival (DEUBNER 1932:220-222)
included the exposition of -*Adonis' body
and his burial (Plutarch Alcib.18,5), but also
drinking and dancing (Aristophanes Lys.
392-398); to the classical vase painters, its
most conspicuous ritual was the "Gardens of
Adonis", sherds planted with seeds which
were exposed on the roof-tops in order to
grow and wither rapidly (see also Plato
Phaedr. 276 B; BumKERT 1979:105-111);
the cult in Alexandria (well attested in
Theocritus, /d. 15), began with a hieros
gamos and banquet of Aphrodite and
Adonis, followed by the laments for Adonis
and his burial in the sea. The Semitic origin
of Adonis is evident already from his name
which probably derives from ’ddén, ‘“(My)
Lord". Frazerian interpretations had concen-
trated on Adonis the Dying God; social and
structural analysis rather underlines the re-
lease from intensive every-day pressure
which the festival with its blend of exotism,
sensual seduction and high emotions offered
to Greek women (DETIENNE 1972, who
emphasizes the structural opposition to
—Demeter, the other main goddess of
women). The ritual exposure of short-lived
gardens is not necessarily an original part of
the festival: it has parallels in many parts of
the Ancient and Modern East. Rather than
stressing the short life of the plants, recent
analysis focuses on the quick growth and
proposes to sec in it a ritual testing of seeds
(BAUDY 1986:9-13) which leads away from
Aphrodite's central concerns.
From the 4th cent. BCE onwards, Aphro-
dite's sexual aspects appear as two polar
oppositions, Aphrodite Urania and Aphro-
dite Pandemos. Plato, Symp.180 E (sec also
Xenophon Symp.8,9) contrasts them as ideal,
spiritual love among males versus ordinary
APHRODITE
heterosexual love and prostitution. He con-
nects this dichotomy with her double gen-
ealogy, the Hesiodean one which makes
Aphrodite the motherless result of Uranus’
castration (Theog. 188-195), and the Homer-
ic one where she is the offspring of Zeus
and Dione (/liad 5,370). Though very popu-
lar afterwards, this dichotomy radically
modifies the significance of the epithets
involved. Urania, an epithet already at the
root of the Hesiodic genealogy, continues a
Near Eastern epithet (see below), whereas
Pandemos, “She of the Entire Demos",
declares Aphrodite as responsible for politi-
cal harmony. She had an ancient sanctuary
in Athens and a state festival celebrated with
a procession (LSCG no. 39, from 287/286
BCE; it prescribes also a cathartic sacrifice of
a dove). Several epigraphical documents
attest also sacrifices by magistrates to
Aphrodite (SokoLowski 1964; CROISSANT
& SaLviAT 1966). In some instances, they
are the officials responsible for the women
(gynaikonomoi), and Aphrodite receives cult
as their helper. In other cases, the sacrifice
is offered at the end of service, to mark the
retum from duty to the pleasures of private
life.
A special problem is presented by the
statues of an armed Aphrodite which are at-
tested for Laconia (Aphrodite Areia, Paus-
anias 3,17,5; Enoplios /G 5:1 no. 602, Ky-
thera Paus. 3,23,1) and Corinth (Paus. 2,5,1)
(FLEMBERG 1991). Like the armed ->Athena,
the iconography must derive from the Near
East (see below). In a more functionalist
view, such statues are equivalent to stories
about fighting women; both point to an un-
usual ritual in the cult of Aphrodite (GRAF
1984).
Besides sexuality (especially female sex-
uality) and the state, Aphrodite is associated
with the -*sea. As patron goddess of sea-
faring, she bears the epithets Euploia (“Giv-
ing good sailing"), Pontia and Limenia; as
such, she receives sacrifices and votive gifts
from sailors and fishermen (Anth. Pal. 9,
143).
Aphrodite is among the few Greek divin-
ities not attested in the Linear B texts; this
66
makes it likely that she came to Greece only
after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization,
Her Near Eastern associations point to an
Oriental origin (BURKERT 1977:238-240),
even when etymologies (e.g. from —> Astarte)
may seem dubious. Sumerian Innana, Akkad-
ian Ishtar, Phoenician Astarte (already Hero-
dotus 1,105) all share significant characteris-
tics with Aphrodite: bisexuality (Aphroditos
on Cyprus Paion FGH 757 F 1: Macrobius,
Sat. 3,8), temple prostitution (in Corinth,
Pindar frg. 122; not in Locri, SoURvINOU
1991: 179), the epithet Urania (Assyrian
according to Pausanias 1,14,7), the associa-
tion with the sea and with the garden (Aph-
rodite in the Gardens in Athens), the icono-
graphy of a frontally naked goddess (BOHM
1990, AMMERMAN 1991) and of an armed
goddess (Cor.Bow 1991), the symbol of the
ladder (SERVAIS-SOYEZ 1983).
One of Aphrodite’s main cult centres was
Cyprus. Already in Homer (Od. 8,363),
Hesiod (Theog. 193) and the Homeric
Hymn. Ven. 58, Cyprus houses her main
sanctuary; Kypria (Cypria) is her standard
epithet throughout antiquity. In 333/332
BCE, the Athenians granted a lease of land
for the building of a sanctuary to Aphrodite
in Piraeus “on the same terms as for — Isis
to the Egyptians” (SOKOLOWSKI 1969, no.
37) to the merchants from Kition living in
Piracus: Aphrodite was their national divin-
ity. Her main Cypriot sanctuaries were at
Amathous and at Paphos. Both antedate the
advent of the Phoenicians in the 9th cent.;
Paphos goes back to the 12th cent. and pre-
serves a typically Mycenaean tripartite fa-
cade until late antiquity, according to local
coins. Paphos also included an oracle still
consulted by the young Titus in 79 CE (Taci-
tus, Hist. 2,1; Suetonius, Tit. 5,1). Perhaps,
the goddess even had the Mycenaean royal
title Vanassa, "Queen". These clear signs of
a Mycenaean past complicate the history of
Greek Aphrodite (there still is no solution)
without, however, radically jeopardizing the
theory of an Oriental origin.
Apart from this mainstream Oriental
model, Greek Aphrodite was associated with
the Anatolian Great Goddess, Cybele (~Ma-
APHRODITE
Cybele). Charon of Lampsacus, a local
writer of the 5th cent. BCE, identifies Aphro-
dite and Kubebe (FGH 262 F 5); the de-
scription of the goddess' appearance in the
Homeric Hymn. Ven. 68-72 as a mistress of
wild animals follows a pattern belonging to
the Great Goddess. The main myth of the
same hymn, however, the seduction of
Anchises which resulted both in the birth of
— Aeneas and the lameness of Anchises, fol-
lows a mythical theme attested both for
Cybele and for Innana-Ishtar, the love of the
goddess which destroys her mortal lover
(PiccALUGA 1974): the Anatolian Aphrodite
seems to combine features of different ori-
gin. The same holds true for the main polis
cult of Aphrodite in Asia Minor, the cult of
Aphrodisias in Caria (LAUMONIER 1958:
478-504, esp. 480-48 1).
Other cult centres were Cnidus on the
Anatolian west coast, the island of Kythera
off the south coast of the Peleponessus, and
Corinth. Cythera came second in importance
after Cyprus, Cytherea became a common
epithet. The sanctuary and its cult must have
retained oriental features, since Herodotus
called it a Phoenician foundation (1,105);
the statue was that of an armed goddess
(Pausanias 3,23,1). Cnidus had three sanctu-
aries, of Aphrodite Doritis, Akraia, and
Euploia, according to Pausanias (1.1.3); the
main sanctuary, of Aphrodite Euploia,
housed the famous statue by Praxiteles. The
sanctuary at Corinth ("Aphrodite's town",
Euripides, frg. 1084 Nauck) contained an-
other statue of an armed Aphrodite (Paus-
anias 2,5,1); it was famous for its sacred
prostitution (Pindar frg. 122). The sanctuary
on Mt. Eryx in Sicily, finally, started as a
purely Phoenician one, until its Roman-
ization after the First Punic War. The
Platonic transformation of Aphrodite Pan-
demos and Urania into opposing principles
of love was continued by the Neoplatonist
philosophers and enthusiastically received in
Florentine Neo-Platonism (WIND 1967:141-
151). The overtly sexual mythology of
Aphrodite on the other hand lent itself to
heavy Christian polemics, from her birth
from Uranus’ genitals over her different
67
affairs with gods and men (Ares, Kinyras,
Adonis, Anchises) to the Pygmalion myth.
III. The Bible does not mention Aphro-
dite, not even Acts, although Paul visited
Paphus (Acts 13:6) and Corinth (Acts 18:1-
17). two of her main cult places. Adonia are
attested for Antiochia in Syria, Byblus and
Alexandria, though without the gardens
(BAupv 1986:20); the expansion of his cult
in the ancient Near East might have in-
cluded Jerusalem and its womenfolk.
IV. Bibliography
R. M. AMMERMAN, The Naked Standing
Goddess. A Group of Archaic Terracotta
Figurines from Paestum, AJA 95 (1991)
203-230; G. J. BAUDY, Adonisgdrten. Stu-
dien zur antiken Samensymbolik (Frankfurt
1986); S. BöuM, Die “Nackte Göttin”. Zur
Ikonographie und Deutung unbekleideter
weiblicher Figuren in der frühgriechischen
Kunst (Mainz 1990); P. BRULÉ, La fille
d'Athènes. La religion des filles à Athènes à
l'époque classique. Mythes, cultes et société
(Paris 1987); W. BURKERT, Griechische
Religion der archaischen und klassischen
Epoche (RdM 15; Stuttgart 1977); BURKERT,
Structure and History in Greek Mythology
and Ritual (Sather Classical Lectures 47:
Berkeley 1979); R. G. A. BUXTON, Persua-
sion in Greek Tragedy. A Study of Peitho
(Cambridge 1983). G. CoLBow, Die kriege-
rische [Star. Zu den Erscheinungsformen
bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte
des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends
(Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 12;
Munich 1991); F. Croissant & F. SALVIAT,
Aphrodite gardienne des magistrats, BCH 90
(1966) 460-471; M. DETIENNE, Les jardins
d'Adonis. La mythologie des aromates en
Grèce (Paris 1972); L. DEUBNER, Attische
Feste (Berlin 1932); L. R. FARNELL, The
Cults of the Greek States, vol. 2 (Oxford
1896) 618-761; J. FLEMBERG, Venus Arma-
ta. Studien zur bewaffneten Aphrodite in der
griechisch-rümischen Kunst (Stockholm-
Goteborg 1991); F. Grar, Women, War,
and Warlike Divinities, ZPE 55 (1984) 245-
254; A. LAUMONIER, Les cultes indigenes en
Carie (Paris 1958); A. LEBESSI, To iero tou
Ermi kai tis Aphroditis sti Symi Viannou,
APIS
vol. | (Athens 1985): F. Mora, Religione e
religioni nelle storie di Erodoto (Milan
1985); V. PIRENNE-DELFORGE, L’Aphrodite
grecque. Contribution à l'étude de ses cultes
et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon
archalque et classique (Liége 1994); A. J.
PrirFiG,. Religio Etrusca (Graz 1975); G.
PICCALUGA, La ventura di amare una
divinità, Minutal (Rome 1974) 9-35; R.
SCHILLING, La religion romaine de Vénus
(Paris 1954, repr. 1982); B. Servais-Sovez,
Aphrodite Ouranie et le symbolisme de
l'échelle. Un message venu d'Orient, Le
mythe, son langage et son message. Actes du
colloque de Liége et Louvain-la-Neuve 1981
(ed. H. Limet & J. Ries; Louvain-la-Neuve
1983) 191-208; H. A. SHAPIRO, Personi-
fications in Greek Art. The Representation
of Abstract Concepts 600-400 B.C. (Kilch-
berg 1993); F. SoKoLowski, Aphrodite as
Guardian of Greek Magistrates, HTR 57
(1964) 1-8; C. SounviNou-INwoop, 'Read-
ing' Greek Culture (Oxford 1991); M. L.
WEST, The Orphic Poems (Oxford 1983); E.
WIND, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance
(Harmondsworth 1967).
F. GRAF
APIS 7j
I. Apis, the sacred bull of Memphis,
occurs in the LXX version of Jer 46:15 as
the most prominent of Egypt’s gods whose
flight is mocked by the prophet as a signal
of the destruction about to befall Egypt by
the hand of God. Most commentators and
translators reconstruct Apis in the Hebrew
text by a redivision and revocalisation of the
MT nishap ‘is prostrated’ as nds hap ‘Apis
has fled’. The LXX version would then be
the correct rendering of a corrupt MT rather
than Jewish polemics (cf. the -*Ibis in the
LXX versions of Lev 11:17 and Deut 14:16)
against the cult of Apis (S. MORENZ, Agyp-
tische Spuren in den Septuaginta, Mullus
[FS Theodor Klauser; eds. A. Stuiber & A.
Hermann = JAC Erginzungsband 1; Münster
1964] 250-258; Mussies 1978:831-832). A
dubious instance is the name _ Eliaph
(~Horeph) (Gk Eliaph), ‘my-god-is-Apis’,
68
found in the LXX version of 1 Kgs 4:3 (R.
DE Vaux, Mélange, RB 48 [1939] 399).
Spelled hap or hapf, Apis appears as a
theophoric element in names found in Aram-
aic, Phoenician and Neobabylonian texts
(KAI 269, 272; cf. 268; MussiEs 1978:831;
E. LipiNski, La stéle égypto-araméenne de
Tumma’, CdE 50 [1975] 93-104; H. RANKE,
Die ägyptischen Personennamen I: Ver-
zeichnis der Namen [Gliickstadt 1935]). The
Greek spelling "Amg, instead of the ex-
pected "Anıç, has been understood as a case
of psilosis, characteristic of the Ionian dia-
lect (MuUSSIES 1978:830-831). Semitic and
Greek spellings reflect Eg hp, Copt hape,
hapi ‘Apis’, which has been tentatively
explained as Ap, ‘the Runner’, referring to
Apis’s cultic running to fertilize the fields
(Orro 1964:11; cf. MARTIN 1984:786).
II. Apis is the most famous of the sacred
bulls of the Egyptians, kept at Memphis in a
stall and worshipped there from the time of
king Aha at the beginning of the First Dyn-
asty (K. Simpson, A Running of the Apis in
the Reign of ‘Aha and Passages in Manetho
and Aelian, Or 26 [1957] 139-142) until the
late 4th century CE. Throughout its history,
the Apis cult has been a royal cult
(MALAISE 1972:212, with references). As far
back as the Old Kingdom qucens were linked
to the cult of Apis (VANDIER 1949:234).
The popularity of Apis during the Late
Period is a secondary development.
The divine nature of Apis is closely linked
to fertility and regeneration. Since the pro-
cesses of renewed life can be observed in
numerous phenomena in the cosmos as well
as on earth, Apis is associated with gods of
rebirth and resurrection whose hidden cre-
ative forces are revealed on earth by Apis as
their visible manifestation. This relationship
between Apis and these gods is expressed
by the Egyptian term Ba (L. V. ZABKAR,
Ba, LdA 1 [1975] 588-590).
Apis represents -*Ptah, creator god of
Memphis, who as a god of vegetation is
sometimes called ‘Bull of the Earth’ and
‘Great -*Nile'. Apis's title w/un Pth, ‘who
repeats Ptah’, ‘Herald of Ptah’, has been
explained by Orro (1964:24-26) and others
APIS
as referring to the bull’s well-known role as
an oracle god. The title, however, seems to
point to the fact that Apis reveals the power
of Ptah's creative word (Eg hw) by bringing
food (Eg Aw) and life into this world (J.
ZANDEE, Das Schöpferwort im alten Agyp-
ten, Verbum. Essays on Some Aspects of the
Religious Function of Words Dedicated to
Dr. H. W. Obbink [Utrecht 1964] 33-66).
Indeed Apis is addressed as the noble Ba of
Ptah. It should be noted that Apis’s stall is
situated to the south of the temple of Ptah
and that the embalming place of the bull is
in the south-west comer of that vast temple
complex. The obsequies of Apis are carried
out by the pricsts of Ptah, not by the bull's
own priests.
Since the 18th Dynasty (from 1550 BCE),
the period in which the sun doctrine was
elaborated by Egyptian theologians, Apis
had been associated with --Atum, the even-
ing appearance of the sun god, who rises
from the earth in the form of a scarab beetle
(= khepri), image of the rejuvenated sun
god, to create light, life and vegetation in a
cyclic process. Up to Roman times, Apis is
depicted (KATER-SIBBES & WVERMASEREN
1975: I nos. 78, 82-84) with a sun disc and
uracus between the horns and on his back a
hawk and a winged scarab beetle as symbols
of the sun. The white triangle on Apis’s
brow is perhaps a solar symbol (M. J. VEn-
MASEREN & C. C. VAN ESSEN, The Excava-
tions in the Mithraeum of the Church of
Santa Prisca {Leiden 1965] 344-346). The
fact that Apis is called many-coloured (Gk
poikilos: Lucian, Deorum Concil. 10; cf.
Macrobius, Saturn. 1.21) also points to the
god's solar nature (J. ASSMANN, Liturgische
Lieder an den Sonnengott [MAS 19; Berlin
1969] 171). According to Classical writers
Apis has a wart (2 scarab beetle) under his
tongue (Herodotus, Hist. 3.28; Pliny. Nat.
hist. 8.184). During the funeral of Apis solar
rites play a major role (Vos 1993:40).
Apis is also dedicated to the —moon
which was conceived of as a large bull (CT
V1L.25h.35a and P. DERCHAIN, Mythes et
dieux lunaires en Egypte, La lune, mythes et
rites (SO 5; Paris 1962] 17-68, 50). It is
69
uncertain whether the relationship between
Apis and -*Thoth, god of the moon, can be
traced back to the beginning of Egyptian
history as has been stated by HERMANN
(1960:39 n. 46; cf. MARTIN 1984:786, with
n. 52; W. HELCK, Zu den “Talbezirken” in
Abydos, MDAIK 28 [1972] 95-99). In fact,
Apis's lunar aspects became especially
prominent in the Roman period. From the
18th Dynasty onwards the moon was vener-
ated in the Memphite necropolis (ZIEGLER
1988:441-449) and a famous temple of
Thoth is adjacent to that of Apis (M. GuiL-
MoT, Le Sarapieion de Memphis - Etude
topographique, CdE 37 [1962] 359-38],
370-371. 379, 381). The so-called Apis-
period of 25 years, which is said to be the
lifespan of Apis, is of an obvious lunar natu-
re, since at the end of that period the
moonphases return on the same day (VER-
COUTTER 1975:346). In Roman times Apis is
depicted with the moon between the horns
and a mark in the shape of the waxing moon
on his right or, in rare cases, his left side
(GniMM 1968:20-24; KATER-SiBBES & VER-
MASEREN 1975: Il nos. 272, 283, 290, 350).
The waxing moon was considered to bring
the inundation and fertility to the land (P.
DERCHAIN, Mythes et dieux lunaires en
Egypte, La lune, mythes et rites [SO 5; Paris
1962] 34). Apis's cultic running to fertilize
the fields seems to be related to the phases
of the moon and the annual flooding of the
Nile (MARTIN 1984:784). Shortly after his
birth, when the moon was waxing, Apis
visited the House of the Inundation of the
Nile (Nilopolis; Otto 1964:16), and at his
death priests of that same House were in-
volved in the obsequies as a sign of the
god’s rejuvenation (Vos 1993:164). Apis
was enthroned at full moon and he played a
part in the King's accession rites which took
place at full moon (M.-T. DERCHAIN-
UnrttL, Thronbesteigung, LdÀ 6 [1986] 529-
532).
Because of his lunar nature and his rela-
tion to the inundation, Apis was casily asso-
ciated with -*Osiris Lunatus (ZIEGLER
1988:447-449), who is called k? mpy, ‘Bull
rejuvenating (in the sky)’ (QUAEGEBEUR
APIS
1983:31). Osiris played an important role in
Memphis (VANDIER 1961:112-113). As a
god of vegetation Osiris was identified with
the Nile and the life-giving inundation
(VANDIER 1949:59). Apis is sometimes
associated with the Canopic jars containing
the holy water of the Nile emanating from
Osiris (KATER-SIBBES & VERMASEREN 1975:
I] nos. 296-297, 536).
Best known is Apis’s association with
Osiris in his capacity of the funeral god.
Apis is basically black in colour and Osiris
is sometimes called ‘Bull of the West’ or
‘Big black Bull’. Apis is identified with
-*Horus, son of Osiris (VANDIER 1949:235).
A few bronzes show Apis with a bird
behind the horns, which could point to the
falcon ->Horus (KATER-SIBBES & VERMASE-
REN 1975: II nos. 303, 568; cf. 489, 535,
562). The bull is sometimes represented as
the young Horus, fed by -*Isis to obtain
eterna] youth (QUAEGEBEUR 1983:31;
KATER-SIBBES & VERMASEREN 1975: | nos.
101, 112, 117). In the Memphite Serapeum
Isis is often the Mother of Apis (H. S.
SmitH & D. G. JEFFREYS, The Sacred Ani-
mal Necropolis, North Saqqára: 1975/76,
JEA 63 [1977] 20-28, 23). This relationship
between Isis and Apis became a prominent
feature of the Hellenized Isis cult and was
often depicted on coins. As a manifestation
of Horus (or Anubis) Apis assists Isis in col-
lecting and transporting the limbs of the
deceased (= Osiris) from the West to the
East, the place of resurrection, in a ritual
running which can be paralleled with the
life-giving running of Apis to fertilize the
fields (M. Samı GABRA, Un sarcophage de
Touna, ASAE 28 [1928] 77; VANDIER 1961:
117-120). During this ritual running the bull
is sometimes depicted wearing the menat, a
beaded necklace sacred to -*Hathor, which
brings new life and wards off any evil that
might endanger it (QUAEGEBEUR 1983:17-
39). Apis is associated with —Bes, dwarf-
god of fertility, who protects women and
babies (KATER-SIBBES & VERMASEREN 1975:
I nos. 65, 91, 99-100).
Upon his death Apis becomes Osiris-Apis
and he is embalmed after the example of
70
Osiris in a 70-day process. He is buried in
an underground vault of the Serapeum, the
burial place of the Apis bulls west of
Memphis. The Vienna Apis Embalming
Ritual (2nd century BCE) describes burial
rites in which, according to theological con-
ceptions of the Late Period, solar and Osir-
ian rites of resurrection are interwoven. This
fits in with Apis’s complex nature which is
closely connected with vegetative and cos-
mic phenomena of renewed life. The Egypt-
ians express Apis’s comprehensive being by
assimilating him in a syncretistic way to
composite divinities like Osiris-Atum-Horus,
Ptah-Ré°-Horsiesis and Ptah-Osiris-Sokaris.
In the Late Period Apis worship took on
the form of a national cult. It has been sug-
gested that during this period of foreign rule
the Egyptians tried to maintain their cultural
identity by turning to their animal gods, the
worship of which was repugnant to foreign-
ers (SMELIK & HEMELRIUK 1984:1863-1864).
For political reasons the Ptolemaic Kings
favoured the popular cult of Apis. Ptolemy I
Soter tried to reconcile Egyptian and Greek
religions by introducing the god Sarapis
(Osiris-Apis) but the cult was so heavily
Hellenized that up to the Roman period it
failed to arouse much interest among native
Egyptians. A few rare examples show Apis
with the sun disc between the homs and
instead of the uracus a modius, emblem of
fertility of Sarapis (KATER-SiBBES & VER-
MASEREN 1975: ] nos. 43, 120).
Generally speaking, Roman religious
policy was less favourably inclined towards
Apis, although a number of Alexandrian
coins, from Nero to Commodus, bear a
figure of Apis represented as a bull (HER-
MANN 1960:38). From Delos, Apis was
imported in -*Rome, not as a separate deity
but as part of the rapidly growing cults of
Isis and Sarapis (GRIMM 1968: 25-26;
SMELIK & HEMELRUK 1984:1920, n. 424).
Numerous statuettes of Apis, including a
few rare ones representing Apis in human
form, but with a bull’s head and clothed as a
Roman emperor (Apis imperator), have been
found all over Europe. The Apis imperator
was perhaps a symbol of divine power
APIS
rather than a defender of Osiris against the
crimes of Seth (S. MonENZ, Die Begeg-
nung Europas mit Agypten [Zürich/Stuttgart
1969] 200-201, n. 81 and 82). In Greck texts
from Brahlia in Syria (1st-2nd centuries CE)
Apis was associated with ->Zeus-El-Kronos
and perhaps incorporated in the cults of the
Dea Roma and the Emperor (Y. HAJJAR.
Dieux et cultes non Héliopolitains de la
Béqa', ANRW 1l 18,4 [1990] 2554-2555,
2579).
III. Apis frequently appears in the works
of Christian writers. In their polemics
against the most popular representative of
Egyptian animal worship these writers
reflect the OT rejection of animal cult (Exod
8:26; cf. Exod Rabbah 16.3). It is not sur-
prising then that the Christian writers asso-
ciate Apis with the Golden -Calf (SMELIK
& HEMELRUK 1984:1918 n. 412; 1995 n.
929) whose cult is called the Egyptian dis-
ease (Basilius Seleucensis, Orat. 6.3). Jc-
rome, in Oseam 10.4 (cf. Cyrillus Alexan-
drinus, in Oseam 5.8.9 and F. M. ABEL, La
géographie sacrée chez S. Cyrille d'Alexan-
drice, RB 31 [1922] 408-409), identifies the
two golden calves of 1 Kgs 12:25, one of
which Jeroboam placed in Bethel and the
other in Dan, with Apis, the bull of Ptah in
Memphis, and Mnevis, the bull of -*Re in
Heliopolis (P. GALPAz, The Reign of Jero-
beam and the Extent of Egyptian Influences,
BN 60 [1991] 13-19, 18). Also according to
Egyptian sources of the Ptolemaic period,
these bull-gods were closely connected and
they regularly visited each other. Although
the equation of Apis and the Golden Calf
cannot be accepted, the Christian writers
often gave important factual information
concerning Apis for which they drew heavi-
ly on what they had learned from Graeco-
Roman literature. The role of Apis as a god
of fertility has not been forgotten (Rufinus,
Hist. mon. 7; cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.85;
Ammianus Marcellinus 22.14). Augustine,
Civ. Dei 18.4 rightly differentiates between
Apis and Sarapis and he knows of the rela-
tionship between Isis and Apis, her godly
companion (Confess. 8.2; cf. P. COURCELLE,
Sur un passage énigmatique des Confessions
71
de Saint Augustin, REL 29 [1951] 295-307).
The Church-father (Civ. Dei 18.5), however,
fancifully explained the name of Sarapis as
meaning 'coffin of Apis', thus following a
tradition according to which Apis was a
king of the Argives (cf. Bibliothéque Augu-
stinienne 36 [1960] 747-748, with many
references).
The physical features of Apis are
mentioned by several authors: his black
colour, the inverted white triangle on his
forehead and the white markings on his skin
(Augustine, Civ. Dei 18.3.5; Cyrillus
Alexandrinus, im Oseam 3.56; Eudocia,
Violar. 8.15: Rufinus. Hist. eccles. 2.23; cf.
the numerous passages in Classical writers
cited by HOPFNER 1913:78).
The lunar aspects of Apis are often re-
ferred to. Apis was miraculously generated
by the light of the moon (Cosmas Hierosol.,
Conunent. ad Greg. Nazianz 270; Theo-
doretus, Curatio 3.46; Eudocia, Violar 8.15;
cf. Plutarch, de Isid. 43, 368C; Suda s.v.
"Amig) There seems to be no genuine
Egyptian evidence for the procreation of
Apis by the moon (BONNET 1952:50), al-
though FAULKNER strongly believed to have
found it in CT 1I.209a (R. O. FAULKNER,
The pregnancy of Isis, JEA 54 [1968] 40-44;
FAULKNER, "The pregnancy of Isis", a
Rejoinder, JEA 59 [1973] 218-219). Accord-
ing to Cyrillus Alexandrinus, in Oseam
3.56; 10.3 (cf. Eusebius, Praep. Evang.
3.13; Ammianus Marcellinus 22.14). the
cosmic parents of Apis are the sun and the
moon.
The birth of an Apis occurs at intervals
and is attended by great public joy (Eudocia,
Violar. 8.15; cf. Herodotus 3.27; J. Ver-
COUTTER, Une Epitaphe Royale Inédite du
Sérapéum, MDAIK 16 [1958] 333-345, 344).
The obsequies entailed lavish expense
(Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39; cf. Dio-
dorus Siculus 1.84) and led to the diligent
searching up and down the country for his
successor (Augustine, Civ. Dei 18.5).
Some Christian writers seemingly make
an exception to the rule that Apis is not
positively assessed (SMELIK & HEMELRUK
1984:1982). Clemens Alexandrinus (Coh.
APKALLU
2.34; Protrept. 2.39) is of the opinion that
Apis is to be preferred to the adulterous
gods of the Greeks, and Tertullian (Monog.
18; Exhort. cast. 13; leiunio 9.2) makes the
priests of Apis an example of chastity (P.
COURCELLE, L'oracle d'Apis et l'oracle du
jardin de Milan (Augustin, "Conf.", VIII,
11, 29), RHR 139 [1951] 216-231, 227). It
is also remarkable that Christian writers
often sharply disapprove of the murder of
Apis by Cambyses (SMELIK & HEMELRIJK
1984:1865, 1868). The story is contrary to
Egyptian evidence, although the king did
make drastic reductions in the state contri-
butions to the temples.
In 391 cE the pious emperor Theodosius
abruptly closed all pagan temples and or-
dered the destruction. of the Alexandrian
Serapeum, which must have deeply affected
Christians and pagans alike (Augustine, De
Divin. Daemon. l.l; cf. A. D. NOCK, Augus-
tine and the prophecy of the destruction of
the Serapeum, VC 3 [1949] 56). Theodosius’
actions almost certainly put an end to the
cult of Apis as well. Perhaps the last bull of
this kind is mentioned by Ammianus Mar-
cellinus 22.14 and praised by Claudian,
pagan poct at thc Christian court of Ravenna
(HERMANN 1960:44-46).
IV. Bibliography
H. Bonnet, Apis, RARG (Berlin/New York
19712) 46-51; G. Grimm, Eine verschollene
Apisstatuette aus Mainz, ZAS 95 (1968) 17-
36; J. HANI, La religion égyptienne dans la
pensée de Plutarque (Paris 1976) 622-632,
837-838; A. HERMANN, Der letzte Apisstier,
JAC 3 (1960) 34-50; T. HoPFNER. Der Tier-
kult der alten Agypter (Vienna 1913); G. J.
F. KATER-SIBBES & M. J. VERMASEREN,
Apis 1-II] (EPRO 48/1-III; Leiden 1975-
1977); K. MARTIN, Sedfest, LdA 5 (1984)
782-790; M. MaLaisE, Les conditions de
pénétration et de diffusion des cultes égyp-
tiens en Italie (EPRO 22; Leiden 1972); G.
MussiEs, Some Notes on the Name of Sara-
pis, Hommage à Maarten J. Vermaseren
(eds. M. den Boer er al.; EPRO 68/1; Lei-
den 1978) 831-832; E. OTTO, Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Stierkulte in Ägypten (Hil-
desheim 1964); J. QUAEGEBEUR, Apis et la
menat, BSFE 98 (1983) 17-39; K. A. D.
SMELIK & E. A. HEMELRUK, “Who Knows
Not What Monsters Demented Egypt Wor-
ships?”, Opinions on Egyptian Animal
Worship in Antiquity as Part of the Ancient
Conception of Egypt, ANRW II 17,4 (Berlin/
New York 1984) 1852-2000; J. WANDIER,
Memphis et le taureau Apis dans le papyrus
Jumilhac, Mélanges Mariette (IFAO 32;
Cairo 1961) 105-123; VANDIER, La religion
égyptienne (Paris 1949) 233-237; J. VER-
COUTTER, Apis, LdÀ | (1975) 338-350; R.
L. Vos, 7he Apis Embalming Ritual. P.
Vindob. 3873 (OLA 50; Leuven 1993); C.
ZIEGLER, Les Osiris-lunes du Sérapéum de
Memphis, Akten des Vierten Internationalen
Agyptologen-Kongresses Miinchen 1985, Il:
Linguistik - Philologie - Religion (ed. S.
Schoske; SAK Beih. 3; Hamburg 1989)
441-451.
R. L. Vos
APKALLU
I. In Mesopotamian religion, the term
apkallu (Sum abgal) is used for the legend-
ary creatures endowed with extraordinary
-*wisdom. Seven in number, they are the
culture -*heroes from before the Flood.
Some of the mythological speculations in
which they figure have exerted influence on
certain biblical and post-biblical traditions.
Examples are the figure of Enoch and the
tale of the Nephilim (Gen 6:1-4).
H. Akk apkallu is derived from Sum
abgal, a term used in the 3rd millennium for
a high official. In the Sumerian incantations
of the Old Babylonian period abgal refers to
a sage at the court of Enki. Based on a tradi-
tion that goes back to the 3rd millennium,
the term apkallu is used for legendary crea-
tures endowed with wisdom, seven in num-
ber, who existed before the flood. In the
myth of the ‘Twenty-one Poultices’ the
‘seven apkalli of Eridu’, who are also
called the ‘seven apkalli of the Apsu’, are
at the service of Ea (Enki). Ea is called the
‘sage among the gods’ (apkallu ili) and the
title was also used of his son ^Marduk. A
variety of wisdom traditions from the ante-
72
APKALLU
diluvian period were supposedly passed on
by the apkallii. We learn from the ‘Etio-
logical Myth of the Seven Sages’ that the
apkallii were “of human descent, whom the
lord Ea has endowed with wisdom”. The
tradition of the apkallà is preserved in the
bit-méseri ritual serics and also by Berossus.
The seven sages were created in the river
and served as “those who ensured the cor-
rect functioning of the plans of heaven and
earth" (mustésini usurdt Samé u erseti). Fol-
lowing the example of Ea, they taught man-
kind wisdom, social forms and craftsman-
ship. The authorship of texts dealing with
omens, magic and other categories of ‘wis-
dom’ such as medicine is attributed to the
seven apkalli. Gilgamesh, “who saw every-
thing” (§a nagba imuru), is credited with
having brought back knowledge whose ori-
gin was before the flood (3a lam abübi) and
on a cylinder seal he is called “master of the
apkalli". ]n the course of the development
of the traditions concerning them, the seven
apkalli became associated with laying the
foundations of the seven ancient cities:
Eridu, Ur, Nippur, Kullab, Kesh, Lagash
and Shuruppak. In the epic of Gilgamesh
they are called ‘counsellors’ (»nuntalki) and
all of the seven sages were considered
responsible for laying the foundations of
Uruk (Gilg. I 9; XI 305). According to the
Erra epic, the apkalli returned to the Apsu,
the great abyss which was the home of Ea,
and were never again within reach.
Uanna of Eridu, the first of the seven
apkallà who served the early kings, was
considered the master of a great store of
knowledge. In some texts Adapa, a human
sage who lived at that time and who bears
the epithet apkallu, is assimilated to him.
Adapa is at times called the son of Ea, but
this refers to his being wise, rather than to
his parentage. In tum the name Adapa be-
came synonymous with wisdom. Oannes, in
the late tradition transmitted by Berossus,
“emerged daily from the Erythrean Sea in
the time of the first king of history to teach
mankind the arts of civilization”. He is
credited with giving man knowledge of
letters and science and all types of crafts.
73
Not only were highly qualified diviners
given the title apkallu, but it was also popu-
lar among the late Assyrian kings. Sen-
nacherib brags of having been given knowl-
edge equal to that of the apkallu Adapa (D.
D. LUCKENBILL. The Annals of Sennacherib
[OIP 2: Chicago 1924] 117:4). Ashurbani-
pal, proud of his mastery of the skills of the
Scribe, boasted of having grasped "the craft
of the apkallu Adapa, the esoteric secret of
the entire scribal tradition" (M. STRECK,
Assurbanipal und die letzten Assyrischen
Könige [VAB 7; Leipzig 1916] 254:13; 367:
13). He is called the offspring of both an
apkallu (Sennacherib) and Adapa (Esarhad-
don) by one of his haruspices (ABL 923;
LAS 117). It was probably in the neo-Assyr-
ian period that the title apkallu spread to the
Arameans and also to the Arabian tribes. In
the Nabatean, Palmyrcan and Hatrene in-
scriptions it is a sort of priest. Apkallatu
occurs as the personal name of a queen of
the Arabs in an inscription of Esarhaddon.
In the Early South Arabian inscriptions "fk!
is also a priest (cf. J. TEixiDOR, Notes
hatréennes 3: Le titre d’ “aphkala”, Syria 43
[1966] 91-93, and J. Rycxmans, JSS 25
[1980] 199 n. 3).
The postdiluvian sages were called
ummánu, a term which indicates mastery of
a difficult subject, or being highly trained in
a craft. Various literary works are attributed
to specific uminánü and in the late period
the ummánü functioned as the counsellors of
the realm. The apkallū were also the keepers
of esoteric lore which then became the
prized possession of the umundni. In a tablet
from the Seleucid period found during the
excavations at Uruk the antediluvian apkalli
and the postdiluvian wmmdnii are listed in
conjunction with the kings whom they
served. Thus Uanna (Oannes) is the apkallu
of Aialu (elsewhere Alulu) the first king,
and the list ends with Aba’enlildari, whom
the Arameans call Ahiqar, the umrmánu of
king Esarhaddon.
In a variety of rituals, clay figurines of
the seven apkalli were used with an apo-
tropaic function. There were three types of
apkallà, the seven anthropomorphic ümu-
APOLLO
apkallii, placed at the head of the bed of the
sick ‘person, the seven bird-apkallit buried
against the wall, but in an adjoining room,
and the seven fish-apkalli, who guard the
threshold of the bedroom, with two further
groups of fish-apkalli, buried in front and
behind the chair kept in the room. The ümu-
apkallà were made of wood, but the bird-
and fish-apkallit were made of —clay. The
fish-apkallit are the best known since the
fish-garbed men have been found in excava-
tions in groups of seven (e.g. Nimrud).
Their use is detailed in a variety of rituals.
The fish-apkalli must be distinguished from
the kulull@, a centaur-like fish-man. These
apkallü arc also found on wall-panels in
Assyrian palaces or with apotropaic function
flanking the doorways of temples and
palaces. Berossus described Oannes as having
the body of a fish, a human head below the
fish head and human feet below the tail.
III. The tradition. of the seven sages
spread during the 2nd and 1st millennium to
the West, reaching as far as Greece. It has
been proposed that the tale of the
—Nephilim, alluded to in Gen 6:1-4, is
based on some of the negative aspects of the
apkallü tradition. An echo of the role of the
seven apkallit may be found in Prov 9:1
which should in all likelihood be rendered
"-Wisdom built her house, the Seven set its
pillars" instead of the traditional translation
"Wisdom built her house, she set out its
seven pillars”. Enoch, who was the "first
among the children of men who had learned
writing, science and wisdom” (Jub. 4:17),
and taught knowledge to mankind was the
seventh starting with Adam (Jub. 7:39). His
ascension to -*heaven is in all likelihood
based on the tale of the seventh antediluvian
apkallu Utuabzu who ascended to heaven
according to the third tablet of the bit méseri
series. The later tradition, preserved by
pseudo-Philo, of Enoch building seven
cities, may hark back to the seven ante-
- diluvian cities noted above. The images of
the seven patriarchs found on the throne of
Solomon, the embodiment of Wisdom, may
also have its origin in the myth of the seven
sages.
IV. Bibliography
J. BLACK & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and
Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London
1992) 82-83; 100-101, 163-164; R. BORGER,
Die Beschwórungsserie bit méseri und die
Himmelfahrt Henochs, JNES 33 (1974) 183-
196; S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of
Berossus (Malibu 1978) 13-14; J. J. A. VAN
Duk, La sagesse suméro-accadienne (Lei-
den 1953) 20 n. 56; A. GREEN, Neo-Assyr-
ian Apotropaic Figures, /rag 45 (1983) 87-
96; J. C. GREENFIELD, The Seven Pillars of
Wisdom (Prov 9:1)—a Mistranslation, JQR
86 (1985) 13-20; A. D. KiLMER, The Mes-
opotamian Counterparts of the Biblical
Nepilim, Perspectives on Language and
Text, Essays and Poems in Honor of F. 1.
Andersen (Winona Lake 1987) 39-43; W. G.
LAMBERT, The Twenty-One "Poultices",
AnSt 30 (1980) 77-83; S. PARPOLA, Letters
from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars
(SAA 10; Helsinki 1993) xvii-xxiv; S. A.
Piccioni, Il poemetto di Adapa (Budapest
1981); E. REINER, The Etiological Myth of
the ‘Seven Sages’, OrNS 30 (1961) 1-11; F.
A, M. WIGGERMANN, Mesopotamian Pro-
tective Spirits, The Ritual Texts (Groningen
1992) 73-79.
J. C. GREENFIELD
APOLLO 'AnzóXXaov
l. Apollo is a Greek god whose name
occurs as a theophoric element in the names
"AnóAAoS (Acts 18:24, var. lect.: 'AngAAnge.
'AnoXAoviog [of which Apollos is a diminu-
tive]; 19:1, var. lect.: ‘Anes. 1 Cor 1:12;
3:4, 5, 6, 22; 4:6; 16:12 and Titus 3:13).
'AngAAng (Rom 16:10), 'AnoAAovia (Acts
17:1. var. lect. 'AnoXAovio), and 'AnoJA. oov
(Rev 9:11).
II. Apollo is the most typical divine
representative of classical Greek culture, the
Greek god par excellence, though there is
no doubt that he was of non-Greek origin.
The two cult centres of Apollo, Delos and
Delphi, date from the cighth century BCE.
The Delos sanctuary was primarily devoted
to Artemis, Apollo’s twin sister according
to the myth (BurKERT 1977:226). At Delphi
74
APOLLO
Apollo was considered an intruder by the
Greeks themselves: it was there that he
killed the snake -*Python, the son of
-"'Earth' and the Lord of that place (Homi.
Hymn 3:182-387; see FoNTENROSE 1950:13-
27 for five different versions of this myth)
and had to leave Delphi again in scarch of
purification (int. al. Pausanias 2:7.7). The
attempts to locate his origin in a specific
region, especially the North-East of Europe
or Asia Minor (Gurumig 1950:73-87),
proved unsuccessful because of the lack of
conclusive evidence: (the once promising
alleged Hittite god Apulunas disappeared
thanks to a better decipherment of the Hittite
hieroglyphs [BURKERT 1975:2-4}). Of the
many etymological explanations which have
been proposed for the name Apollo
(WERNICKE 1896:2-3; NiLSSON 1955:555-
559; FAurH 1975:441-442) none has found
general acceptance. However, following a
suggestion by HARRISON (1927), BURKERT
has again pointed out that there is a close
connection with the name of the month
Apellaios and the institution of the apellai
(BURKERT 1975). In epic literature and at
Delos and Delphi the god’s name is always
spelled Apollon. In the Doric dialect we find
Apellón and on Cyprus Apeilón, in Thessaly
Aploun. At the beginning of the present era
the form Apollén had almost completely
superseded the Doric form Apellón, but the
latter was certainly the older one: the spel-
ling with o has to be taken as a secondary
vocal assimilation to the ending -oón. The
month Apellaios and the apellai are also
found in the whole Doric region. In Delphi
Apellaios was the first month of the year, in
which the apellai were held. The apellai
were annual meetings in which tribal asso-
ciations or communities purified themselves
from ritual and spiritual contaminations, and
in which the new members of the commu-
nity, the Ephebi, were initiated. The god
Apellon/Apollén may have derived his name
from the apellai. He was ‘the arch-ephebos’
(HARRISON 1927:441), the true kouros.
Apollo was considered the author of evil
and its averter as well (a) the god of
purification, law and order (b) and the god
75
of prophecy (c). These three aspects deserve
a brief discussion.
(a) The beginning of the /liad introduces
Apollo as the frightening god who sends a
deadly pestilence into the cattle and the
army of the Achacans. One of the oldest
etymologies of Apollo’s name is its deriv-
ation. from apollymi/apollyé (Aeschylus,
Agam. 1081; Euripides, frg. 781, 11; sec
WERNICKE 1896:2). But the author of the
disease is also the onc who can stop it; to
that end onc has to propitiate Apollo by
means of sacrifices, hymns and prayers
(NiLSSON 1955:538-544), as was in fact
done by the Achaeans (/liad 1:48-52, 450-
456). In the second and third centuries CE,
this way of propitiating the god to avert a
plague was still advised by Apollo himself
in several oracles given at Clarus and Didy-
ma (R. LANE Fox, Pagans and Christians
[New York 1987] 231-235). Similarly ambiva-
lent gods, said to be both the causc of cvil
and of its disappearance, are found all over
the world; in India, it is the god Rudra who
shows a remarkable similarity to Apollo
(LORENZ 1988:4, 8).
(b) Apollo was gencrally held to be the
giver and interpreter of laws and city consti-
tutions (GUTHRIE 1950:182-204; NILSSON
1955:625-653). In cities like Athens and
Sparta there were official interpreters of
civil and religious law who were closely
related to the Delphic oracle, which enabled
Apollo (and Delphi) to exercise a consider-
able influence on the internal affairs of the
Greek city states. A special duty of the
exegetai concemed advise on the rules of
purification in cases of homicide (e.g. Plato,
Laws 11, 916c; [Demosthenes], Orat. 47,
68). Murder inevitably brings pollution
(miasma) on the killer, even if the latter has
acted in self-defence, and therefore he is in
need of purification (katharsis). Apollo, who
according to the myth had to be purified
himself after the killing of Python, remained
the Greek god of purification (R. PARKER,
Miasma [Oxford 1983] 275-276, 378, 393),
although in the course of the centuries he
changed his views from prescribing a ven-
detta to regulating legal jurisdiction over
APOLLO
homicide (Orestes on the Areopagus under-
went “the first trial for bloodshed,” accord-
ing to Aeschylus, Eumen, 683). It was prob-
ably his character as god of law and order
which caused Apollo's identification with
the sun, that "sees and hears all things"
(Homer, /liad:3, 277). His name Phoibos,
from which the name Phoebe derives (Rom
16:3), has often been interpreted as ‘Shi-
ning’; its precise meaning, however, is un-
known (FAUTH 1975:442; BURKERT 1975:14
n. 56). The legal aspect of Helios Apollo is
clearly brought out in a number of inscrip-
tions concerning *manumissions' of children
and confessions of guilt from the temple of
Apollo at Lairbenos in Phrygia, near Helio-
polis, dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries
CE (MAMA IV, 275-278; MiLLER 1985).
(c) Apollo was an oracle-speaking god
from the beginning. His sanctuary at Delphi
became the most influential political and
religious centre of the Greek world (NILS-
SON 1955:], 544-547, 625-653; for its his-
tory PARKE & WORMELL 1956:]). Apollo
responded to questions on regulations of
communal life, of which religion was an
integral part, on wars and their outcome, the
founding of colonies, etc. Also individuals
came to Delphi with personal and some-
times rather trivial questions, though the
evidence for this kind of oracle is quite
scarce (614 responses in PARKE & Wor-
MELL 1956:ll; a critical classification in
FONTENROSE 1978:240-416). The oracles
were given by a woman, the Pythia, who
was seated on the tripod. What exactly hap-
pened during the mantic sessions is almost
completely unknown. The traditional picture
holds that the tripod was placed above a
chasm from which vapours ascended which
brought the Pythia into a state of frenzy or
trance, in which she uttered wild shouts
which had to be interpreted. by the
prophétés. But the cvidence to support this
view is too scanty (FoNTENROSE 1978:196-
232). After a short period of revived oracu-
lar activity in the second century CE Apollo
almost completely relapsed into silence (see,
however, the response to Amelius' question
as to where Plotinus’ soul had gone [ca.
76
260), Porphyry, Vita Plotini 22; Parke &
WORMELL 1956:II 92-193 [nr. 473}; Fon-
TENROSE 1978:264-265 [H. 69], who conjec-
tures that Amelius only sought Apollo’s
approval of his own poem on his beloved
master).
In Asia Minor, there were two other great
oracular sanctuaries of Apollo, at Didyma
and Clarus (sce R. Lane Fox, Pagans and
Christians [New York 1987] 168-261, 711-
727). The method of consultation at both
sanctuaries is for the greater part unknown
(lamblichus' report on the mantic pro-
cedures at both sites, De myst. 3.11, reflects
the final stage of Apollo's oracular practice,
and possibly also the author's own inter-
ests). Clarus had a prophet and Didyma a
prophetess who uttered Apollo's responses
after drinking from an underground spring
(Clarus) or inhaling the vapors which camc
from a surface spring in the sanctuary
(Didyma) The oracles were put into neat
metrical verse by the thespode, the 'singer
of oracles' (Clarus) or a prophet (Didyma).
The consultations of Apollo, by cities and
individuals alike, did not substantially differ
from those at Delphi or those of Zeus at
Dodona (VAN DEN BROEK 1981:4-7). Of the
known oracular responses, 39 have been
ascribed to Clarus and 93 to Didyma
(ROBINSON 1981; see also FONTENROSE
1978:417-429 [50 responses from Didyma)),
but in many cases the place of origin
remains uncertain. An interesting group of
the oracles from Clarus and Didyma in the
2nd and 3rd centuries is formed by the so-
called ‘theological oracles’, which express
the view that there is only one highest god
whose servants or manifestations are the
gods of the traditional religions. Of these
oracles the one found at Oenoanda has
received most attention (ROBERT 197]; VAN
DEN BnokK 1981:9-]17; Lane Fox
1987:168-171), but a thorough study of the
theology of all of them remains a desidera-
tum. In the 3rd century Apollo fell silent.
Julian the Apostate (359-361) tried to revive
the Delphic oracle but the attempt failed
(PARKE & WoRMELL 1956: 289-290; II
194-195, no. 476).
APOLLYON — ARCHAI
III. The popularity of Apollo is reflected
in the frequency of theophoric personal
names and toponyms: Apollodorus, Apollo-
nia, Apollonius, Apollonides, Apollophanes,
Apollos, etc. Apart from the NT passages
mentioned above (sub I), we find such
names also in the books of the Maccabees
and in early Christian literature (see e.g. the
Christian presbyter Apollonius in Ignatius,
Magn. 2:1). Christian polemic against
Apollo directed itself especially at his oracu-
lar sites (D. DETSCHEW, RAC 1 [1950] 528-
529), but nonetheless in some places his cult
survived as late as the sixth century CE.
IV. Bibliography
J. BREMMER, Greek Religion (Oxford 1994)
15-17; R. VAN DEN BROEK, Apollo in Asia.
De Orakels van Clarus en Didyma in de
tweede en derde eeuw na Chr. (Leiden
1981); W. BURKERT, Griechische Religion
der archaischen und klassischen Epoche
(Stuttgart 1977) 225-233; BURKERT, Apellai
und Apollon, RhMus 118 (1975) 1-21; W.
FAurH, Apollon, KP I (München 1975)
441-448; J. FONTENROSE, Python. A Study
of Delphic Myth and its origins (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London 1950); FONTENROSE,
The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Op-
erations, with a Catalogue of Responses
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1978); W.
K. C. GUTHRIE, The Greeks and their Gods
(London 1950; reprinted, with corrections,
Boston 1954); J. E. HARRISON, Themis. A
Study of the Social Origins of Greek Reli-
gion (Cambridge 1927, 2nd ed.) 439-444;
G. LonENZ, Apollon—Asklepios—Hygicia.
Drci Typen von Heilgóttern in der Sicht der
Vergleichende Religionsgeschichte, Saecu-
lum 39 (1988) 1-11; K. M. MILLER, Apollo
Lairbenos, Numen 32 (1985) 47-70; M. P.
NILSSON, Geschichte der griechischen Re-
ligion, I (München 1955); H. W. PARKE &
D. E. W. WorMELL, The Delphic Oracle, |:
The History, Il: The Oracular Responses
(Oxford 1956); L. ROBERT, Un oracle gravé
à Oinoanda, CRAIBL 1971 (Paris 1972)
597-619; T. L. Rosinson, Theological
Oracles and the Sanctuaries of Claros and
Didyma (Thesis Harvard University 1981);
J. SOLOMON (ed.), Apollo: Origins and In-
fluences (Tucson 1994); K. WERNICKE,
Apollon, PW 2 (1896) 1-111.
R. VAN DEN BROEK
APOLLYON ~ ABADDON; APOLLO
APSU > ENDS OF THE EARTH
AQAN - YA'OQ
ARCHAI ‘Apyai
I. The Gk term arché, and its equiv-
alent Lat translation principium, carries the
basic meaning of primacy in time or rank. It
is an abstract term for power often used
with the meaning ‘sphere of authority’, i.e.
power which is wielded by someone in a
position of political, social or economic
authority, such as a public official (Luke
20:20; Sib. Or. 5,20, 153). In the singular or
plural arché is sometimes paired with
exousia with the meaning ‘office and auth-
ority' (Plato Alcibiades 135a; Philo Leg. 71;
Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1; Mart. Pol. 10:2). It is
also paired with basileis, 'kings' (Pss. Sol.
2:30; Philo Somn. 1.290), and also linked
with *kings and rulers', hegoumenoi (! Clem
32:2). It also is used in a more concrete
sense referring to those who rule or govern,
le. ‘magistrate’, ‘ruler’, *governor' (Luke
12:11). When used with the latter meaning,
arché belongs to the same semantic sub-
domain as arclión; in the Greek version of /
Enoch 6:7-8, e.g. arché and archón are used
interchangeably. By extension, arché can be
used as a title for a supernatural force or
power, whether good or evil, which has
some control over the activities and destiny
of human beings (Eph 6:12). Since the
phrase archai kai exousiai is a stock ex-
pression used of ‘magistrates and ~*author-
ities’ (Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1; Mart. Pol.
10:2), it is likely that this political terminol-
ogy was simply applied by figurative exten-
sion to supematural beings who were
thought to occupy vague positions of auth-
ority over other supernatural beings or over
human beings.
II. The term archai (and its Lat equiv-
71
ARCHAI
alent principia), when used of supernatural
beings, appears to have been used exclusive-
ly in early Christianity, and perhaps anteced-
ently in early Judaism and early Christianity
until it was eventually adopted by Christian
Gnostics and appropriated by Neoplatonic
philosophers. Though it is generally pre-
sumed that early Christianity borrowed the
language for various classes of angelic
beings (-'Angels) including archai from
Judaism, the evidence is problematic. One
supposed Jewish apocalyptic antecedent to
Paul’s use of the term ‘principalities’
(archai) in Rom 8:38-39 (where it is linked
with ‘angels’ in one of the earliest occur-
rences of the term as an angelic category) is
found in J Enoch 61:10: “And he will call
all the host of the heavens, and all the holy
ones above, and the host of the Lorp, and
the --Cherubim, and the -*Seraphim and the
Ophannim, and all the angels of power, and
all the angels of the principalities (presum-
ably archai).” Yet the dating of / Enoch 37-
71 (the so-called Similitudes of Enoch in
which this statement is found), is problem-
atic; there is no persuasive evidence requir-
ing a date prior to the middle of the first
century CE. Further, it is possible that thc
Ethiopic phrase for ‘angels of principalities’
may be translating the Greek phrase angeloi
kuriotétón (Dominions) rather than angeloi
archon (BLACK 1982). Similarly, the Theo-
dotianic version of Dan 10:20 speaks of the
‘prince of Persia’ and the ‘prince of Greece’,
certainly angelic beings in charge of particu-
lar nations (-*Prince). In / Enoch 6:8 (pre-
served in Gk and Aram in addition to Eth),
archai is used of twenty named angels or
—watchers, each of whom commands ten
angels of lesser status. This angelic organiz-
ation appears to have a military origin, for
the Israclite army was arranged under
leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties and
tens (Exod 18:21, 25; Deut 1:15; 1 Macc
3:55; 1QM 3.16-17; 4.1-5, 15-17). Josephus
refers to the organization of the Maccabean
army in 1 Macc 3:55 as “the old traditional
manner” (Ant. 12.301). In the LXX Exod
18:21, 25 and 1 Macc 3:55 the term dekad-
archai is used for commanders of the lowest
78
level of military organization, which was
also common in the Hellenistic world
(Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.14; Polybius 6.25.2;
Josephus War 2.578; Arrian Anab. 7.23.3).
There are several other places in / Enoch,
where the term archai or archontes very
probably lies behind the Ethiopic. / Enoch
71:5 speaks of “the leaders of the heads of
thousands who are in charge of the whole
creation" and / Enoch 80:6 mentions that
"many heads of the stars in command will
go astray" (see also / Enoch 82:11-20). In
Jub. 10:8, -Mastemah is called “the chief
of the spirits". In 4Q Shir Shab the term
nés?im, ‘princes’, is used of angels several
times (4Q403 1 i 1, 10, 21; 4Q400 3 ii 2;
4Q405 13 2-3, 7; NEwsom 1985:26-27), as
is the term ra’sim, ‘chiefs’ (4Q403 1 ii 11;
4Q405 23 ii 10; Newsom 1985:27), and
these are combined in the title ‘chief
princes’ (4Q403 1 ii 20, 21; 4Q405 8-9 5-6).
In the LXX, the term ró'$, is occasionally
translated with archón (Deut 33:5; Job
29:25; Ezek 38:2-3) or arché, meaning
‘chief’, ‘master’, ‘sovereign’, ‘prince’, i.e. a
term for leadership in the military, political
and priestly ranks. Another use of the term
archai for a category of angelic beings in
Judaism occurs in the Theod. Dan 7:27
(Theodotion, the reviser of an earlier 'Ur-
Theodotianic’ version of the Gk OT, was
active toward the end of the second century
CE) "Then kingship and authority and the
greatness of the kingdoms under the entire
heaven were given to the holy ones (hagioi)
of the Most High, and his kingship is an
eternal kingship and all rulers (Aai archai)
shall serve and obey him." Here archai,
‘rulers’ (the LXX has exousiai, ‘authorities’)
is parallel to hagioi (‘the holy ones’), a Gk
translation of the Heb term gédósim, a
designation often used of angels (—saints,
Ps 89:6; Job 5:1; 15:15; Zech 14:5; Dan 4:
14; 8:13; see also Tob 12:15; T. Levi 12:15;
Pss. Sol. 17:49). The Aram phrase under-
lying hagioi in Theod. Dan 7:27 is actually
‘am qaddisim, ‘the people of the saints’, i.e.
Israel is the people of the holy ones [angels]
(COLLINS 1977).
III. There are several problems in inter-
ARCHAI
preting the term archai in the NT. One
problem is that of determining whether or
not the archai refer to human rulers or
supernatural rulers. Another is that of deter-
mining whether, when supernatural beings
are in view, they are good or evil. A third
problem is that of determining whether
supernatural categories of beings such as
archai are distinct from other categories,
such as exousiai and dynameis, or whether
such designations are largely interchange-
able. Paul includes angels, principalities
(archai) and powers in in a list of obstacles
which might separate the believer from the
love of God in Rom 8:38. Clement of
Alexandria interprets these as evil super-
natural powers (Strom. 4.14). He may be
correct, for since angels and archai appear
to be antithetical in Rom 8:38, it is possible
that the former are good while the latter are
evil. In 1 Cor 15:24 it is clear that the
archai, along with every authority and
power, are considered hostile, since they are
subject to destruction and are parallel to the
term ‘enemies’ in 1 Cor 15:25, though here
these categories may (but probably do not)
refer to human rulers. There can be little
doubt that the powers mentioned in Eph
1:21 and 6:12, and specifically the archai
must be understood as evil supernatural
powers.
In general it must be concluded that the
lists of supernatural beings including the
archai in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline lit-
erature are hostile supernatural beings. Fur-
ther, it appears that the various categories
are largely interchangeable, though it is
possible that both authors and readers shared
certain understandings about such beings
which they did not find necessary to make
more explicit,
Lists of Angelic Beings. The terms
archai and exousiai, or their Lat equivalents
principia and potestates, were frequently
paired in a formulaic way to refer to super-
natural beings (Eph 3:10; Col 1:16; 2:10,
15; Justin / Apol. 41.1; Irenaeus Adv. haer.
1.21.5; Act. Phil. 132, 144; Methodius
Symp. 6; Epiphanius Pan. 31.5.2 [a Valentin-
ian source}), When the three terms archai,
79
exousiai and dynameis are used together
(almost always in that order), supernatural
beings are usually in view (1 Cor 15:24;
Justin Dial. 120.6; T. Sol. 20.15; Act. Jolin
98 [here the order is dynameis, exousiai, and
archai, the reverse of the normal order, and
the list goes on to include ‘demons’, activ-
ities {energeiai}, threatenings {apeilai},
passions {thymoi}, calumnies, -*Satan and
the inferior root]). Short lists of angelic
beings occur in early Christian magical pro-
cedures such as PGM 13.15: archai kai
exousiai kai kosmokratores, ‘rulers and
authorities and cosmic rulers’ (the same
brief list found in Origen De principiis
1.6.3), and PGM 21.2-3: pasés archés kai
exousias kai kuriotétos, ‘every ruler and
authority and ruling power’. These lists
seem to imply that archai are one among
several classes of angelic beings, though the
hierarchization of such beings appears to be
a later step.
Angelic Classes and Hierarchies. In
Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism, there
were numerous attempts to classify or
systematize the various traditional terms for
angelic beings. Despite frequent claims to
the contrary, these speculations are not at-
tested earlier than the first century CE. In T.
Levi 3:1-8 (part of a more extensive Jewish
interpolation in 2:3-6:2), a variety of angelic
beings are correlated with some of the seven
heavens, though archai are not mentioned.
The third heaven (3:3) contains the *powers
of the hosts' (hai dynameis tón par-
embolón), in the fourth heaven (3:8) are
‘--thrones and authorities’ (t/rronoi, ex-
ousiai), in the fifth heaven (3:7) are angels,
and in the sixth heaven (3:5) are the ‘angels
of the presence of the Lord’. While the
Grundschrift of the T. /2 Patr may be as
early as 200 BCE, this Jewish interpolation is
probably much later, i.e. the first century CE.
Archai are apparently mentioned in a clas-
sification of ten angelic orders in Slavonic 2
Enoch 20:1 found in the longer recension
which cannot with any assurance be dated
earlier than the second century cE: (1) arch-
angels, (2) incorporeal forces (dynameis?),
(3) dominions (kuriotétes), (4) origins
ARCHANGEL
(archai?), (S) authorities (exousiai?), (6)
cherubim, (7) seraphim, (8) many-eyed
thrones (thronoi?), (9) regiments and (10)
shining 'otanim'(?) stations. In one of the
eight Syriac manuscripts of the T. Adam,
there is a list of heavenly powers placing
them in a hierarchical arrangement begin-
ning from the lowest and proceeding to the
highest order: angels, archangels, archons
(archai), authorities, powers, dominions, and
finally at the highest level, thrones, seraphim
and cherubim arc grouped together (4:1-8).
In De caelesti hierarchia, Ps.-Dionysius
Areopagita, strongly influenced by Nco-
platonic angelology, presents a hierarchy of
angelic beings in three orders consisting of
three types of angels in each order: (1) the
highest order consists of seraphim, cherubim
and thrones, 7.1-4, (2) the middle order con-
sists of Dominions (kuriotétes), Authorities,
(exousiai), and Powers, (dynameis), 8.1, and
(3) the lowest order consists of principalities
(archai), archangels (archangeloi), and
angels, (angeloi), 9.1-2. This author also
uses the terms angels and heavenly powers,
dynameis ouranias, as generic terms for
heavenly beings (4.1; 11.1-2). Iamblichus
lists supernatural beings which reveal a god,
such as an angel, archangel, demon, archon
or a soul (De myst. 2.3). In an inscription
written over the heads of angels in a Mosaic
in the Koimesis Church, the terms archai,
dynameis, kuriotétes, and exousiai appear
(Sanin, 1:497).
IV. Bibliography
C. E. ARNOLD, Ephesians: Power and
Magic (Cambridge 1989); H. BIETENHARD,
Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und
Spéltjudentum (Tiibingen 1951) 104-108; M.
BLACK, Pasai exousiai autdi hypotagesontai,
Paul and Paulinisim: Essays in Honour of C.
K. Barrett (London 1982) 73-82; G. B.
CAIRD, Principalities and Powers (Oxford
1956); F. Cumont, Les anges du pagan-
isme, RHR 72 (1915) 159-182; W. Carr,
Angels and Principalities (Cambridge 1983);
J. J. COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Vision of the
Book of Daniel (Missoula 1977) 141-144;
M. DiBELIUS, Geisterwelt im Glauben des
Paulus (Gottingen 1909); O. EvERLING, Die
80
paulinische Angelologie und Dédmonologie
(Göttingen 1888); W. GRUNDMANN, Der
Begriff der Kraft in der neutestamentlichen
Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart 1932) 39-55; J. Y.
LEE, Interpreting the Demonic Powers in
Pauline Thought, NovT 12 (1970) 54-69; G.
H. C. MacGrecor, Principalities and
Powers: The Cosmic Background of Paul’s
Thought, NTS 1| (1954-55) 17-28; C. Mon-
RISON, The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers
and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7
(London 1960); C. Newsom, Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985);
M. Pesce, Paolo e gli Archonti a Corinto
(Brescia 1977) 261-336; S. E. ROBINSON,
The Testament of Adam (Chico 1982) 142-
44, 146-48; S. SAHIN, Inschriften des Mu-
seums von Iznik (Nikaia) (Bonn 1979-82);
H. SCHLIER, Principalities and Powers in
the New Testament (Freiburg 1961); W.
WiNK, Naming the Powers (Philadelphia
1984) 13-15, 151-156.
D. E. AUNE
ARCHANGEL àpxáyyeloç
I. The figure of the archangel already
appears in the Hebrew Bible, but the Greek
term archangelos (Latin archangelus) does
not occur in the Greek versions of the OT.
The word appears in (early) Greek passages
in the OT Pseudepigrapha (e.g. Greek text
of 7 Enoch) and there are two occurrences
in the NT (1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9).
Il. In Jewish literature from the Second
Temple period a tendency can be observed
to differentiate between groups and cat-
egories of angels (cf. / Enoch 61:10; 2
Enoch 19:1-5; Angel) and to bring a hier-
archy in the angelic world. Some scholars
assume influence here from pagan concep-
tions. FoNrINov (1989:124), for instance,
thinks of Persian influence and notes the
similarity between the seven angels of the
face (cf. Tob. 12:15) with Persian angel-
ology. BousseT & GRESSMANN 1926:325-
326 assume Babylonian influence. In any
case, several angels act in Jewish and Early
Christian texts as individuals with a specific
function and were assigned the status of the
ARCHANGEL
highest angels in the hierarchy (especially
~>Michael and -*Gabricl). In magical texts,
which are often influenced by Jewish and
Christian ideas, archangels also appear (c.g.
PGM 1V 3051; MıcHL 1962:56).
HI. A forerunner of the archangel ap-
pears already in Josh 5:13-15. Joshua sees a
man who reveals himself as the captain of
the heavenly army (-*Angel) LXX reads
archistratégos, which word is sometimes
used as a synonym for archangelos (c.g. T.
Abr. rec. long. 1:4 and 14:10; 3 Apoc. Bar.
11:8; cf. Dan 8:11: RowrAND 1985:101). In
Daniel and the Qumran writings the ->Prin-
ce of the heavenly host might still be an
independant figure, who came to be ident-
ified with Michael or another archangel only
from the first century C.E. onwards (G.
BAMPFYLDE, The Prince of the Host in the
Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls,
JSJ 14 [1983] 129-134).
In Daniel there are already two exalted
angels: Michael as one of the chief princes
and protector of Israel in the context of the
battle of the angels of the nations (10:13,
21; 12:1) and Gabriel, the angelus interpres
for the seer (8:15-26). Also in Jude 9 and
Rev 12:7 Michael acts as contestant
(^Dragon; -'Satan) and in Jude arclangelos
is used in this connection. Gabriel too is
superior to other angels. According to /
Enoch 40:9 he is set over all the powers and
given the function of divine annunciator (cf.
Luke 1). According to 1 Thess 4:16 an
anonymous archangel heralds the descent of
the Lord and the resurrection of the -*dead.
In Apoc. Mos. 22 Michael appears in a simi-
lar role before God's punishment of Adam
and Eve.
Besides the elevation of individual angels
appear groups of (usually four or seven)
special angels, to which Michael, Raphael
and Gabriel usually belong if the angels are
given names. Seven angels appear as execu-
ters of divine punishment in Ezek 9. The
same number is mentioned in Tob 12:15,
where Raphael presents himself as one of
the seven angels who transmit the prayers of
the holy ones (see mss B and A; ms S:
"who stand in attendance [on the Lord]")
81
and enter the glorious presence of the Lord
(see also T. Levi 8:2; ] Enoch 20). ] Enoch
20 gives a list of seven angels. In the Gizch
Papyrus only six names are mentioned, but
in both of the extant Greek papyri the list
ends with a reference to the names of seven
archangeloi (20:7). The names of these
angels "who keep watch" (so Eth; Greck:
"angels of the powers") are: -*Uriel,
Raphael, Raguel. Michael, Sariel, Gabriel
and Remicl.
1 Enoch 9 has a list of four archangels:
Michael, Sariel (uncertain; Greek: Uriel;
many Eth mss Suryal), Raphael and Gabriel.
Usually Uriel (in the Book of Parables in /
Enoch 37-71 Phanuel) figures in the lists of
four archangels instead of Sariel (e.g. Sib.
Or. 2:215; Apoc. Mos. 40:2; Pirke de-Rabbi
Eliezer 4), but Sariel belongs to the oldest
tradition of the four archangels according to
BLACK 1985:129, 162-163, referring to the
Aramaic fragments and to 1QM 9:14-16 (cf.
Da4vipsoN 1992:50, 325-326). The name of
Uriel is replaced by that of Phanuel in /
Enoch 40:9; 54:6 and 71:8-9. The group of
four archangels probably developed from
the four living creatures from Ezek |. They
are standing on the four sides of the divine
throne (cf. the ‘Angels of Presence’, e.g.
IQH 6:12-13; IQSb 4:25-26; 4Q400 col. 1
lines 4 and 8) and say praises before thc
Lord of Glory (/ Enoch 40). pray on behalf
of the righteous on earth (/ Enoch 40:6; Tob
12:15) and act as intercessors for the souls
of righteous ones who have died (/ Enoch
9; T. Abr. 14). They play an important part
at the final judgement. Thus they lead
among other things the souls of men to the
tribunal of the Lord (Sib. Or. 2:214-219)
and will cast kings and potentates in the
burning furnace on the great day of judge-
ment (/ Enoch 54:6; on the groups of
archangels and their functions see further
Micur 1962:77-78, 89-91, 169-174, 182-
186).
Sometimes, archangels are mentioned
who do not belong to one of the lists of four
or seven of the principal angels (e.g.
-Jeremiel, 4 Ezra 4:36; Dokiel, T. Abr.
13:10 rec. long.). Phanael acts as angelic
ARCHON
messenger during Baruch’s heavenly jour-
ney and is described as archangel and inter-
pretor of revelations (3 Apoc. Bar. 10:1;
11:7). In J Enoch 87-88 three archangels put
—Enoch in positions to observe carefully
what is being revealed to him. Philo ident-
ifies the archangelos with the divine
-— Logos (DECHARNEUX 1989).
IV. Bibliography
M. BLack. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch.
A New English Edition with Commentary
and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden 1985);
W. BoussET & H. GRESSMANN, Die Reli-
gion des Judentums im spáthellenistischen
Zeitalter (HNT 27; Tübingen 1926) 325-
329; I. BROER, dyyeAoc. EWNT 1 (Stuttgart
1980) 36-37; *M. J. DaviDSON, Angels at
Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch
1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from
Qumran (JSP Supplement Series 11;
Sheffield 1992) 49-53, 75-78, 97-98, 104-
105, 157, 194-196, 228, 301, 325-326 [&
lit]; B. DECHARNEUX, Anges, démons et
Logos dans l'ocuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie,
Anges et démons. Actes du Colloque de
Liège et de Louvain-La-Neuve 25-26 no-
vembre 1987 (ed. J. Ries; Louvain-La-
Neuve 1989) 147-175; C. Fontinoy, Les
anges et les démons de l'Ancien Testament,
Anges et démons (sec above) 117-134; W.
LUEKEN, Michael. Eine Darstellung und
Vergleichung der jiidischen und der mor-
genlündisch-christlichen — Tradition — vom
Erzengel Michael (Göttingen 1898); *M.
Macu, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen
Engelglaubens | in — vorrabbinischer Zeit
(TSAJ 34; Tübingen 1992) [& lit}; J.
Micut, Engel (I-IX), RAC 5 (Stuttgart
1962) 53-258.
J. W. VAN HENTEN
ARCHON "Apxov
I. The term archón, a participial form
of the verb archein used as a substantive,
carrics the root meaning of primacy in time
or rank. After the overthrow of the mon-
archies in the Greek city-states (ca. 650
BCE), the term archón, meaning ‘high
official’ or ‘chief magistrate’, became wide-
82
ly used for a variety of high public officials.
Originally it was primarily limited as a
designation for the highest officials (Thu-
cydides 1.126; Aristotle Ath. Pol. 13, 10-
12). A typical Greek polis had two or more
magistrates (archontes), a council (boulé)
and an assembly of the people (démos); see
Josephus Ant. 14.190; 16.172. Public and
private leadership terms formulated with the
prefix arch- were extremely common in the
Hellenistic period. During the late Hellenist-
ic and early Roman period the term archón,
in both singular and plural forms, began to
be used in early Judaism and early Christi-
anity and then in Neoplatonism and Gnost-
icism as designation for supernatural beings
such as -*angels, -*^demons and -*Satan and
planetary deities who were thought to oc-
cupy a particular rank in a hierarchy of
supernatural beings analogous to a political
or military structure.
II. There was a widespread notion in the
ancient world that the planets either were
deities or were presided over by deities, a
view which probably originated in Babylo-
nia and involved astral fatalism. Philo refers
to the popular conception that the -*sun,
—moon and -*stars were gods, but he argues
that -*Moses regarded the heavenly bodies
as archontes, governing those beings which
exist below the moon, in the air or on the
—earth (De spec. leg. 1.13-14). The term
kosmokratores was also used of the planets,
personified as rulers of the heavenly spheres
(a term used with some frequency later in
the Greek magical papyri). While these
supernatural beings were not unambiguously
regarded as either good or evil, there was a
strong tendency to regard them as hostile if
not evil.
The Neoplatonist Iamblichus (ca. 250-325
CE) dependent on Babylonian-Chaldaean
astrology, perhaps as mediated by a lost
work called Hyphegetica by Julian the
Theurgist, posited a hierarchy of supernatu-
ral beings between God and the soul:
-archangels, angels, demons, two kinds of
archons, heroes and souls. The two types of
archons, which function only in the sublunar
region, included cosmic archons, kosmo-
ARCHON
kratores, and hylic archons, tes hylés
parestékotes (Iamblichus, De myst. 2.3.71).
It is significant that the archontes of lam-
blichus are much lower on the hierarchy of
being than archangels and angels.
III. In the LXX, the term archon is used
to translate thirty-six different Hebrew terms
with such meanings as ‘chief, ‘head’,
‘leader’ or ‘ruler’. Two of the more
significant of these Hebrew words include
ró'i, which is occasionally translated with
archón (Deut 33:5; Job 29:25; Ezek 38:2.3),
and nàá$?', meaning 'chief', 'master', 'sover-
eign’, ‘prince’, i.e. a term for leadership in
the military, political and priestly ranks.
Judaism used the term archén of synagogue
leaders, and archén was sometimes inter-
changeable with archisynagégos (both are
used of Jairus in Luke 8:41.49), but at other
times they were apparently distinguished
(Acts 14:2 var.lect.).
In early Judaism and early Christianity,
archón was one of the designations used to
refer to the evil spiritual ruler of human
beings and the cosmos, known by a variety
of aliases including Satan, Devil, -*Belial,
and -*Mastemah. The synoptic gospels
occasionally refer to Satan as the archón tón
daimonión, ‘prince of demons’ (Matt 9:34;
12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15), because
demons (like angels), were thought to be
organized like an army or a political hier-
archy. The notion that a large host of celes-
tial beings was commanded by ~Yahweh is
an ancient conception in Israel (1 Sam
1:3.11; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18). This is
reflected in the divine name yhwh séba’ér,
—'Yahweh Zebaoth', a title which occurs
some 267 times in the OT (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4;
2 Sam 6:2; Isa 31:4). However, the mirror
conception of Satan leading a host of evil
angels or demons does not appear to be
older than the second century BCE. Similarly |
in Jub., Mastemah (a designation of Satan)
is called the “chief of spirits” (10:8). Por-
phyry claimed that Sarapis and Hekate were
the archontes of evil demons (Eusebius
Praep. evang. 4.22.174a), but this use of the
term in a pagan context is so rare that it per-
haps can be explained as a borrowing from
83
early Judaism or early Christianity. Some-
what surprisingly, the term archón is not
applied to supernatural beings, whether good
or evil, in the non-Christian Greck magical
papyri, though the related term kosmokratér
is. Another usc of the term archon for Satan
focuses on his domination of the present
world or age (the Heb word *ólám can mean
either). In John 12:31, for example, he is
called ho archón tou kosmou toutou, ‘the
prince of this world', but (in accordance
with Johannine theology) his imminent
expulsion is emphasized. In John 14:30, the
Johannine -*Jesus says that though the
prince of this world is coming. he has no
power over Jesus, and in John 16:11 Jesus is
made to say that the prince of this world has
been judged. The same title occurs in a
number of other texts where there is no indi-
cation that Satan’s sovereignty is in immi-
nent jeopardy (7. Sol. 2:9; 3:5-6; 6:1; Asc.
Isa. 1:3; 2:4; 10:29). In Barn. 18:2 (part of
the Two-Ways tradition also found in Did.
1-6 and 1QS 3.13-4.26), he is called "the
prince of the present time of iniquity" who
controls the way of darkness, a title which
has a clear precedent in Judaism in the title
Śr mmšlt rš‘h, ‘prince of the -dominion of
ungodliness’ (1QM 17.5-6). The context for
the conception of Satan as ruler of this
world or age is the apocalyptic world view
which consisted in a temporal or eschatol-
ogical dualism in which the present age
(hà'ólàm hazzeh, ‘this world or age’) is
dominated by wickedness through the
influence of Satan, while the imminent fu-
ture age (ha‘élam habba’, literally ‘the com-
ing world or age’) will be inaugurated by
the. victory of —God over all evil (Matt
12:32; Luke 16:8; Gal 1:4). The introduction
of the future era will be accomplished by
the climactic intervention of God (either
directly or through a human agent, i.e. a
Messiah) and will be preceded by the
destruction of the wicked and the final de-
liverance of the righteous. In Eph 2:2, Satan
is called "the prince of the power of the
air", i.c. the prince whose domain is the air.
This title is clearly a designation for Satan,
for he is also described as “the -spirit
ARCHON
(pneuma) now at work in the sons of dis-
obedience” (Eph 2:2). The air was regarded
as the dwelling place of -*evil spirits in the
ancient world (Philo, De gig. 6, 2 Enoch
29:4; Asc. Isa. 7:9). Ignatius, who uses the
name ‘Satan’ once (Eph. 13:1), and the term
‘Devil’ four times (Eph. 10:3; Trall. 8:1;
Rom. 5:3; Smyrn. 9:1), tends to prefer the
more descriptive designation 'prince of this
age', archón tou aiónos toutou, emphasizing
the temporal rule of Satan (Eph. 17:1; 19:1;
Magn. 1:2; Trall. 4:2; Rom. 7:1; Philad.
6:2). Satan is called “the wicked prince” in
Barn. 4:13, a title which corresponds to “the
prince of error" in 7. Simeon 2:7 and T.
Judah 19:4.
The term archontes used as a designation
for angelic beings first occurs in the LXX
Dan 10:13, and seven times in Theod. Dan
10:13, 20-21; 12:1, where the LXX has
stratégos, 'commander', ‘magistrate’, all
translations of the Aram far, ‘prince’. Dan
10:10-21 contains the first references to the
conception of angelic beings who are the
patrons of specific nations on earth. The late
merkavah work entitled 3 Enoch refers to
the seventy or seventy-two faré malkuyyót,
‘princes of kingdoms’ continuing the similar
conception found in Dan 10:20-21 (3 Enoch
17:8; 18:2; 30:2); the angelic princes of
Rome and Persia are mentioned specifically
in 3 Enoch 26:12, an allusion to Dan 10:33.
In the Greck version of / Enoch 6 by Syn-
cellus, the term archón is used of Semyaza,
the leader of the fallen angels or -watchers.
but also for various angelic leaders subordi-
nate to Semyaza, reflecting traditional Near
Eastern military models. After Daniel, the
earliest reference to archontes as angelic
beings is found in Ignatius of Antioch. In
Smyrn. 6:1, Ignatius mentions “the glory of
angels and princes (archontes) visible and
invisible", referring to two categories of
angels, as the parallel in Trall. 5:1 suggests,
where he refers to "the places of angels and
the gatherings of rulers. (archontikas)".
Since these lists are so short, it is unclear
whether the angels are superior to archons
or the reverse. Similarly in the Epistle to
Diognetus 7:2, the author argues that God
84
did not send an angel or a prince [archén]
into the world, but Christ the agent of all
creation. In rabbinic and merkavah texts, the
far ha‘élam, ‘prince of the world’ is men-
tioned, but (unlike John 12:31 and parallels)
is never an evil figure (b.Yeb. 16b; b.Hull.
60a; b.Sanh. 94a; Exod. Rabbah 17:4, 3
Enoch 30:2; 38:3).
In 1 Cor 2:6.8, a much disputed passage
(see PESCE 1977), Paul speaks of ‘the rulers
(archontes) of this world’. Here the archontes
can refer to political authorities (SCHNIE-
WIND 1952), but more probably to demons
(Origen, De princ. 3.2; Tertullian, Ady.
Marc. 5.6; SCHLIER 1961:45-46). Justin
(Dial. 36.6) speaks of the ‘princes in
heaven’ (hoi en ourandi archontes) who did
not recognize -*Christ when he descended
into the world (though he does not specify
whether these were good or evil), and it was
these same princes who were commanded to
open the gates of heaven when Christ ascen-
ded (36.5; here Justin is interpreting the
term hoi archontes found in the LXX ver-
sion of Ps 23:7.9, a possible but unlikely
translation of the Hebrew). A similar view is
reflected in Asc. /sa. 11:23-29, and it is
specifically claimed in Asc. /sa. 11:6 that the
birth of Jesus was hidden from all the
heavens, all the princes and every god of
this world. Ignatius similarly claims that the
virginity of Mary as well as the birth and
death of Jesus were hidden from the “prince
of this world" (Eph. 19:1).
IV. The archontes play an important
mythological role in some Gnostic cosmol-
ogies. The scven spheres (the sun, moon,
and the five planets Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn, bounded by the region of
the fixed stars) are controlled by supernatu-
ral beings designated by various terms in-
cluding archontes. Seven archontes are
usually presided over by a chief archdén,
who is also the demiurge who created the
world, and resides in the Ogdoad, the eighth
region above the seven planetary spheres.
Since the attainment of salvation is linked
with attaining to the sphere of the ~un-
known God, passage through the concentric
ranks of hostile archons is necessary. One
ARES
specific form of this myth is presented in the
Coptic Gnostic treatise The Hypostasis of
the Archons, where the archontes are said to
guard the gates of the seven planetary
spheres, impeding the upward movement of
souls. Irenaeus is the earliest author to men-
tion the names of the seven archons, which
are so strikingly Hebraic that their Jewish
origin appears highly likely (Adv. haer.
1.30): Ialdabaoth (the chief archón), lao,
Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus, Oreus and
Astanphaeus. Origen later provided a list of
the seven archons in Ophite mythology
(Contra Celsum 6.31): laldabaoth, lao,
Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Eloaios and
Horaios, together with the specific formulas
which must be used in order to get past each
archon. A Gnostic sect named the Archont-
ici took its name from the archons of the
seven planetary spheres (the Gk term
archontikoi, transliterated as archontici or
archontiaci in Lat, is an adjective used as a
substantive formed from archén; see Epi-
phanius Pan. 40.2). In the Apocryphon of
John 48.10-17, the words of Gen 1:26, "Let
us make man in our image and likeness” are
attributed to the seven archons who created
—Adam. This reflects the Jewish tradition
that man was made by the angels (Irenaeus,
Adv. haer. 1.24.1-2).
V. Bibliography
W. Carr, Angels and Principalities (Cam-
bridge 1981); Carr, The Rulers of This
Age—1 Corinthians 2.6-8, NTS 23 (1976-
77) 20-35; F. W. CREMER, Die chaldäischen
Orakel und Jamblich de mysteriis (Meisen-
heim am Glan 1969) 86-91; G. DELLING,
archón, TDNT 1, 488-489; M. DiıBELIUS,
Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus
(Göttingen 1909), 88-99; S. EITREM, Some
Notes on the Demonology in the New Testa-
ment, (Oslo 19662); W. GRUNDMANN, Der
Begriff der Kraft in der Neutestamentlichen
Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart 1932) 39-55; G.
MILLER, ARCHONTON TOU AIONOS
TOUTOU—A New Look at 1 Corinthians 2:
6-8, JBL 91 (1972) 522-528; M. Pesce, Paolo
e gli Arconti a Corinto: Storia della ricerca
(1888-1975) ed esegesi di 1 Cor. 2,6.8
(Brescia 1977) H. ScHuER, Principalities
85
and Powers in the New Testament (New
York 1961); J. SCHNIEWIND, Die Archonten
dieses Äons, 1. Kor. 2,6-8; Nachgelassene
Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin 1952) 104-109.
D. E. AUNE
ARES “Apn
I. Ares is the god of war of the Greek
pantheon, who also represents the warrior
side of other gods, such as ->Zeus Areios,
—Athena Areia, —Aphrodite Areia and,
apparently already in Mycenean times,
-Hermaas Areias (BURKERT 1985:169). In
the Bible he perhaps appears as a theophoric
element in the name Areopagus in Acts 17.
The name already occurs in Lincar-B as
Are (KN Fp 14), but its ctymology is dc-
bated. Perhaps it was an ancient abstract
noun meaning 'throng of battle, war' (Bun-
KERT 1985:169, but sec also PETERS 1986:
371-375). Ares’ name in Greek literature
often indiscriminately alternates with that of
Enyalios, another old war god, but in cult
both gods are clearly separated, as was al-
ready the case in Mycenean times (GRAF
1985:266-267). Ares was identified in
Scythia (Herodotus 4.59-62), Asia Minor
(ROBERT, Hellenica V11.69-70; X.72-78, 214
note 5; XIII.44; 1966, 91-100), Arabia and
Syria (SEYRIG 1970; AuGÉ 1984) with in-
digenous war gods and the Romans ident-
ified him with Mars.
IIl. Ares is the warrior par excellence,
especially in his more fierce and destructive
shape and the only god to fight like a human
on the Trojan battlefield. Homer depicts him
as young, strong, big and fast; in short, he
possesses all the desirable qualities of the
archaic warriors, who are characterised as
‘members of his retinue’ (rherapontes, ozoi:
MAADER 1979:1254-1255). But he is also
'ruinous to men' (/I. 5.31) and the embodi-
ment of the 'Unvemunft des Nur-Kriegers'
(MAADER 1979:1251). As Zeus puts it:
"You are the most hateful to me of all the
gods who hold -— Olympus, since forever
strife is dear to you and wars and battles"
(/l. 5.890-1). Typically, when Sisyphus has
managed to fetter -Thanatos and thus
stopped people dying, it is Ares who liber-
ARES
ates the god of death, as Aeschylus narrated
in his Sisyphus Drapetes (see S. RADT, Tra-
gicorum | Graecorum fragmenta [vol. 3
Aeschylus; Gottingen 1985] 337). It is this
role as raging, ravaging warrior which may
explain why magic-healers ascribed pos-
session to Ares (Hippocrates, Sacred Dis-
ease 4) and Sophocles (Oedipus Rex 190)
could identify Ares with the plague. Ares is
an indispensable god but at the same time
his murderous character makes him undesir-
able. It is especially the latter quality which
comes to the fore in myth and ritual.
Myth located the birth of Ares in Thrace
(/l. 13.301; Od. 8.361), the country which
was considered, if wrongly, as wild and
barbarous; here was also his grave (Ps-
Clement, Recogn. 10.24). The parallel with
-Dionysos, who was also born in Thrace,
shows that the Greeks liked to situate nega-
tive figures outside their own culture, not
that these gods were originally aliens. His
father was Zeus and his mother -*Hera (//.
5.892-893), who in various Greek cities was
worshipped with a martial aspect (M. L.
West, Hesiod: Theogony [Oxford 1966] ad
922). His sister and companion was Eris, or
‘Strife’ U/l. 4. 440-1) and his daughters were
the fierce -* Amazons (Pherecydes, FGH 3 F
15a); in the Cyclic Aethiopis (fr. 1) he is
already the father of Penthesileia. Among
his sons he counted Phobos 'Rout' and
Deimos, ‘Terror’ (West, Hesiod: Theogony,
comm. ad 934; add Artemidorus 2.34), the
brutal Lapith Phlegyas (R. JANKO, The Iliad:
A commentary IV [Cambridge 1992], comm.
on /]. 13.301-303), Askalaphos, or the night-
ly, predatory ‘owl’ (JANKo, comm. on I.
13.478-480), and the great hunter Meleagros
(Hesiod fr. 25)—genealogy being a typical
Greek way of connecting related figures.
As the god of war, who represents the
brutal aspects of war not matters of defence,
Ares is indispensable but he is often coupled
with —Athena, the embodiment of responsi-
bility and cleverness in battle. Thus on the
shield of Achilles Homer (é/. 18.516) repre-
sents Ares and Athena as leading the war-
riors; Odysseus pretends that Ares and
Athena had given him courage (Od. 14.216),
86
and on the vases the two gods often battle
together; in archaic imagery Ares is even
sometimes represented as helping with the
birth of Athena (BRUNEAU 1984: 491).
In the /liad we can observe various strat-
egies of dealing with the negative sides of
Ares. First, when Ares confronts Athena in
battle, he is always the loser, as when the
goddess helped Diomedes against Ares
(5.824), disarmed him in order to prevent
him avenging his son Askalaphos (15.121-
141) and knocked him down with a stone
(21.391-415). Similarly, when in Ps-
Hesiods's Shield Heracles battles against
Ares’ son Cycnus, who wanted to build a
temple from human skulls, he wins due to
the help of Athena despite Ares’ support of
his son: it is always the goddess of clever-
ness and responsibility who wins. It fits in
with Ares being a ‘loser’ that on the frieze
of the treasure house of Siphnos and on
archaic vases he is mostly positioned at the
very margin of the representation (BRUNEAU
1984:491).
The complicated relationship between
Ares and Athena is also well brought out in
the foundation myth of Thebes as related by
‘Apollodorus’ (3.4.1-2). When Cadmus had
reached Thebes, he killed a dragon, an
offspring of Ares, who guarded a fountain.
On the advice of Athena he sowed the teeth
of the monster which grew into armed men,
the Spartoi. These, in tum, started to fight
with one another and only five survived this
fratricidal strife. Subsequently, Cadmus had
to serve Ares for a whole year in order to
atone for his share in their death. After his
servitude he became king of Thebes through
Athena and married the daughter of Ares
and ~Aphrodite, Harmonia: ‘murderous war
ends in harmonious order’ (BURKERT
1985:170). Here as well, it is in the end
Athena who helps Cadmus to defeat the
influence of Ares.
A more drastic approach is mentioned in
iliad 5:385-391 (see also Nonnus, Dion.
302-304), one of the very few real Ares
myths. Here Homer tells how the sons of
Aloeus, Otos and Ephialtes, tied the god
down and locked him up in a bronze barrel
ARES
for thirteen months. He only survived be-
cause the stepmother of his captors passed
word to -*Hermes, who managed to liberate
him; variants of the story are also recorded
in much later sources (FARAONE 1992:86-
87). The myth seems to be the reflection of
a cult in which the statue of Ares was nor-
mally fettered but untied only once a year
(so already FARNELL 1909:407). Similar
cults all point to gods which are perceived
as dangerous for the social order (GRAF
1985:81-96). The dangerous nature of these
gods is sometimes stressed by the small size
and uncanny appearance of their statues and
the tradition that the statue of Ares which
Pausanias (3.19.7) saw on the road from
Sparta to Therapnai was fetched from far-
away Colchi by the Dioscures (—Dios-
kouroi) points in the same direction,
Cults of Ares were few and far between;
not even Thebes seems to have known a
temple dedicated to Ares, unlike Athens and
various cities on the Peloponnesus and Crete
(GRAF 1985:265). The marginality of Ares
is underscored by the fact that he received a
dog for sacrifice, just like spooky Hecate
and messy Eileithyia: Ares’ cult did not lead
to eating peacefully together as would have
been the case with edible sacrifice (GRAF
1985:422). It fits in with this asocial charac-
ter of Ares’ cult that some, untrustworthy,
traditions mention a human sacrifice to Ares
among the Spartans (Apollodorus FGH 244
F 125) and on Lemnos (Fulgentius, Ant.
serm. 5, cf. Jacoby on Sosicrates FGH 461
F 1).
In some cities the macho nature of Ares
was stressed by excluding women from his
worship (Pausanias 2.22.4-5, 3.22.6), just as
women were forbidden entry into the
temples of Enyalios (Teles 24.11). This is
the more natural ritual, yet the reverse also
took place. It was told in Tegea that the
women had once rescued the town by at-
tacking the Spartans. After their victory the
women performed the victory rites for Ares
and the males did not even receive part of
the sacrificial meat. In memory to this feat a
stele to Ares Gynaikothoinas, ‘Feaster of
Woman’ or ‘One whom the women feast’,
87
was erected in the Tegean agora. Apparent-
ly, our source, Pausanias (8.48.4-5), no
longer found a ritual, but the myth strongly
suggests that at one time the Tegean women
performed sacrifices in the Tegean agora
from which the men were excluded. This
uncommon female cult of the masculine god
points to a ritual in which the normal social
order was temporarily subverted (GRAF
1984).
Ares was regularly connected with
Aphrodite in literature, as witnessed by the
delightful story of their liaison (Od. 8.266-
369); in art, where he seems to be represent-
ed as even assisting with the birth of the
goddess, as he did with Athena (BRUNEAU
1984:491), and in cult, as their communal
temples and altars show (GraF 1985:264).
The connection rests on a twofold associ-
ation. On the one hand, there is the warrior
aspect of Aphrodite. On the other, there is
the strong contrast between the two gods as
expressed in the Homeric Hymn to Aphro-
dite, which says of Athena that she took no
pleasure ‘in the works of the golden Aphro-
dite but liked wars and the work of Ares’
(9-10). The contrast also appears clearly in
Thebes where the polemarchs celebrated the
Aphrodisia at the end of their term of office.
Here the cult of Aphrodite eases the transi-
tion from warlike activities to peaceful pri-
vate life by a festival of dissolution (GRAF
1984:253-254), just as on Aegina an uncan-
ny festival to masculine -*Poseidon was ter-
minated with the Aphrodisia (Plutarch, Mor.
301). Despite the opposition, the gods do
belong together: as the foundation myth of
Thebes shows, it is only the pairing of Arcs
and Aphrodite which produces Harmonia
(BREMMER 1994:45-46).
At the end of the fifth century the import-
ance of Ares seems to diminish. Admittedly,
comedy could still nick-name the tough
Athenian gencral Phormio (d. ca. 429/8)
*Ares' (Eupolis fr. 268.15) and a bold man a
‘young of Ares’ (Plato fr. 112), but on the
Athenian vases the god is becoming only
rarely recognizable. In the Hellenistic period
Ares is only little mentioned (ROBERT, Hel-
lenica X 77), but in the second century CE
ARIEL
one could still dream of being sexually
taken by Ares (Artemidorus 5.87).
Ill. In the Bible the name of Ares is
commonly taken as occurring in the names
of the Areopagus and Dionysius Areopagites
(Acts 17). And indeed, folk etymology con-
nected the 'hill of Ares' with the god by
way of various myths. Yet there was no cult
of the god on the hill and the most recent
explanations tend to connect the first el-
ement of the name with a homonym areios,
‘solid’, and explain the name as ‘solid rock’
(WALLACE 1989:213-214).
IV. Bibliography
C. AuGÉ, Ares (in peripheria orientali),
LIMC II.1 (1984) 493-495; I. BECK, Ares in
Vasenmalerei, Relief und — Rundplastik
(Mainz 1983); J. N. BREMMER, Greek Relig-
ions (Oxford 1994); P. BRUNEAU, Ares,
LIMC IL.1 (1984) 478-492; W. BURKERT,
Greek Religion (Oxford 1985); C. A. FARA-
ONE, Talismans and Trojan Horses. Guar-
dian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and
Ritual (New York & Oxford 1992); L. R.
FARNELL, The Cults of the Greek States V
(Oxford 1909) 396-414; F. GRAF, Women,
War, and Warlike Divinities, ZPE 55 (1984)
245-254, Graf, Nordionische Kulte (Rome
1985); A. HEUBECK, Amphiaraos, Die
Sprache 17 (1971) 8-22; F. JouAN, Le dieu
Arts: figure rituelle et image littéraire, Le
point théologique 52 (1989) 125-140; B.
MAADER, Ares, LfgrE I (Göttingen 1979)
1246-1265; M. PETERS, Probleme mit an-
lautenden Laryngalen, Die Sprache 32
(1986) 365-383; L. ROBERT, Hellenica l-
XIII (Paris 1940-1965); ROBERT, Documents
de l'Asie Mineure méridionale (Paris &
Geneva 1966); H. SEYRIG, Les dieux armés
et les Arabes en Syrie, Syria 47 (1970) 77-
112; R. W. WALLACE, The Areopagos
Council to 307 B.C. (Baltimore & London
1989); P. WATHELET, Arès le mal aimé, Les
Etudes Classiques 60 (1992) 113-128.
J. N. BREMMER
ARIEL FN8ÖNS
I. The term Ariel occurs 16 times in
different spellings in the OT and once in the
88
Moabite Mesha-inscription (KA/ 181:12, the
suggested second occurrence in line 17 is
doubtful). The meaning of the word is dis-
puted among scholars. Regarding its etymo-
logy. several propositions have been made
(cf. HALAT 84-85; Ges.18 98-99; NBL 167;
ABD I 377-378 & lit), but only two of the
suggested derivations seem to be applicable:
1. < *ryh ‘lion’ with the theophoric element
?| *God'. 2. « Ar "iryat with afformative
lamed ‘fire-pit’ or more freely ‘altar-hearth’
(for the Moabite occurrence sec J. Horru-
ZER & K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the
North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 1 [Leiden
1995} 100-101 & lit; K. P. Jackson
1989:112-113).
II. In Gen 46:16 and Num 26:17 (spel-
led ?r?ly) Ariel serves as an eponym of the
tribe of Gad. In Ezra 8:16 (with the spelling
?ry?l; par 1 Esdr l60vnos) it is the PN of a
leader of the exiled community. It is gene-
rally accepted that in the visionary text Ezek
43:15.16 Ariel (^r^y| paralleled by Ar7l,
‘mountain of God’) stands for the uppermost
part of the -*altar in the future temple (W.
ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel [BKAT XIII/2; Neukir-
chen-Vluyn 1969] 1089-1096, esp. 1093-
1094). The reference in Isa 29:1.2.7 is more
difficult to explain. Here Arie! (spelled
?^ry?l, 1QIsa 29:1 ?rw?l) refers definitely to
the city of Jerusalem (J. WERLITZ [BZAW
204; Berlin/New York 1992] 310) but
again, without any clear meaning. One
should therefore leave it untranslated in this
passage.
Little casier is the translation of Ariel in
2 Sam 23:20 (par. 1 Chr 11:22 ?ry7/). In the
description of Benayah's heroic deeds, the
reader is told that Benayah stroke (nkh) two
?r?| mw?b (MT; the passage is grammatical-
ly difficult, cf. the commentaries). LXX
reads that Benayah killed tog úo vioùs
AptnA. toU Maaf, ‘the two sons of Ariel the
Moabite'. Although the LXX interferes
seriously in the text, presupposing a double
haplography in the Hebrew text, this reading
points into the right direction. As a matter of
fact NKH Hiph‘il in the historical books
never means to strike upon an object (cf.
also E. JENNI, Eris 24 [1993] 114-118), but
ARM
to strike down, i.e. to kill somebody, so the
translation with ‘altar-hearth’ is not applica-
ble. Consequently, Arnel here designates
some kind of person, best translated as ‘lion
of God’ by the first of the possible etymolo-
gies, be it a warrior or a mythical figure of
yet unknown religious background (but cf.
P. Beck, The cultstands from Taanach,
From Nomadism to Monarchy (ed. I. Finkel-
stein & N. Na'aman; Jerusalem 1994) 352-
381 passim, for the iconography of lions on
cult stands in Palestine). This interpretation
could be supported by a recently found
bronze-silver figurine from Tell Abü el-
Kharaz in Transjordan representing, accor-
ding to the excavators opinion (P. M.
FiscHER, ADAJ 40 [1996] 101-110, esp.
103-104 with figs. 3a-b), a male lion-faced
warrior(-god?), which can be viewed, becau-
se of its appearance and its attributes, as a
male pendant to the Egyptian goddess Sekh-
met (-*lioness). In addition to this one might
point to a stele found in Qadbun (Syria)
depicting Baal standing on a lion (cf. A.
BouNNi, Contributi e materiali di archeolo-
gia orientale 3 (1992] 141-150 with paral-
lels). Thus the same motiv, i.e. the lion as
riding-animal or as an attribute-animal to a
male god, can also be found on seals (cf. the
cone-shaped seal found in Megiddo publis-
hed in: O. KEEL Studien zu den Stempelsie-
geln aus Palästina/israel, IV [OBO 135;
Göttingen/Fribourg 1994] 22-23, pl. 7,5 with
parallels).
This connection could also fit well to the
translation of the term °r7/ with ‘lion figure’
in the Mesha-inscription suggested by J. C.
L. GiBsoN (TSSI 1, 76 and 80). In this
inscription ^r?! is connected to dwdh
(7*Do4). the epithet of a locally worshipped
god in Atarot. The passage in line 12 then
should be translated with ‘the lion figure of
their beloved (god)’ which was dragged
before -*Chemosh after the fall of the Israe-
lite city.
HI, It is mainly due to Isa 33:7, the last
occurrence in the OT to be cited, that Ariel
entered heavenly spheres. In this lament the
?r?lm (most probably the plural form of 7r7/;
for the impressive history of the term in this
89
text (cf. R. D. Weis in Tradition of the Text
[FS Barthelémy; ed. G. J. Norton & S.
Pisano; OBO 109; Góttingen/Fribourg 1991]
285-292) are paralleled by ‘the messengers
of peace’ (cf. also Isa 52:7). Probably on the
basis of this parallelism and the angelopha-
nic context, the later tradition understood
the ?r?Im, to be pronounced "er?ellim. as a
class of -*angels, an evolution which may
well have been stimulated by the difficult
etymology of Ariel (OLYAN 1993: 53-54.101
with references). In the 3rd/4th century text
‘On the Origins of the World” from Nag
Hamadi (NHC 1I, 5:100, 25) Ariel, spelled
Ariael, is the epithet of the lion-faced Yald-
abaoth. In other gnostic writings Ariel beco-
mes the ruler over the wind and over the
furnaces of hell (J. MICHL, 1962:204).
IV. Bibliography
K. P. JACKSON, The Language of the Mesha
Inscription, Studies in the Mesha Inscription
and Moab (ed. A. Dearman; Atlanta 1989)
96-130; J. MicHLt, Engel V (Katalog der
Engelnamen), RAC 5 (Stuttgart 1962) 200-
239 (& lit); S. M. Otyan, A Thousand
Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and the
Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ
36; Tübingen 1993).
S. MÜNGER
ARM Zi
I. Within the framework of anthropo-
morphic depictions of the divine, the arm
(zéróa^) of God is metaphorically used to
denote divine military, creative and caring
power in the Old Testament. At Isa 63:12
the ‘arm of God’ functions as a hypostasis.
In an Aramaic inscription from Taima, about
400 BCE, dr“', ‘Arm’, seems to be an indica-
tion for a deity.
II. In Ugaritic texts, mention is made of
the dr‘, ‘arm’, of deities like ->Baal and
—El without any specific significance other
than the anthropomorphic depiction of the
divine (KORPEL 1990:109).
An Aramaic inscription from Taima,
about 400 BCE, mentions a dedication by
Taymu, the son of Elahu, for the life of his
soul and the souls of some other persons to
ARTA
dr'', ‘Arm’ (BEYER & LIVINGSTONE 1990).
That a deity is indicated can be inferred
from the parallel sentence construction in a
contemporary Aramaic inscription from
Ismaila: “This is, what Qayma, the son of
Geshem, the king of Qedar, has dedicated
Ihn'lt, *to (the deity) han-'Elat" (TSSI 25).
A full identification is premature, however,
in view of the fact that a deity ‘Arm’ is
nowhere attested.
III. In the OT zéróa^ is not known as a
deity as such. The arm of God is referred to
in several instances as a metaphorical indi-
cation of his power (HELFMEYER 1975:652-
660; KorreL 1990:111-112). God's arm
stands for military power e.g. at Exod 15:16;
Deut 4:34; Isa 30:30. This imagery is in
most cases related to the liberation out of
Egypt. God's arm stands for creative power
in texts like Isa 51:9 and Ps 89:11.14, where
the imagery is linked to the battle with the
monstruous -*Rahab. God's arm is related
to the depiction of > YHWH as a judge at Isa
51:5; 59:16 and Ezek 20:33. 34. A connec-
tion with caring power is present at e.g.
Hos 11:3. YHWH is seen as a loving father
who taught Ephraim to walk and who took
him on the arm like a little boy. ‘Arm’ is
used as a hypostasis in Isa 63:12. Here the
zéróa^ stands for an independent power
going side by side with ->Moses and stres-
sing the function of YHWH as shepherd
and leader of his people (HELFMEYER
1975:656-657).
IV. Bibliography
K. BEYER & A. LiVINGSTONE, Eine neue
reichsaramüische Inschrift aus Taima,
ZDMG 140 (1990) 1-2; F. J. HELFMEYER,
zeróa*, TWAT 5 (1975), 650-660; M. C. A.
KonPEL, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and
Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8;
Münster 1990).
B. BECKING
ARTA
I. The word arta, as theophoric element
in the first part of the name Artaxerxes (e.g.
Ezra 4:7), translates “the decisive confes-
sional concept of Zoroastrianism (or
90
Mazdaism)", as LOMMEL wrote (1930:48).
The written form arta in the name of the
Achaemenid king represents both the
specifically Old-Persian form of the word
and the undifferentiated pan-Iranian form
which was probably still in use at the time.
In the Avesta, the sacred book of Mazdaism,
the word became afa as a result of phonetic
changes due to oral transmission, § probably
representing a dorsal spirant that could bc
noted phonetically as [Al].
aga corresponds to Vedic Sanskrit rid and
represents therefore a notion inherited from
a common Indo-Iranian tradition. Its mean-
ing has been interpreted in three different
ways:
1. The meaning of 'truth'—the ancient
meaning according to Plutarch (De /side et
Osiride 47), who translates aja as àArj0gva—
has been strongly championed by LüpERS
(1959 passim), who believes it can cover
every instance of the word. See also, more
recently, SCHLERATH 1987:694-696.
2. Since the very beginning of Indo-
Iranian philology, a large number of special-
ists have shared the opinion that such a fun-
damental notion as aša/rrá “cannot be
precisely rendered by some single word in
another tongue” (see Boyce 1975:27) and
that the word often occurs with what may be
the original meaning of ‘order’, understood
as cosmic, social, liturgical and moral order.
3. More recently, the present author has
defended the hypothesis that, at least in the
oldest texts, a$a/rtá had kept the etymologi-
cal sense of ‘organization’ or ‘lay-out’
(Indo-European *H2rtó -) and expressed,
first and foremost, the principle of cohesion
of the universe, the creator of which is the
great god Ahura Mazda, metaphorically
represented in the cosmogonic pattem
showing the organization of the universe as
the putting up of a tent (KELLENS 1991:41-
47).
II. The concept represented by aga was
personified. In the ancient Avesta, Aša is the
most frequently mentioned among an unde-
termined number of entities composing a
kind of secondary pantheon around Ahura
Mazda, so that the allegory of truth or of the
ARTEMIS
cosmic organization is second in rank
among the ancient Mazdaean deities. In the
recent Avesta and in the Pahlavi books, Aga
ranks second in the canonical group of the
six amesa spenta, or “Beneficent Immortals”
co-existing with the traditional Indo-Iranian
pantheon. Its patronage of the element
-*fire, which appears clearly in Sassanid
Mazdaism, probably derives from the older
conception that fire and light, pervading as
they do the world of day, enable man to see
the organization of the universe, while at the
same time being its essential components
(Lommel, in SCHLERATH 1976: 266-269;
NARTEN 1982:121-123).
The concept of aja concentrates all the
elements of Mazdaean dualism. Its system-
atic opposition to the concept of druj, or
‘deceit’ (and not simply to its negative darta
as in Vedic Sanskrit) creates a fundamental
split among deities and among men, who are
defined as afauuan, ‘followers of Aša’, or as
dreguuant, ‘deccivers’, according to whether
they support the one or the other principle.
The enthronement name artaxa(a.
‘Artaxerxes’, may well be a *Zitatname’, re-
producing a common clausula in the ancient
Avesta by associating, without any necess-
ary logical link, the names of the two en-
tities afa and xsaBra (‘power’) (KELLENS &
PiRART 1988:40).
III. Bibliography
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism,
Vol 1 (Leiden 1975) 27; J. KELLENS, Zoro-
astre et l'Avesta ancien (Paris 1991) 41-47;
J. KELLENS & E. PIRART, Les textes vieil-
avestiques, Vol 1 (Wiesbaden 1988) 40; H.
LoMMEL, Die Religion Zarathustras (Tü-
bingen 1930) 48; H. Lipers, Varuna Il
(Gottingen 1959); J. Narten, Die Amega
Spentas im Avesta (Wiesbaden 1982) 121-
123; B. ScHLERATH (ed.), Zarathustra
(Darmstadt 1976) 266-269; SCHLERATH,
Aga, Encyclopaedia lranica, Vol 2 (Lon-
don/New York 1987) 694-696.
J. KELLENS
ARTEMIS “Aptepic
I. Artemis is the Greek virgin goddess
91
originally of hunting and animal fertility. lt
occurs as a divine name in Acts 19 (in
Jewish literature only Sib. Or. 5,293-295);
morcover one of Paul's companions had the
theophoric name ‘Aptepac, a hypocoristic
derived from ‘Aptepidmpos ‘gift of Artemis’
(Titus 3:12). Being the divine huntress, her
name, especially its Doric-Acolian form
“Aptapic, has been connected etymological-
ly with Attic Gptajiog ‘butcher; staughterer’,
or else with apx(t)o¢ ‘bear’, because the
bear was one of the animals sacrificed to
her, and her young priestesses were some-
times called 'she-bears'. Both explanations
fail, however, to account for the phonetic
difference in Attic between her name and
the adduced appellatives from that same dia-
lect, unless one supposes that “Aptepic
itself is not originally Attic but stems from
yet another dialect. It has even been sug-
gested, therefore, that the form “Aprtayic,
the other way round, owes its existence to
popular etymology on the basis of aptapoc.
In the Linear-B tablets from Pylos her name
occurs twice, as A-te-mi-to (gen. sg), and as
A-ti-mi-te (dat. sg.). The alternative expla-
nation, now generally adopted, is that her
name is not Indo-European at all, but of pre-
Greek origin, like those of so many other
Greek gods and heroes. In Lydian she was
called Artimus, in Etruscan Artumes (nom.
sg.), Aritimi (dat. sg.), in Imperial Aramaic
she appears as VIN (KA/ 260B7) or
OVS (Fouilles de Xanthos V1, p. 137 line
24). Unlike that of her brother ->Apollo, the
Romans and Latins did not take over her
Greek name, but identified her, instead, with
the indigenous Diana.
II. General Survey. In Greece Artemis is
attested since 1200 BcE, and in Greek litera-
ture from Homer onward. According to the
most current version of her myth she was
the elder twin-sister of Apollo, the two of
them being the offspring of -*Zeus and his
first cousin Leto, a daughter of the Titans
Coeus and -*Phoebe. As the pregnant Leto
had to roam in flight from -*Hera, the
jealous spouse of Zeus, she gave birth to
Artemis in Ortygia or ‘quails’ land’, which
some located near Ephesus. Subsequently
ARTEMIS
she bore Apollo in the island of Delos, at
this second birth being assisted according to
some authors by her new-born daughter
Artemis. Originally the realm of Artemis
was the world of wild animals and natural
vegetation. Homer summarizes her character
as “Mistress of the Animals (xótvia 0npóv),
Artemis the Huntress” who uses “to kill the
animals in the mountains” (/liad 21,470-
471,485).
Positively, therefore, she is the one who
rules over fertility in general, in particular
the fertility of women, over animals hunted
by man such as the deer and the boar, and
wild trees. She is also the one who keeps
under control animals that are dangerous to
mankind, such as the bear and the wolf. To
a lesser extent cultivated trees, cereals and
domesticated animals seem to have fallen
under her sway as well. With the other gods
she was entitled to the first fruits of the
annual crops. At Patrae, in archaic times, the
human sacrifices made to her wore on their
heads garlands of com ears (Pausanias
7,20,1). In Thasos she was venerated under
the epithet of MwAd or ‘Protectress of
Foals’, in other places as Aagv(a)ia or
‘Goddess of the Laurel’. Normally, how-
ever, it was Demeter who made the com
grow, -*Poseidon who was the horse-god,
and Apollo to whom the laurel was especial-
ly sacred. Moreover, she never competed
with —Dionysus or -Athena as far as thc
vine or the olive tree were concerned.
Negatively, she could show her power by
killing women in childbirth, by sending
monsters by way of punishment, such as the
‘Calydonian’ Boar to Calydon in order to
devastate the arable land and kill the cattle,
because its inhabitants had forgotten to
include her name in the invocations at the
annual sacrifice. She changed her hunting
companion Callisto into a she-bear, because
she was found to be pregnant. When her
temple at Patrac had been desecrated she
caused the earth to yield no harvest and sent
diseases as well (Pausanias 7,19,3). Being
generally of a rather vindictive character,
she had the hunter Actaeon killed by his
own hounds for having seen her naked when
bathing, and -*Orion by a scorpion because
92
he had tried to rape her; together with her
brother she shot down six of the seven
daughters and six of the seven sons of
Niobe, who had insulted her mother Leto for
having only two children.
Only seldom in myth does she help a
human, one of the rare instances being little
Atalanta who had been exposed on Mt.
Parthenion by her father, because he only
wanted sons. Her life was saved by a she-
bear who suckled her. After that she grew
up to be a swift-footed virgin huntress, who
would only marry the man that could beat
her in running. The bear, being one of Arte-
mis’ sacred animals, had, of course, been
sent by the goddess (Apollodorus, Libr.
3,9,2). For the rest her myths are concerned
with killing, and, unlike the mythology of
other goddesses, not at all with love.
Being a huntress, she is often depicted
carrying bow and arrows. So is her brother
Apollo, but in his case because his original
function probably was to protect the herds
from the attacks of wolves, hence in all
likelihood his epithet Auxetog. This is ex-
plained as ‘wolf-killing’ by Sophocles
(Electra 6-7), but secondarily interpreted as
‘Lycian’ because his mother Leto was in
reality a Lycian goddess. His Homeric epi-
thet Auxmyevrig would then be the equiv-
alent of Antoyevńç. In Troezen, to match
her brother in this respect, Anemis was
venerated as Avxeta, while Apollo in his
tum was sometimes invoked as ‘the Hunter’
(Aypevs, ‘Aypatos).
As Artemis had a special relation to
women, presiding over their fertility and
being called upon during the hours of labour
(epithets: Aexo and Aoxeia, ‘protectress of
the child-bed’, LwwSiva, ‘who saves from
travail’), she was naturally in course of time
also connected via the menstrual cycle with
the moon. As a counterpart to this devel-
opment, but for other reasons, her brother
became the god of the sun. Here a third ety-
mology of Avxeiog has played its part, the
one which derived it from AvKn ‘moming
twilight’ (cf. Macrobius, Sat. 1,17,36-41). In
both cases the connections with the celestial
bodies are clearly secondary; they are still
unknown to Homer. For Hesiod, too, Selene
ARTEMIS
and her brother Helios are still the child-
ren of the Titans Hyperión and Theia
(Theog. 371). but in later times Philo of
Alexandria could simply say that some of
mankind (i. c. the Greeks) "call the moon
Artemis” (De decal. 54). A further paral-
lelism between Artemis and Apollo is the
unmarried status of both, Artemis being
emphatically venerated as a virgin. This lat-
ter characteristic may be in accordance with
the fact that the wild animals with whom
she is often associated, the deer, the boar
and the bear. do not live in pairs, the bear
normally living solitary outside the mating
season. The sacrifices made to her were the
wild animals mentioned, also wolves, even a
fox at Ephesus, goats, edible birds and the
fruits of trees. There are several testimonies
to earlier human sacrifices having been
replaced by other rites. The most widely
known reminiscence of the former practice
is, of course, the story of king Agamem-
non’s daughter Iphigeneia, who was
sacrificed but in the last moment replaced by
a hind or a she-bear. In spite of the OT
instances of Isaac and -*Jephtha's daughter,
pagan gods were readily criticized by Chris-
tian church fathers on the point of human
sacrifices; Artemis, e.g, by Tatian (Or.
29,2).
Artemis was depicted as wearing a short
hunting tunic or a long robe (‘Apteptg
xateotaAuévn). In iconography she is often
accompanied by a hind and carries bow and
quiver, sometimes a torch. The latter at-
tribute she assumed from the goddess
Hecate, with whom she was often identified
because the two shared a number of charac-
teristics (such as her lunar associations). Her
appearance in dreams of hunters or pregnant
women was considered a propitious sign,
but when she appeared naked it was an ill
omen (Artemidorus, Onirocr. 2,35).
She was widely venerated in Greece and
more particularly in Asia Minor, sometimes
together with Apollo (so e. g. at Mantinea,
Daphne near Antioch, Syracuse). Pausanias,
who describes many local varieties of the
different deities, each with a distinctive sur-
name, lists no less than 64 of such epithets
for Artemis, many of which are, of course.
93
only geographical, such as ‘Ephesia’. In this
respect she was only marginally surpassed
by Zeus (67 epithets); but she herself sur-
passed Athena (59), Apollo (58), -Aphro-
dite and Dionysus (both 27), and Demeter
(26). Her great popularity was undoubtedly
due to the fact that she was one of the rare
goddesses who presided over the exclusively
female aspects of life like pregnancy, child-
birth and the rearing of infants. When boys
and girls came of age they sacrificed a hair-
lock to the goddess on the third and last day
of the Apatouria or clan festival. A boy did
so when his epheby ended and he was
enlisted in his father's phratry or clan, and
became a full-fledged citizen himself; girls
made this sacrifice before their marriage was
solemnized, probably in the phratry of the
future husband.
In various places the local calendar
included a month named after Artemis: e.g.
Artamitios at Sparta, Artemisiaon at
Erythrac, and Artemisios in the Macedonian
calendar used in the Hellenistic kingdoms.
In Athens the month was called Elaphé-
bolión after her epithet Elaphébolos (‘deer
huntress’); her festival, the Elaphébolia, was
celebrated in this month.
In Greece Artemis was at times conflated
with other goddesses, mainly with Hecate,
to whom she owed her association with
magical practices. Abroad she was often
identified with others, with several mother
goddesses in Asia Minor, with the Near
Eastem —Nanea (so 2 Macc 1,13, but
Josephus’ version in Ant. 12,354 has
"Artemis"), with the Persian Anaitis, one of
the three imperial deities of the later Achae-
menids, with the Thracian Bendis, with the
Italian Diana, and in Egypt with (Bu)bastis,
i. e. Bastet, the cat-goddess.
ITI. As there is no way of knowing which
Artemis the parents of Artemas (Titus 3,12)
had in mind when they gave a name to their
son, the further NT references to the god-
dess are only to the Artemis of Ephesus. All
the same it was this man who unwittingly
retained the name of the goddess in Chris-
tian times, for in later tradition he was con-
sidered to haye belonged to the seventy
apostles, and to have become bishop of
ARTEMIS
Lystra. As a consequence a festive day was
devoted to him in the calendar on the 21st
of June.
Artemis Ephesia was an early
identification with one of the various Ana-
tolian fertility and mother goddesses, an
identification which may well go back to the
very first Greek immigrants in the 11th cen-
tury BCE. The name of the indigenous god-
dess was probably Upis (Callimachus, Hymn
to Artemis 240) or Opis (Macrobius, Sat.
5,22,4-6). It was this particular cult of Arte-
mis, which in the course of the ages, be-
came more important than all her other local
cults and was world famous by the time of
Paul. Her temple, built by Chersiphron and
his son Metagenes, was so imposing that it
was the only one, so Solinus, that was
spared by king Xerxes when he was setting
fire to all the other Greek sanctuaries in
Asia (Solinus 40,2-4). In 356 BCE it never-
theless succumbed to the torch in the hand
of Herostratus, whose sole purpose it was to
become in this way as famous as the build-
ing itself; as a result his name is now better
known than those of the architects. After it
had been rebuilt by Dinocrates it was tradi-
tionally reckoned among the Seven Wonders
of the World, and functioned not only as a
sanctuary, but also as a place of asylum and
as a bank of deposit. In the last mentioned
capacity it had already been used by Xeno-
phon in the period between his military
expedition to Persia and the Spartan war
against Boeotia, in which he also took part.
Paul’s younger contemporary, Dio Chryso-
stom of Prusa, describes it as a place where
people from all over the Roman empire, pri-
vate persons, allied kings and townships,
had deposited large sums of money (Or.
31,54). Although Dio denies it, there are
others who say that this money was also lent
out (Nicolaus of Damascus frg 65). The area
of the asylum had had different extents in
the course of time, but was finally reduced
by Augustus, because it attracted too many
criminals (Strabo 14,1,23). The new arca
was probably marked by boundary stones
like the one which carries this bilingual
inscription: “Imp. Caesar Augustus fines
Dianae restituit. Avtoxpadtwp Kaicap
94
Zepaotóg ópoug 'Aptéjiót Groxatéotnoev"
(IGLS 3239). The goddess, however, was
also the owner of estates in the neighbour-
hood, marked by similar stones.
The regular cult as well as the festivals
attracted many visitors from abroad for
whom lodging and nutrition had to be
provided. In addition to this there was a
whole industry of miniature Artemis
temples, which may have been both dedica-
tory gifts and souvenirs, and although they
are known only from the 7th century, the
silver pins carrying a bee, the sacred animal
of Artemis Ephesia, were in all likelihood
still fabricated in the Roman period as well.
Altogether this means that the temple of ‘the
Goddess’ was one of the major sources of
wealth and prosperity for Ephesus, of which
the economical importance can hardly be
overestimated.
Although ‘Ephesia’ may have been in ori-
gin an Anatolian mother goddess, like the
Phrygian Matar Kubileya (->Cybele), the
identification with Artemis was carried
through to the very point of virginity, so that
the poet Antipater of Sidon around 125 BCE
could call her temple a ‘Parthenon’, like that
of her virgin half-sister Athena. She was
also a huntress, for hunting weapons were
carried by those who formed her festive pro-
cession, in which horses and hounds par-
aded as well. The Ephesians maintained,
however, that both Artemis and Apollo had
been born on Asian soil. Another difference
was that she always wore a long robe and a
kind of apron covered with what were and
are usually considered to be female breasts,
a token of fertility. This interpretation as
roAvpaotog goes back to Antiquity (e. g.
Minucius Felix, Oct. 22,5), but is certainly
secondary, for a similar apron is worn by
the male Zeus Labraundenus of Tegea. And
as it is stated in so many words of yet an-
other goddess, Berecynthia, that she was
covered with testicles, what Ephesia was
wearing were in all likelihood the testicles
of the bulls sacrificed to her. The bee was
her sacred animal, and as it does not itself
procreate, it may have been a symbol of her
chastity. It appears on the coins of Ephesus
from the 7th to the 3rd centuries BCE, after
ARTEMIS
that the image of the goddess herself begins
to replace her emblem. The virgins, who
served in her cult as priestesses, were also
called péAicoar ‘bees’, and because the
queen-bee, whose function was not under-
stood in Antiquity, was mostly thought to be
male and called ‘the king’, one of the titles
of her priests was €oonv, an indigenous
word for ‘ruler’. According to Strabo those
priests had to be eunuchs (14,1.23). but
Pausanias states that they only had to
abstain from sexual intercourse for a period
of one year (8.1.3). The change may be due
to the intervening edict of Hadrian, who for-
bade castration even if consent was given
(Digestae 48,8,4,2). Both priests and priest-
esses had to sacrifice their fertility to the
goddess in their own way.
Without the slightest doubt it was
Artemis who was the most important deity
of the city. An inscription calls her “the
goddess who rules (npoeotQooa) our city"
(SIG 867,29). Other epithets, like Meyiotn.
as well as MeyáAn (Acts 19:26; cf. Achilles
Tatius 8,9,13) and TIpoto0povia, emphasize
that she was first in rank, but certainly not
the only deity venerated. No less than about
twenty-five other gods were worshipped in
Ephesus, among whom there were several
Egyptian deities. This latter point is of some
importance for the interpretation of Acts 19,
because it underlines that the opposition
described was hardly against the introduc-
tion of a foreign god as such.
As the bilingual boundary stone of
Augustus shows, the Romans also referred
to Artemis Ephesia as 'Diana'. In fact the
cult statuc in her temple on the Aventine
Hill in Rome was supposed to be the copy
of the statue in Marseille, which, in turn,
was a replica of the Ephesian statue (Strabo
4,1,5). Consequently, the Vulgate version
also has 'Diana' in Acts 19, and this was
then taken over by Luther's version, the
King James Version, etc.
The Ephesian goddess had filial sanctu-
aries all over the world, not only in nearby
Greece (Alea; Scillus, founded by Xeno-
phon), but also in Massalia (Marseille), and
even as far away as Hemeroscopion in Spain
(Denia). According to inscriptions the god-
95
dess communicated with her adherents and
worked through oracles and epiphanies, and
is reported to have effected healings. It is
often stated by modern scholars that she was
particularly connected with magic. This was
indeed the case, but not particularly so, and
she owed this connection mostly to her
being identified with Hecate, the goddess of
magic par excellence. That may explain why
the Christian Tatian can say rather curtly:
"Artemis is a magos" (Or. ad. Gr. 8,2). The
emphasis, therefore, which is laid on this
aspect is hardly justified, and has probably
been brought about by the simple fact that
in Acts 19 the story of the burning of magic
books at Ephesus is immediately followed
by one about the riot of the silversmiths in
favour of Artemis, but such a burning could
easily have happened elsewhere, too. A
second factor has undoubtedly been the fact
that magical words and formulae were often
called ‘ephesia grammata’ in Antiquity. Yet
it is not at all certain that this means ‘Ephes-
ian’ and a derivation from &óe£oig (from
Edinut ‘send against; put on’) is quite poss-
ible. That such words were inscribed on the
statue of Artemis Ephesia is stated only by
Pausanias the Lexicographer (2nd cent. CE),
but is not corroborated by others or by
iconographical data. It is also true that the
name of Artemis, or characteristic epithets
of hers like 'loyéaipa or Avxo arc found in
the magical papyn, in the hymns and
prayers that form part of them, but here
again, nearly always together with the name
of Hecate or epithets of hers like Tpi-
xåpavoç, Tpioðitiç, Kuvo, etc. Only once
does she occur here with her epithet
Avxatva, and without Hecate, in a spell for
procuring knowledge of future events in
which now also -*Isis, —Osiris, -*Amun,
-*Moses, laó, and -*Helios -Mithras play a
part (PGM HI 434). Finally, the collection
of magical papyri contains a love charm
which does not mention Artemis, but only
her or Selene's epithet Phdsphoros. The
verso of this papyrus makes it clear, how-
ever, who this particular Phosphoros is, as it
carries a drawing which unmistakably
depicts the *many-breasted” Artemis Ephesia.
Morcover, it makes mention of Phnun, here
ARTEMIS
rather “the Abyss” than the Egyptian god
Nun, and ends with a triple invocation of
Ið (PGM LXXVIII). The latter two in-
stances may show how syncretistic magic
could be: a situation in which the distinctive
character of each individual deity is hardly
highlighted.
In Ephesus the whole month Artemisión
was sacred to her and all its days were holy
days, which implied int. al. that all juridical
activity had ceased. The main festival was
the Artemisia during which sacrifices, ban-
quets, processions and games took place.
There were also mysteries and mystic
sacrifices, but no further details are known
about their character, except that they were
performed by the college of six or more
‘curetes’, in the sacred grove ‘Ortygia’, or
on Mt. Solmissos above it (Strabo 14,1,20).
They were named after those ancient curetes
or armed dancers who, at the binh of
Artemis, had made such a terrible noise that
they frightened away the jealous Hera.
This motif has undoubtedly been taken over
from the story of the birth of Zeus in Crete,
in which the curetes play a comparable role.
The original function of these priests may
have been to represent the Artemis temple
and its estates in the city council of Ephesus.
IV. The presence of Jews in Asia goes
back at least to about 345 Bce when the
philosopher Aristotle met there with a Jew
who had come from Coele-Syria and who
could converse with him in Greek (Josephus,
Apion 1,176-182). King Seleucus I started to
grant to the Jews who lived there civic
rights in specific places, and so probably did
his grandson Antiochus II (Josephus Ant.
12,119;125). These rights amounted at least
to isonomia (ibid. 16,160), which implied
that Jews were allowed to live there in
accordance with their own laws and
customs, so that Jewish and Greek legis-
lation were both treated as equally valid by
the king. Such a construction harbours, of
course, the seeds of conflicts, and these
arose on several occasions during the first
century BCE. The pagans asked whether
Jews were not obliged to venerate their
gods, too, and whether it was permissible
96
for them to collect their own temple-tax and
send it to Jerusalem. Both questions reveal
that the Jewish practice was considered
detrimental to the local economy, all citizens
having to contribute to Artemis, for in-
stance, instead of transferring large sums
abroad. The Jews on their part objected
against having to appear in law-courts on
the sabbath, and also against military ser-
vice. The Roman officials, however, re-
peatedly reinforced the principle of iso-
nomy, so that the Jews could not be forced
to transgress their own laws. It should be
noted in this connection that, in general,
Jews were not averse to bearing pagan
theophoric names. As far as Artemis is con-
cerned, this is confirmed by an Egyptian
papyrus from the 2nd cent. BCE which men-
tions a “Dositheos, son of Artemidoros,
Jew” (CPJ 30,18); Dio Cassius, too, makes
mention of an Artemión, who was the leader
of the Jewish revolt in Cyprus around 117
CE (Roman Hist. 68,32).
This unstable equilibrium was en-
dangered when Paul, outside the synagogue.
started to preach that man-made idols were
not gods at all (Acts 19,9-10; 26; cf. 17,29).
Apparently, this idea had thusfar never been
propagated by Jews except within their own
congregation. Earlier, persons who had
insulted and violated the filial cult of the
goddess in Sardis had even been sentenced
to death (/. Eph. 1a,2; IV BCE). Quite under-
standably, since Paul was naturally to be
considered as one of its members, the other
Jews wanted to put things right by distanc-
ing themselves from him or even declaring
him to be an apostate (Acts 19:33-34). This,
however, did not help much. The motley
crowd that flocked together in the theatre
apparently knew quite well that the Jews,
although they did not directly endanger the
manufacture and sale of the silver Artemis
temples, were not venerators of the goddess
either. The core of Paul’s preaching against
her, viz. that her statue was man-made and
not divine, was dismissed by the ‘secretary’
of the city as incorrect by the use of one
single word only. He simply reminded his
audience of the fact that the statue was 510-
ARVAD
netés, “fallen down from Zeus” or “from
heaven” (Acts 19,35), and therefore of di-
vine origin. In some cases this could imply
that an image had been made out of a me-
teorite, but it is known for a fact that the
statue of Artemis Ephesia was a rather dark
wooden image (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 16,213-
214). Centuries earlier the Athenian audi-
ence of Euripides found nothing contradic-
tory in the assertion that a wooden image of
Artemis had as such fallen down from
heaven (/ph. Taur. 87-88; 977; 1044-1045).
In the 2nd century, Athenagoras wrote an
apology for the Christian religion to Marcus
Aurelius and his son Commodus. It devotes
a whole chapter to famous cult statues of the
time and mentions the various sculptors who
had carved them so as to show that they
were man-made and not divinc. It is certain-
ly no coincidence that the statue of Artemis
of Ephesus opens the enumeration becausc
of its role in the NT. Athenagoras ascribes it
to Endoeus, a pupil of the well-known
Daedalus who was the architect of the
Cretan labyrinth (Supp. 17,4).
In the Letter to the Church of Ephesus in
the Book of Revelation, the congregation is
praised for not having yielded to the doc-
trine of the Nicolaitans (2:6), which held
that Christians were allowed to eat meat
sacrificed to idols (2:14-15). At Ephesus this
would certainly have involved the Anemis-
cult. Some forty years earlier Paul, likewise,
had forbidden this practice as long as it
more or less implied one’s partaking of a
sacred pagan meal (1 Cor 8; 10:28). But if
such meat had found its way from a temple
to a market it was, according to Paul,
sufficiently secularized for Christians to eat
it (1 Cor 10:25-27).
The Jewish attitude towards the Artemis-
cult can hardly ever have been much more
positive than that of the Christians, and must
have been comparable to some kind of
armistice. The 5th book of the Sibylline
Oracles, written under Marcus Aurelius,
openly predicts her downfall, saying that her
temple “by yawnings and quakes of the
earth” will fall into the sea (293-297). Ironi-
cally, the temple survived vandalization by
the Goths in 263 CE and ended up as a
Christian church; it was rather the retreating
sea, which, through the silting up of the
estuary of the river Cayster, ultimately
caused Ephesus to become desolate with
temple and all.
V. Bibliography
F. Gnar, Nordionische Kulte (Rome 1985)
227-249, 410-417; K. HOENN, Artemis.
Gestaltwandel einer Gétin (Zürich 1946);
M. P. NiLSSON, Geschichte der griechischen
Religion, vol. I (Munich 1955) 483-500; vol.
II (Munich 1961) 368-369 (= Artemis Ephe-
sia); H. J. Rose, A Handbook of Greek
Mythology (London [6th ed. 1958] 1965)
112-119; E. Siwow et al., LIMC II.1 (1984)
618-855; H. WALTER, Griechische Gotter.
Thre Gestaltwandel aus den Bewusstseinsstu-
fen des Menschen dargestellt an den Bild-
werken (Munich 1971) 203-216; R. FLEI-
SCHER, Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte
Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien
(EPRO 35; Leiden 1973); NewDocs 4
(1987) nrs 19 and 28; 5 (1989) nr 5 (pp.
104-107); 6 (1992) nrs 29 and 30 (Artemis
Ephesia).
G. MUSSIES
ARVAD TIN
I. The city of Arvad (modern Ruad) is
the most northem of Phoenician cities, situ-
ated on an island two miles off-shore. Less
illustrious than Tyre and Sidon, Arvad and
its inhabitants are mentioned only a few
times in the Bible (Gen 10:18//1 Chr 1:16;
Ezek 27:8.11). It has been said that the city
is homonymous with an Assyrian deity
(Lewy 1934).
IIl. In Neo-Assyrian annals, the city of
Arvad is sometimes referred to as Ar-ma-da
(S. PARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT
6; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970] 37). This spel-
ling corresponds exactly to that of the god
Armada whose name has been read in a
dedicatory brick inscription of Shalmaneser
III (858-824 BCE). The text in question (O.
SCHROEDER, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur his-
torischen Inhalts, Vol. 2 [WVDOG 37;
Leipzig 1922] no. 103) quotes the king as
97
ASHAM
saying "a golden (statue of) Armada of the
temple of Assur my lord, which did not
exist before, I made upon my own intuition"
(lines 4-6: JAr-ma-da 3a € AS+sur EN-ia, 54
ina pa-na la ib-§u, ina hi-sa-at SA-ia ša
KÜ.GI e-pu-iu; for a translation of the text
see also ARAB 1, no. 709 and E. MICHEL,
Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858-
824), WO 1/4 [1949] 25-271, esp. 268-269
no. 23). SCHROEDER concluded that "dAr-
ma-da was presumably the principal god of
the homonymous city and territory of Arvad”
(1922:168); LEwy adopted the same conclu-
sion (1934). Except for this one text, howe-
ver, a deity Armada is never mentioned in
the cuneiform sources. There is the distinct
possibility that the reading is based on an
error (of either the ancient scribe or the
modern copyist). Even if there ever was a
god Armada, we cannot be sure of the con-
nection with the city of Arvad, as the topo-
nym is spelled in quite different ways; the
writing A-ru-ad-da for instance is far more
frequent (PARPOLA, AOAT 6, 37).
III. In the few instances in which Arvad
is mentioned in the Bible, there is no hint of
a divine nature of the city or a god by that
name.
IV. Bibliography
J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens et
l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 49; O.
SCHROEDER, Zur Rezipierung des dAr-ma-da
unter Salmanassar IlI., ZA 34 (1922) 168-
169; E. UNGER, Arwad, RLA 1 (1932) 160-
161.
K. VAN DER TOORN
ASHAM CON
I. The divine name itm is attested as the
second clement of the divine binomial Sgr w
itm in the sacrificial list recorded on RS
24.643 verso (KTU 1.148:31) and has been
interpreted as related to the Hebrew word
’aSam, ‘guilt’ and ‘guilt-offering’ (AsToUR
1966:281-282).
II. A new syllabically written ‘pantheon’
text from Ras Shamra now lays to rest the
identification of itm with Hebrew 'ásám. In
1992.2004:14 (reading and interpretation
98
courtesy D. Arnaud) the entry corresponding
to Sgr w itm is Shar à dgirs, indicating that
itm is the Ugaritic equivalent of the Mesop-
otamian deity [Sum (on this deity see
Epzarp 1965; RoBerts 1972; cf. Fire).
The identification of Shaggar with a
-moon deity is explicit in Hieroglyphic
Hittite correspondences to syllabically
written personal names (430 = sd-gatra/i;
E. LAROCHE, Akkadica 22 [1981] 11; H.
GONNET, apud D. ARNAUD, Textes syriens
de l'áge du Bronze Récent [AulOr Suppl 1;
Barcelona 1991] 199, 207), while in an
Emar ritual the fifteenth day of the month is
ascribed to Shaggar (D. ARNAUD, Annuaire
de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes,
Section des Sciences Religieuses 92 [1983-
84] 234; idem, Emar VI/3 [1986] 350-66,
text 373 = Msk 74292a + 74290d + 74304a
+ 74290c). It appears thus that this deity not
only had a connection with small cattle (cf.
Coorer 1981:415-416; cf. —>Sheger) but
also with the moon, and the pair Sgr w itm
thereby shows a certain similarity to the ad
hoc pair yrh w rip (KTU 1.107:15 z line 40’
in the re-edition of PARDEE 1988). Given
the fact that Yarihu is the primary lunar
deity at Ugarit and Rashap the primary
underworld deity (-*Resheph), Shaggar and
Yarihu would bear a functional resemblance
to each other (Shaggar being perhaps the
deity of the full moon), while "Itum would
be related to Rashap as I$um is related to
—Nergal in Mesopotamian religion (cf.
EDZARD 1965; RoBERTS 1972).
Finally, the connection between the cer-
tain divine name itm and the form itmh in
KTU 1.108:14 cannot be elucidated because
itmh occurs in a badly broken context (cf.
PARDEE 1988 chap. II).
III. In the absence of a Ugaritic example,
there is no evidence for the existence of a
Semitic or biblical deity whose name is
based on the root denoting 'guilt'. ASTOUR's
tentative identification (1966) must therefore
be rejected (see also CoorER 1981:344-345;
WaNsBROUGH 1987).
IV. Bibliography
M. C. Asroun, Some New Divine Names
from Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284; A.
ASHERAH
Cooper, Divine Names and Epithets in the
Ugaritic Texts, RSP III (1981) 333-469; D.
O. Epzarp, WbMyih 1 (1965) 90-91; D.
PARDEE, Les textes para-mythologiques de
la 24e campagne (1961) (RSO IV; Paris
1988) 227-256; PARDEE, Les textes rituels
(RSO; Paris, f.c.) chap. 66; J. J. M.
Roperts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A
Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in
Mesopotamia before Ur IIl [Baltimore 1972]
40-41; J. WANSBROUGH, Antonomasia: the
Case for Semitic ’7M, Figurative Language
in the Ancient Near East (eds. M. Mindlin,
etal.; London 1987) 103-116.
D. PARDEE
ASHERAH 728
I. The Hebrew term "'ásérá, "áierá,
seems to be used in two senses in the Bible,
as a cultic object (asherah) and as a divine
name (Asherah).
It is the presence of possibly cognate
words in other Semitic languages, where
goddesses are frequently understood to be
denoted, that has raised interesting questions
for the interpretation of the OT references,
and the linguistic problems are now com-
pounded by the inscriptions of Khirbet cl
Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud. The etymological
possibilities are considerable. Thus South
Arabic afr means 'shining'; Hebrew "aser
means ‘happy’ (cf. the tribal name Asher,
which may be a divine name in origin), or
‘upright’ (which is consonant with the prob-
able pole-structure of the cultic object, the
asherah); Hebrew "àsar, Ugaritic "atr, may
mean ‘to advance, walk’ (exploited in expla-
nations of the goddess as ‘walker’, or
‘trampler’, but denied in this sense by
MARGALIT 1990:268); the common noun atr
(air) meaning '(sacred) place’ is most
widely attested in the Semitic languages
(ALBRIGHT, AJSL 41 [1925] 99-100: Day
1986:388), and perhaps offers the least
difficulties, as being able to stand on its
own, and may represent the original sense,
though MARGALIT’s suggestion (1990, pas-
sim), of a wife ‘following’ her husband
(Ugaritic atr = ‘after’), and therefore as a
99
denominative, ‘wife’, ‘consort’, is attractive.
A new proposal by WATSON (1993) is sug-
gested by the title ‘Mistress of fates’ (be-le-
e[t] $i-ma-tim) which occurs in a hymn to
-Amurru in parallel with das-ra-t[um Si?]-
ma-tim. On the basis of this he suggests that
atrt ym may be construed as ‘She who or-
ganises the day’. In any event a West Se-
mitic origin for the goddess is most likely
(Dav 1986:386; WicGiNs 1993:278)—even
though the earliest evidence is in Akkad-
ian—so that a West Semitic etymology
should be sought. We may be sure that all
possible wordplays were entertained by the
ancients, however, in exploring her theol-
ogy, so that ruling an etymology out of
account on philological grounds does not
rule out possible mythological and theologi-
cal developments, or cult-titles as suggested
above. This ‘symbolic extension’ of divine
names is often not sufficiently recognised by
scholars.
H. Ugarit. Ugaritic literature provides
our primary source concerning the goddess.
The name is spelt atrt, usually vocalised as
*Athirat(u)', or, following Hebrew conven-
tion, ‘Asherah’. She appears in the follow-
ing contexts. In the ‘Baal cycle’ of myths,
KTU 1.1-6, she is a great goddess, mother of
the minor gods of the panthcon, referred to
as ‘the seventy sons of Athirat (Sb%n bn
atrt, KTU 1.4 vi:46), who intercedes for
*Baal and -*Anat before >El (KTU 1.4 iv),
and who supplies a son to reign following
the descent of Baal into the netherworld
(KTU 1.6 i:45-55). In one obscure episode
(cf. KTU 1.4 ii:1-11 with 4 iii:15-22) it is
possible that she attempts to seduce Baal, or
is thought by him to have done so (Horr-
NER 1990:69). It may also be that Baal kills
large numbers of her children (KTU 1.4
11:23-26 with 1.6 v:1-4; HOFFNER 1990:69).
She appears to be the consort of El (id,
though this is nowhere stated. In the Keret
story, KTU 1.14-16, the king, while travel-
ling to claim his bride, makes a vow to
"Athirat of the Tyrians, and the goddess of
the Sidonians" (KTU 1.14:38-39), indicating
that the poet regards her as a goddess of
Tyre and -*Sidon (but cf. B. MancarrT, UF
ASHERAH
28 [1996] 453-455). When the vow is bro-
ken, her vengeance entails the complete
undoing of all El’s plans to redeem Keret.
Further, the heir to Keret’s throne is descri-
bed as one “who will drink the milk of Athi-
rat, draining the breast of the Virgin [ ]"
(KTU 1.15 ii:27 —the completion of the
lacuna by — ‘Anat’ is gratuitous: WYATT,
UF 15 [1983] 273-274 and n. 13). This has
an important bearing on the goddess' ideolo-
gical role, suggesting that kings are made
quasi-divine by divine suckling. Apart from
mention in sacrificial and pantheon lists, the
goddess also appears in two theogonic texts,
KTU 1.12 i and 1.23, the former describing
the binh of ‘the Devourers’ to the hand-
maids of Athirat and Yarihu, the latter
describing two wives of El (seemingly Athi-
rat and perhaps Shapsh) who consummate
their marriage with him, and give birth to
-—Shahar and -*Shalem, the —Dioskouroi.
These texts have a bearing on several bibli-
cal traditions, such as Gen 16, 19:30-38, Ps
8 etc. (Wyatt 1993). The goddess’ name
appears in the longer title rbr atrt ym, mean-
ing perhaps ‘the Great Lady who walks on
the Sea’ (the name therefore apparently
understood as ‘Walker’), but this should not
be understood to point to the true etymology
(above), and is not falsified by an appeal to
etymology, being perhaps an example of
‘popular’ (rather ‘hieratic’) etymologising.
Likewise, WATSON's proposal (1993) has at
least this status, and would also be conso-
nant with occasional hints that she has solar
connections (such as the pairing with
Shapsh in KTU 1.23).
Under West Semitic evidence we should
also note the personal name Abdi-ASirta,
occurring in various transcriptions as a ruler
of Amurru, Ugarit’s neighbour to the south,
mentioned some 92 times in the Amarna let-
ters (EA). In the hymn cited by WATSON
(1993), Ashratum is the consort of the god
Amurru. In addition, she appears in a letter
from Taanach dating to the 15th century
(ALBRIGHT, BASOR 94 [1944] 18, Taanach
letter 1, 1. 21) and in one Aramaic inscrip-
tion (KAI 228) as a goddess of Tema. This
last is of interest in view of -*Yahweh’s
possible associations with Tema (cf. Hab
3:3 - LXX renders both téma’ and témdn of
MT by Thaiman). The reading is however
questioned by Cross (CBQ 48 [1986] 387-
394) and Day (1992:485).
Philistine. Excavations in Tel
Miqne/Ekron have brought to light a few
dedicatory inscriptions mentioning the god-
dess ^irh. The inscriptions were engraved
on jars whose contents probably were desti-
ned for the cult of the deity or her symbol
(DorHAN 1990; Grn 1990; Gmn
1993:250; DOTHAN & GrTIN 1994). A royal
dedicatory inscription from Ekron mentions
in line 3 a goddess Prgyh, who as yet has
not been identified. Her epithet "dh, ‘his
lady’ (Adat), might indicate that she was
identified with the local semitic deity Ashe-
rah (Grrin, DoTHAN & NAVEH 1997, esp.
11-12).
Egypt. Athirat has been identified as
‘Qudshu’ (‘the ->Holy One’) appearing in
KTU 1.2 i:21 etc. (the phrase bn qd§ being
misconstrued as ‘the sons of Qudshu"), and
thus a link is made between her and the so-
called Qudshu stelae from Thebes (so most
recently Day 1986:388-389, 399). However,
on the stelae the name reads qdst (feminine),
and there is in any case no justification for
identifying the goddess of the stelae with
Athirat. Furthermore, the qdš of the Ugaritic
texts should be construed as denoting El, or
less probably as the abstract ‘holiness’. If
this term referred to Athirat, it would re-
quire a final ! to denote the feminine. Reiter-
ation of elementary errors of this sort by
subsequent generations of scholars only
compounds the error! (Sec WicGGiNs 1991
for a sober view on these matters; see also
Holy One)
Mesopotamia. The forms Airaru(m),
ASiratu, ASirtu (here ‘Ashratu’) appear in-
frequently in Akkadian and Hittite docu-
ments, and give only the sketchiest informa-
tion concerning the goddess. The fact that
she appears as the consort of Amuru
(above) is evidence of Ashratu(m)’s Amor-
ite (thus, West Semitic) origin. The earliest
reference is in a votive inscription in Sumer-
ian from Hammurabi's time (18th century),
100
ASHERAH
BM 22454. In this her epithets include
‘daughter-in-law of An’, ‘Lady of volup-
tuousness and happiness’ and ‘Lady with
patient mercy’. She also appears in a num-
ber of god-lists, the list K. 3089 indicating
that she had a temple in Babylon, and on a
number of cylinder-seals and impressions.
Ashratum also appears in one personal name
from the time of Hammurabi: Ašratum-
Ummi. Finally, she is mentioned in three
ritual texts from the Seleucid period. The
Sumcero-Akkadian evidence has been recent-
ly summarised and evaluated by WiGGINS
(1993:190-217).
A Hittite text. contains the myth of
Elkunirsha (-*El-creator-of-the-earth) and
Ashertu, which appears to be derived by
Hurrian mediation from a Canaanite proto-
type. ElkurnirSa is generally accepted as a
transcription of *il qny arş (cf. Gen 14:19),
and ASertu as onc of atrt. This narrates how
the goddess tries to seduce the storm-god
(Tešub = Baal —>Hadad). When he repons
this to Elkunirsha, he is told to humiliate the
goddess. But he does this, both sexually,
apparently (see HOFFNER’S translation: cf.
ANET 519), and by telling her how he killed
her children. She and Elkunirsha then plot
against the storm-god, but Anat-Ashtart
reveals their plotting to him. The storm-god
is then apparently injured (through witch-
craft?), but is subsequently exorcised.
(HOFFNER 1990:69-70)
Arabia. A goddess Athirat has been dis-
cerned in the epigraphic South Arabian
inscriptions, dating from the mid-first mil-
lennium BCE. The term atrt occurs in
various inscriptions in the dialects of the
region, and can mean ‘sanctuary’, in addi-
tion to being a divine name in some in-
stances. Unfortunately, very little informa-
tion can be gleaned for our purposes from
the texts. RES 3534B and 3550 mention a
temple of Wadd and Athirat, while RES
3689 alludes to offerings to ‘Amm and
Athirat. Wadd is the Qatabanian moon-god,
and ‘Amm the national god, who may be
lunar, and thus another name for Wadd.
Whether or not Athirat is the consort of the
god in cach case, and is therefore solar in
South Arabia, cannot be decided on the
basis of the evidence available.
III. The term (Ad-’asérd, var. ’dsérd),
appears some 40 times in MT, usually with
the article. When the plural is used, the
forms ’asérim and ’asérét both occur. A
cultic object appears most commonly to be
denoted, which can be ‘made’ ('$nu), 'cut
down’ (KRT) and ‘burnt’ (Srp). Probably a
stylised tree, or a lopped trunk, is in-
tended—see Deut 16:21, which prohibits the
‘planting’ of any tree (or: wood) as an
asherah, and Judg 6:25-26, where it can
become sacrificial fuel—and is frequently
singled out for opprobrium by the Deutero-
nomist. However, not only is the attitude of
the biblical writers not entirely consistent,
but neither is the usage, the article being
absent, or not presupposed by suffixes, in 8
cases. The term also appears in both singu-
lar and plural, and in the latter can apparent-
ly be masculine or feminine (the latter is
however dubious—sec below). Furthermore,
the matter of the reference of a given pas-
sage, to cultic object or goddess, is indepen-
dent of the use of the article. This is clear
from the fact that in every instance where
'Baal' is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible,
the article is used (allowed for in this in-
stance by GK §126d, on the ground that it is
specifying a generic term), as it is with a
number of the 'Ashtoreth' (-^Astarte) rcf-
erences. Since in both these cases there is no
question of it not being a deity of some kind
that is referred to, whether specific or gen-
eric, it follows that the same rule may at
least in principle apply in the case of ‘the
asherah'. The presence or absence of the
article is therefore not, in the present writer's
view, a determinant in our analysis; what it
probably does is to remove the proper name
status of the noun, making it into a general
term for a deity, though the use of the ar-
ticle with ’éléhim in its designation of the
god of Israel suggests that the mechanical
application of grammatical rules may be
premature (see above: GK §126d). The first
problem with the biblical allusions is there-
fore where a goddess is to be discerned
behind the references and where the cult
101
ASHERAH
object. It is general contextual consider-
ations which are to be taken into account.
Thus references to constructing, erecting,
removing or burning the asherah are in prin-
ciple to be understood as referring to the
cult object. LXX apparently understood its
arboreal nature by its commonest translation
as alsos, ‘grove’. The Mishnah (‘Abodah
Zarah 3:7) regards the Ashcerah as a tree.
We shall consider below the relationship
between object and deity.
The most important single source is the
Deuteronomistic History, which contains 24
of the 40 references. One of its chief con-
cems is cultic purity, a strictly monolatrous
Yahwism, and it therefore regards the pres-
ence of the asherah as evidence of apostasy.
The Deuteronomistic historians have done
their work so well that scholars are prone to
talk of the asherah and other cultic elements
as evidence of syncretism, or of (extraneous)
‘Canaanite’ elements in the Israclite and
Judahite cults. In view of the epigraphic evi-
dence to be discussed below, it is safer to
begin from the supposition that the religion
of both kingdoms only gradually moved
towards monolatry and then monotheism,
through prophctic and Deuteronom(ist)ic
influence, and was otherwise, at both popu-
lar and official levels, basically polytheistic
in nature, Furthermore, there is no justi-
fication for ideas of 'foreignness' about the
Canaanite elements in religion in Palestine.
Israel and Judah are to be seen as wholly
within that cultural tradition. Historically
speaking, it is their emergence from it which
is striking (though often overstated) rather
than its inherently alien nature. If we set
aside those passages which treat the asherah
specifically as an object to which certain
things could be done, we are left with the
following passages which may reasonably
be understood to denote the goddess.
Judg 3:7 is a general statement on apos-
tasy, and states that the Israelites served the
Baals and the 'Asheroth'. This would be a
generic use of the term, but should be cor-
rected in accordance with Judg 2:13, where
the goddess(es) are called Ashtaroth
(‘Astdrét). 1 Kgs 15:13 (= 2 Chr 15:16) says
that Maacah made an “obscene thing for
(the) asherah" (miplesget là'áserá) and that
Asa cut it (sc. the *obscene thing', not the
asherah) down. The Kgs text has the article,
the Chr text omits it. The principle of the
article with divine names noted above
applies, and there is no need to see a shift in
understanding between the two versions.
The Kgs passage undoubtedly has the god-
dess in mind (and apparently has her left
standing!), though the article reduces her
name to a generality. | Kgs 18:19 mentions
400 prophets of Asherah: the article is used,
but the deity must be intended, unless the
text be rejected as a gloss, as by some com-
mentators. LXX repeats the phrase at v 22,
and there is no objective reason for omitting
it here. In the accompanying reference to the
450 prophets of Baal, the article is of course
used, so both divine names must, on reten-
tion of the text, be interpreted consistently. 2
Kgs 13:6 appears to be an attempt to incor-
porate the asherah among the sins of Jero-
boam (though this is originally singular, as
in | Kgs 16:19, and refers to the calf-images
of | Kgs 12:28-29). REB translates h@’ăšērâ
here as the divine name, but the sacred pole
is probably intended. 2 Kgs 21:7 states that
Manasseh ‘set up an image of the asherah’,
which again appears to refer to the goddess
(so REB). But the verse should perhaps be
harmonised with v 3, which simply alludes
to the sacred pole. Finally within the
Deuteronomistic History, 2 Kgs 23:4-7, in
the account of Josiah's reform, v 4 refers to
items made labba‘al wéla’dsérd, ‘for (the)
Baal and for (the) Asherah’, while v 7
speaks of the ‘clothes’ (bottim: perhaps
‘shrines’?, WiGGINS 1993:165) the women
wove for the asherah. The first of these
verses can only refer to the goddess, while
the second is ambiguous, since it may be a
matter of hangings for the sacred pole.
Among the other 16 references to the
asherah, 15 are in the plural, and thus clear-
ly do not denote the goddess. They range
from Exod 34:13 (thoroughly Deutero-
nomistic in style), through 11 references in
2 Chr (of which only 15:16 [1 Kgs 15:13] is
singular), most of which parallel the same
102
ASHERAH
data in Kgs, two references in Isaiah (17:8
and 27:9) and one each in Jeremiah (17:2)
and Micah (5:13). The paucity of prophetic
references is striking, and raises the possibil-
ity that the violent objection to goddess and
cult object belongs to one particular theol-
ogical school (viz. the Deuteronomistic) in
Judah. Above all, the absence of any ref-
erence in Hosea is cause for surprise.
(WELLHAUSEN's proposal for 14:9 [Die
kleine Propheten (Berlin 18983) 20] remains
conjectural.) The few prophetic allusions
noted are all best explained as later addi-
tions to the text. All the plural forms are in
the masculine, with the exception of 2 Chr
33:3, which has the feminine plural. Since
the parallel in 2 Kgs 21:3 has the singular,
there is a case for emendation here. All the
plural occurrences in the Deuteronomistic
History are also masculine, and since we
have already discounted Judg 3:7, it means
that the only genuine plural form is mascu-
line. (There may be a case for a further
instance of the masculine plural use: 1 Sam
7:3 has in MT weéhá'astárót, but LXX reads
. .kai ta alse, presupposing há'dsérím.
Why is the masculine form used in the
plural usage? WiGGiNS (1993:169-170, 186)
suggests that in the Deuteronomistic History
the usage is in accordance with the double
redaction principle: the feminine singular
references are by and large preexilic. the
masculine plural ones exilic. This then be-
comes normative, among later editors and
writers who may have only the vaguest idea,
if any, what the singular term actually
denoted. The plural term is a code-word for
something cultically deviant.
The usage of "dséerà, in the singular
denoting the goddess or the cult object, and
in the plural meaning the latter, and
developing the vaguer sense just noted, is an
excellent basis for discussion of the whole
Israelite and Judahite attitude to image-
worship (‘idolatry” is a pejorative term). The
first principle in the understanding of this is
the deliberate perversity of the biblical view
(e.g. at Isa 17:8; 44:9-20; Jer 2:27-28) which
recognises the inherently ‘incarnational*
thought of image-worship, that man-made
objects can, through cultic use, become the
media for hierophanies, and yet tums this
argument in on itself as a parody of true
religion. The real significance of Isa 17:8,
with its reference to ‘the work of his hands,
and what his fingers have made’, is however
to be determined by Isa 2:8, where the
identical formula, with singular suffixes in a
context of plural verbs, can only indicate
that it is Yahweh's hands and fingers that
have made the objects. And this is no simple
statement of creaturcliness, but a metaphor
of theogony. The asherah is indeed the work
of Yahweh's hands and fingers, but in a
mythological sense (sce WvATT 1994). The
Isaianic reference to the asherah is thus fully
aware of the dangerous power of the god-
dess. Her reality is not in question, and the
distinction between deity and cult object is
ultimately not an ancient, but a modern onc.
This brings us to the intriguing question
of the supposed 'Yahweh's Asherah', turn-
ing up as the only extra-biblical evidence for
the goddess, if to be so construed, in two
sites, Khirbet el Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud.
On walls at the former, and on pithoi at the
latter, inscriptions have been found, giving
rise to a lively debate. For a thorough sur-
vey see HADLEY (1989). Space precludes
lengthy discussion here. The inscriptions
refer to yiwh wSrth, yhwh Smrn w°Srth and
yhwh tmn w'srth, “Yahweh (Yahweh of
Samaria, Yahweh of Teman [probably = K.
Ajrud]) and his ’dSéra™. In all cases the
deity and his "ásérá are invoked for blessing
and protection. The status of the *dSérd is
problematic. It cannot be the divine name
according to the grammatical rule which
precludes a proper noun taking a suffix; but
we have scen that the use of the article in
MT is not determinative in the debate. If it
is the cult object, it may nevertheless have
been viewed as noted above, that is with no
practical distinction drawn between object
and the deity symbolised. Some kind of
divine reference is supported by two icono-
graphical features found in context. Inscrip-
tion 3 at Khirbet el Qom is written above an
engraved hand. This has a widely attested
apotropaic significance (SCHROER 1983), but
103
ASHERAH
may also be tentatively linked with the hand
symbo! of Tanit of Carthage, the prototype
of which appeared on a stela at Hazor. A
link between Tanit and Asherah is possible,
though unproven (see discussion in HvID-
BERG-HANSON 1979:115-119). One of the
K. Ajrud pithoi has three figures drawn
below the inscription. To the right a seated
figure plays a stringed instrument. To the
left two figures are flanked by a diminutive
bull. Attempts to identify these figures with
Bes are quite unwarranted. MARGALIT's
explanation of them as "Yahweh and his
consort" (1990:277, see above etymology) is
cogent, and consistent with details of the
drawings. But perhaps judgment should be
reserved.
The conclusion many scholars have
drawn that Asherah was the consort of
Yahweh may be approached from another
angle. If Yahweh developed out of local
Palestinian forms of El, then we might
expect a simple continuity of the old EI-
Asherah (Ilu-Athirat) relationship which
appears to obtain at Ugarit. But it has been
increasingly argued in recent years that
Yahweh has ‘baalistic’ characteristics, or is
even a form of Baal himself. It has been
argued that Baal effectively usurps El’s role
at Ugarit, and takes El’s consort at the same
time. There is no evidence from Ugarit to
support this, and the hypothesis is based on
a reading back of the Hurro-Hittite Elkunirsha
myth to its putative Canaanite prototype
(which need not have been the pattern at
Ugarit). Within the biblical context, it has
been supposed that Yahweh-Baal is thus the
consort of Asherah, since Baal and Asherah
were the local ‘Canaanite’ deities evidenced
at Judg 3:7 MT. But we have seen that
MT's reading here is to be rejected. The
hypothesis has nothing to commend it.
The theology of the goddess remains
obscure in spite of the complex evidence
noted above. We cannot be certain that
every Ugaritic trait was preserved in the
later environment, and even there much
remains unknown. The firmest evidence, i.e.
that cited from the Keret story above, and
the goddess’ role in choosing Athtar as king
in the Baal cycle, points to her role in king-
ship rituals, as ‘incarnate’ in the chief
queen, who in Ugarit appears to have borne
the ttle rabitu, ‘Great Lady’, (GORDON
1988) which is used of Asherah herself as
well as of Shapsh, and which would corre-
spond to the office of gébírá, also something
like ‘Great Lady’ in Israelite and Judahite
royal ideology. Maacah, a gébird, is noted
for her particular devotion to Asherah in 1
Kgs 15:13, and Bathsheba is undoubtedly to
be scen fulfilling the role in 1 Kgs 2:13-19
(Wyatt, ST 39 [1985] 46; UF 19 [1987]
399-404). AHLSTROM very appositely calls
the Judahite queen “the ideological replica
of the mother of the gods...” (1976:76; cf.
ACKERMANN 1993). It is this inseparable tie
with the royal cultus which may explain the
goddess’ apparently complete disappearance
from the post-exilic world, though echoes of
her are discernible in the figure of —Wis-
dom (LANG 1986:60-81).
IV. Bibliography
S. ACKERMAN, The Queen Mother and the
Cult in Ancient Israel, JBL 112 (1993) 385-
401; G. W. AHLSTRÓM, Aspects of Syn-
cretism in Israelite Religion (Horae Soeder-
blomianac V; Lund 1963; K-H.
BERNHARDT, Aschera in Ugarit und im
Alten Testament, M/O 13 (1967) 163-174;
T. BINGER, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit,
Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup
212; Sheffield 1994); J. Day, Asherah in the
Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Litera-
ture, JBL 105 (1986) 385-408; Day, Ashe-
rah, ABD I (1992) 483-487; M. DIETRICH &
O. Loretz, Yahwe und seine Aschera (UBL
9; Münster 1992); T. DOTHAN, Ekron of the
Philistines. Part I: Where They Came From,
How They Settled Down and the Place They
Worshipped In, BAR 16/1 (1990) 26-35: T.
DorHAN & S. Grriw, Tel Miqne/Ekron: The
Rise and Fall of a Philistine City, Qadmoni-
oth 105-106 (1994) 2-28; S. Gmn, Cultic
Inscriptions Found in Ekron, BA 53 (1990)
232; GrriN, Seventh Century BCE Cultic
Elements at Ekron, Biblical Archaeology
Today 1990 (Jerusalem 1993) 248-258; S.
GrriN, T. DoTHAN & J. Naven, A Royal
Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron, /EJ 47
104
ASHHUR —
(1997) 1-16: C. H. GoRDON. Ugaritic
rbt/rabitu, Ascribe to the Lord (ed. F. S.
Craigie, JSOTSup 67; Sheffield 1988) 127-
132; J. M. HADLEY, Yahweh's Asherah in
the Light of Recent Discoveries (diss.
Oxford 1989); HADLEY, Yahweh and “His
Asherah": Archaeological and Textual Evi-
dence for the Cult of the Goddess, Ein Gott
Allein (eds. W. Dietrich & M. A. Klopfen-
stein; Fribourg/Góttingen 1994) 235-268; H.
A. HorrNER, Hittite Myths (Atlanta 1990)
69-70; F. O. HvipBERG-HANSON, La déesse
TNT (Copenhagen 1979) i 71-81, 115-119, ii
69-100; A. JAMME, Le panthéon sud-arabe
préislamique d'aprés les sources ¢pigraphi-
ques, Afus 60 (1947) 57-147; O. KEEL & C.
UEHLINGER, Góttinnen, Gótter und Gottes-
symbole (Freiburg 1992) 199-321; R. KLET-
TER, Judaean Pillar-Figurines and the
Archaeology of Asherah (BAR Intemational
Series 636; Oxford 1996); B. LANG, Wisdom
and the Book of Proverbs (New York 1986)
60-81; E. LipiNsx1, The goddess Atirat in
ancient Arabia, in Babylon and in Ugarit,
OLP 3 (1972) 101-119; W. A. Mater,
*ASerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37;
Atlanta 1986); B. MARGALIT, The meaning
and significance of Asherah, VT 40 (1990)
264-297; S. M. OrvaN, Asherah and the
cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlan-
ta 1988); R. Patat, The goddess Asherah,
JNES 24 (1965) 37-52; R. J. PETTEY,
Asherah, Goddess of Israel (AUS VII 74;
New York 1990); M. H. Pope, Atirat,
Worterbuch der Mythologie i (ed. H. W.
Haussig; Stuttgart 1965) 246-249; J. B.
PRITCHARD, Palestinian Figurines in Rela-
tion to Certain Goddesses Known Through
Literature (AOS 24; New Haven 1943) 59-
65, 89-90; W. L. REED, The Asherah in the
Old Testament (Fort Worth 1949); S.
SCHROER, Zur Deutung der Hand unter der
Grabinschrift von Chirbet el Qôm, UF 15
(1983) 191-199; M. S. SmitH, The Early
History of God (San Francisco 1990); W. G.
E. WATSON, Atrt ym: Yet Another Proposal,
UF 25 (1993) 431-434; S. WiGGiNs, The
Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent
Goddess, UF 23 (1991) 384-394; WiGGINS,
A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’. A Study
ASHIMA
According to the Textual Sources of the
First Two Millennia B.C.E. (AOAT 235;
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993), N.
Wyatt, The Theogony Motif in Ugarit and
the Bible, Ugarit and the Bible (UBL 11;
eds. G. J. Brooke er al; Münster 1994) 395-
419.
N. Wyatt
ASHHUR - ISHHARA
ASHIMA NOUS
I. Ashima was the god worshipped by
the people of Hamath, who after their depor-
tation to Samaria by the Assyrian king, con-
tinued to serve him in their new home (2
Kgs 17:30).
Il. The name of the god, in its Biblical
form, has been recovered only from the con-
text of Arab tribes at Teima; in a dedicatory
inscription from Teima, ^3iym? is invoked,
along with the gods sim and šngľ (Sec
LIVINGSTONE 1983; BEYER & LIVINGSTONE
1987). This attestation is somewhat surpris-
ing if the primary association of Ashima is
with the north Syrian Hamath (but cf.
BECKING 1992:99, 102-104); trade contacts
between the caravanning Arabs and the
important centre of Hamath may explain the
adoption of Ashima into the pantheon at
Teima.
Prior to the discovery of the Teima
inscription, Ashima was sought within the
Canaanite/Phoenician cultural sphere, and
was taken to be related to the god -*Esh-
mun. But the name of this deity, attested in
Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, as well
as cuneiform texts, is always written with
the final consonant nun, and so the identifi-
cation with Ashima is questionable. See
further s.v. Eshmun.
Some have claimed to have found the
name Ashima at Elephantine in the com-
pound divine name Eshem-Bethel (PORTEN
& YARDENI 1993:234, 127) and as a theo-
phoric element in over a half-dozen Aramaic
personal names (GRELOT, LAPO 5 (1972)
464). The god's name may also be seen in a
Greek transcription from Kafr Nebo, in the
105
ASHTORETH — ASMODEUS
compound form Sumbetulos, i.c. Eshem-
Bethel (LipzBarski, ESE 2. 1908, 323-324).
Therefore, a North Syrian Aramacan locale
as the home of the deity seems assured. The
name Eshem may be the Aramaic form of
the common Semitic noun for “name”, and,
according to ALBRIGHT (1969:168), its use
is evidence for hypostatization, “the ten-
dency to avoid the personal name of the
deity and to replace it with more discrete
expressions.”
III. Many commentators find the name
of the god Ashima in the threatening words
of Amos 8:14 against those "who swear by
the guilt (asmat) of Samaria". While it is
not impossible that this is an example of a
prophetic play on words, "a3mat z ?Asimà?
(cf. Hosea 4:15, where the name Beth-aven
“House of transgression” rather than Beth-
el, alludes to the sin of idolatry at the site,
cf. 13:1), the primary issue raised by Amos
“is not an apostate invocation of some
foreign deity ..., but rather the emphatic
insistence on the deity’s localization at a
particular sanctuary ...Yahweh (had been)
fragmented into several gods, conceived of
as patron deities of territorial regions"
(WoLFF 1975:332; contrast VAN DER
TooRN 1992:91).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the Re-
ligion of Israel (Sth ed.; Garden City 1969);
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria: an His-
torical and Archaeological Study (Leiden
1992); K. BEYER & A. LIVINGSTONE, Die
neuesten aramiischen Inschriften aus Taima,
ZDMG 137 (1987) 285-296 esp. 286-288;
A. LIVINGSTONE, B. Spale, M. IBranm, M.
KAMEL & S. Tamani, Taima: Recent
Sounding and New Inscribed Material, Atlal
7 (Riyadh 1983), 102-116 + pls. 87-97 (esp.
108-111, pl. 96); B. PORTEN & A. YARDENI,
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from
Ancient Egypt 3: Literature, Accounts, Lists
(Jerusalem 1993); K. VAN DER TOORN,
Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the
Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39 (1992), 80-
101: H. W. WorLrr, Joel and Amos
(Hermencia; Philadelphia 1975).
M. COGAN
ASHTORETH - ASTARTE
ASMODEUS ‘Aopogaios
I. The etymology of the name Asmo-
deus is not beyond any doubt but it is most
plausibly derived from the Avestan words
aésma- and daéuua or their Middle Persian
(Pahlavi) compound cognate xém-déw, both
meaning ‘demon of wrath’. As Talmudic
texts sometimes give the form “RUQTN or
UTDUN for Asmodeus, his name has been
connected with Hebrew "OO (to destroy,
exterminate), but this seems to be folk ety-
mology. Asmodeus does not occur as a
demonic name in the Hebrew Bible, but the
apocrypha twice give the Greek ‘Aopodatos
(Tob 3:8.17).
Il. The earliest occurrences of the
Avestan demon ačšma- are the Gathic texts
Yasna 29:2 and 30:6; those who choose the
way of evil go the way of Aéshma and thus
bring harm to the world, while otherwise the
followers of Ahura Mazda’s teachings be-
come expellers of him (Yasna 48:12). With
the help of Aéshma the evil powers of
Zarathustra's dualistic cosmos can bring
sickness and evil to mankind so that men
behave like Angra Mainyu's creatures. It is
also worth mentioning that Aéshma is the
only demon who occurs in the Gathas. Out-
side the Old-Avestan corpus we find
Aéshma in Yasna 57:10.25 (cf. Yasht
11:15), a hymn to Shraosha, who will smite
and crush Aéshma and protect people from
his deceptions. Yasht 10:97 tells us about
Aéshma’s fright of Mithra’s mace which is
the most victorious of all weapons (cf.
—Mithras). As his standard epithet we find
“of bloody club”, so we can imagine him
pictured as a savage ruffian. Of further inter-
est is also Yasna 10:8 where we read that
Aéshma brings drunkenness to men. The
further development of Zoroastrianism
brings a revival of the older Iranian gods
and also the growth of the number of
demons. Thus Aéshma occurs as a separate
demonic being in the Pahlavi scriptures:
Aéshma (xésm-déw) has now become one of
the chief evil powers. He is equal to
Ahreman and is the companion of Az; the
106
ASMODEUS
deities of Ohrmazd's (Ahura Mazda's) good
creation are his antagonists, mostly Wahman
and Shrosh. According to the Bundahishn
(1:3), he is one of the seven déws who were
created by Ahreman; the Pahlavi Rivayat
(56:13-15) gives the account of a conver-
sation between Aéshma and Ahreman in
which the former is enjoined to corrupt the
good and efficient things of the creation.
Aéshma is now the embodiment of -*Wrath
who in legends can bring all kind of (puta-
tively) historical disturbance and uproar into
the world. Thus Aéshma and the usurper
Dahaka fight king Yima and kill him. In the
Zadspram (9:1), Aéshma is one of the
ancestors of five brothers who are the en-
emies of Zarathustra himself, while an
account in the Dénkard (Book &) states that
he incites Arjasp to wage war against
ViStaspa, the protector of Zarathustra, and
thus oppose the Iranian prophet.
These texts lead to the following con-
clusion: Aéshma (the personfied Wrath) has
a separate existence and he is one of the
powers of the evil sphere within Zoroastrian
dualism. There he plays an important part in
the struggle between good and evil and thus
has a considerable influence upon history. In
view of the spread of Zoroastrianism in the
last centuries BCE from the lranian areas to
Mesopotamia and Anatolia it is possible to
find traces of his influence in both Jewish
and Christian literature.
II. The apocryphal book of Tobit prob-
ably shows some Iranian (Zoroastrian)
influence (cf. BOYCE & GRENET 1991:414),
namely the importance of generously
dispensing alms (Tob 4:9-10; 14:2), the
account of the little dog (Tob 6:1; 11:4) and
the mentioning of the demon Asmodeus. In
Tob 3:8 we read that in his jealousy he has
already killed the seven successive husbands
of Sara during their wedding-nights. There-
fore ->Raphacl was sent to free Sara from
this demon (Tob 3:17). The angel can tell
Tobias a way to expel him by performing a
purifying (?) ritual and banishing him to the
Egyptian desert (Tob 6:8; 8:1-3). On the
whole, Asmodeus does not figure promi-
nently in the book of Tobit; but, once intro-
duced into Jewish literature, he made his
way into folklore. He is depicted as a mal-
efactor bringing discord to husband and wife
or hiding a wife's beauty from her husband
(T. Sol. 2:3). Aggadic texts also say that
Asmodeus is connected with drunkenness,
mischief and licentiousness. In the Talmud
there is a famous account (Git. 68a-b; cf.
Num. R. 11:3) of Solomon's dealing with
this demon: Asmodcus, the king of demons,
was made drunk and led to King Solomon
whom he has to help build the temple in
Jerusalem. Then, howcver, the demon took
the king's seal and seated himself on the
royal throne so that Solomon must wander
around as a beggar until God shows mercy
on him and restores his kingship. The whole
legend does not depict Asmodeus as an evil-
doer: his actions should open the King's eyes
to the emptiness and vanity of wordly pos-
sessions. Such legends gave rise to the pop-
ular belief of Asmodeus as a beneficent
demon and a friend of men—though he still
remained king of the demons.
Another tradition remains closer to the
malificent Asmodeus of the book of Tobit
and to the Iranian concept of Aéshma as a
demon of wrath. The Qumranic and Pauline
scriptures (cf. BOYCE & GRENET 1991:446;
PINES 1982:81) know a conception of Wrath
as a nearly autonomous entity; so it is poss-
ible to see in that also the iranian concep-
tion of aésma daéuua, though there is no
linguistic link. But we also have to take into
account that this Qumranic and Pauline con-
cept has one root in the OT’s references of
->Yahweh’s wrath and is thus part of the
divine sphere. This difference should not be
ignored because Aéshma is the main auxili-
ary of the Iranian evil sphere. But neverthe-
less it cannot be ruled out that the apocry-
phal demon Asmodcus stemming from Iran
is the other root of the hypostatized wrath as
a destructive entity and for the creatures of
wrath.
IV. Bibliography
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism.
Vol. | (Leiden 1975) 87.201; M. Boyce &
F. GRENET, A History of Zoroastrianism.
Vol. 3 (Leiden 1991) 41, 425-426, 446: P.
107
ASSUR
DESELAERS, Das Buch Tobit. Studien zu sei-
ner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie
(OBO 43; Fribourg 1982) 87.98.147-148; S.
PiNES, Wrath and Creatures of Wrath in
Pahlavi, Jewish and New Testament Sources,
lrano-Judaica. Studies Relating to Jewish
Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout
the Ages (ed. S. Shaked; Jerusalem 1982)
76-82; S. SHAKED, The Zoroastrian Demon
of Wrath, Tradition und Translation, Fest-
schrift fiir Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburt-
Stag (ed. C. Eslas er al.; Berlin 1994) 285-
29].
M. HUTTER
ASSUR "ZW /^2N
I. Assur occurs in the OT as a person,
the second son of -*Shem in the table of
nations (Gen 10:22), as a people or world
power, and as the land of Assyria. While the
concept of the power may have been some-
times subsumed in the concept of the deity,
the only certain attestation of the name of
the deity can be found within the name of
the king Esarhaddon (Isa 37:38 = 2 Kgs
19:37, Ezra 4:2).
IL. Assur is the god of Assyria par
excellence. His name is identical with that
of the city of Assur, which with its temple,
the bit ASSur, later Ekur, was the main
centre of his cult. The significance of the
god in Assyrian royal ideology can be seen
clearly in prayers associated with the coron-
ation of the Assyrian king. It is worth quot-
ing from these texts, because they epitomize
from an Assyrian point of view the character
of the national god, which is seen from the
opposite point of view in the OT. A Middle
Assyrian prayer belonging to the ritual
includes the following lines: “Assur is king,
Assur is king!” and, further on in the text,
“May your (the king’s) foot in Ekur and
your hands (stretched) toward Assur, your
god, be at ease! May your priesthood
(šangūtu) and the priesthood of your sons be
at ease in the service of Assur, your god!
With your straight sceptre enlarge your
land! May Assur grant you a commanding
voice, obedience, agreement, justice and
peace!” (MVAAG 41 [1937] 9-13). Similar
sentiments can be found in the Neo-Assyr-
ian coronation hymn of Assurbanipal:
“Assur is king—indeed Assur is king!
Assurbanipal is the [...] of Assur, the cre-
ation of his hands. May the great gods es-
tablish his reign. may thcy protect the life
[of Assurba]nipal, king of Assyria! May
they give him a just sceptre to extend the
land and his peoples! May his reign be re-
newed and may they consolidate his royal
throne for ever!" (SAA 3 no. 11).
The coincidence of the name Assur as
city and also as god appears from Old
Assyrian documents from the trading col-
onies in Cappadocia to have been felt by
ancient scribes: there is occasionally a lack
of distinction between the two. Additionally,
the term àdlum, ‘the city’, is used in oaths
along with the ruler in contexts where one
would anticipate mention of the city god and
the ruler. As noticed by LaMBERT (1983),
the evidence shows that the god Assur is the
deified city. While parallels from the orig-
inal heartland of Mesopotamian civilization
are rare, the deification or numinous charac-
ter of geographical features is quite com-
monly attested in Northern Mesopotamia,
especially in personal names. Analysis of
the combined evidence led LAMBERT (1983)
to the hypothesis that the site of the town
Assur, which is an impressive natural hill,
was a holy spot in prehistoric times. Having
bcen settled as a place of strategic signifi-
cance, its ‘holiness’ was exploited both
practically—the growth of the town—and
ideologically, leading to the dual character
of city and god.
In the course of the history of Assyria,
the god Assur, who was not originally a
deus persona and thus did not originally
have a family, was made to conform to the
theology of southern Mesopotamia. Begin-
ning in the second millennium Assur was
given a theological personality by regarding
him as the Assyrian Enlil, Enlil being the
god of Nippur and one of the most import-
ant figures in the pantheon of Babylonia.
This opened the way for the gradual adop-
tion by Assur of everything originally
pertaining to Enlil, from his wife Ninlil
becoming the Assyrian -—Mullisu, and later
108
ASTARTE
his sons Ninurta and Zababa, through
various epithets down to items of furniture.
This process of assimilation began in the
time of Tukulti-Ninurta I (thirteenth century
BCE) and continued into the Sargonid period
(cighth to seventh centuries BCE). The only
'family member' of Assur's, not certainly of
southern origin, is Serü?a, and her exact
standing is ambiguous.
In the Sargonid period it became a com-
mon scribal practice in Assyria to write the
name of the god Assur with the signs
AN.SÁR, originally used to designate a pri-
meval deity in Babylonian theogonies. It
seems that an ideological coup lies behind
this innovation. In one Babylonian theo-
gonic system, AnSar and KiSar—literally
‘whole heaven’ and ‘whole earth’—precede
the senior Babylonian gods Enlil and Ninlil,
separated from them by Enurulla and Ninu-
rulla (*Lord' and ‘Lady’ of the ‘primeval
city’). By this means the Assyrian Assur,
who did not figure in the Babylonian pan-
theon at all, was made to appear at the head
of it. This is explicitly stated in a learned
Assyrian explanatory work: “It is said in
Entima elif: When heaven and earth were
not yet created, Assur (AN.SÁR) came into
being" (SAA 3 no. 34:54).
After his sack of Babylon in 689 BcE,
Sennacherib attempted to institute a number
of religious reforms. These included an
endeavour to replace the cult of -Marduk in
Babylon by an analogous cult in Assyria
with Assur playing the part of Marduk. It
appears that, while Assyrian outposts out-
side Assyria would automatically represent
areas where Assur was worshipped, worship
of Assur replacing local cults was not re-
quired of conquered peoples. Rather, the
opposite was the case in the sense that
Assyrians ostensibly respected local deities,
using them for propaganda purposes by
declaring that they had abandoned their
worshippers as the Assyrians victoriously
advanced. In post-imperial Assyria Assur
continues to be attested in personal names
and in Aramaic votive inscriptions from the
city itself.
HI. In the OT "assür, 'Ashur; Assyria',
occurs as a designation of the city (Gen
2:4), the country (e.g. Gen 9; Hos 7:11; Isa
7:8) or the people (e.g. Isa 10:5.12; Mic 5:4)
of Ashur, The name of the deity occurs as
theophoric element in the name of king
'esar-haddón, Esarhaddon (Isa 37:38 = 2
Kgs 19:37, Ezra 4:2; cf. the spelling ?srldn,
Ahigar:5). The /s/ reflects the Neo-Assyrian
pronounciation of the alveolar (MILLARD
1976:9).
IV. Bibliography
B. AGGOULA, Inscriptions et graffites
araméens d'Assur (Napels 19855 M.
CoGan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria,
Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh
Centuries B.C.E. (Missoula 1974); G. VAN
DRIEL, The Cult of Assur (Assen 1969); H.
HinscH, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen
Religion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; Graz 1961);
W. G. Lambert, The God A&Sur, Iraq 45
(1983) 82-86; M. T. Larsen, The Old
Assyrian State and its Colonies (Copen-
hagen 1976); B. MENZEL, Assyrische
Tempel (StPsm 10/1, Il; Rome 1981); J. W.
McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyr-
ians, 732-609 B.C. (London 1973); A. R.
MILLARD, Assyrian Royal Names in Bibli-
cal Hebrew, JSS 21 (1976) 1-14; K. F.
MÜLLER, Das assyrische Ritual, Texte zum
assyrischen Kónigsritual, 1 (Leipzig 1937);
K. TALLovist, Der assyrische Gott (StOr
4/3; Helsinki 1932).
A. LIVINGSTONE
ASTARTE 7p
I. The divine name Astarte is found in
the following forms: Ug *trt ('Athtart[u]');
Phoen *3tr1 ('Ashtart'); Heb 'Astóret (singu-
lar); ‘AStar6t (generally construed as plural);
Eg variously ‘strt, ‘strt, istrt; Gk Astarté. It
is the feminine form of the masculine ‘ir
(‘Athtar’, ‘Ashtar’) and this in turn occurs,
though as the name of a goddess, as Akka-
dian -*Ishtar. The Akkadian A3-tar-[tumn?] is
used of her (AGE 330). The etymology
remains obscure. It is probably, in the mas-
culine form, the name of the planet Venus,
then extended to the feminine as well (cf. A.
S. YAHUDA, JRAS 8 [1946] 174-178). It is
unlikely that ROBERTSON SMITH’s sugge-
stion (Religion of the Semites [Edinburgh
109
ASTARTE
19273] 99 n. 2, esp. 310, 469-479), referring
to Arabic ‘dtir, ‘irrigated land’, is of help;
because it still leaves the t, which cannot be
infixed, unexplained. Both god and goddess
are probably, but not certainly, to be seen as
the deified Venus (HEIMPEL 1982:13-14).
This is indeed the case, since if the morning
star is the male deity (cf. Isa 14:12), then
the goddess would be the evening star: as
she is in Greek tradition. (The two appe-
arances of Venus are also probably to be
seen as deified, cf. Shahar and ^Shalem.)
II. Ugarit. The goddess Ashtart is men-
tioned 46 times in the Ugaritic texts, but
appears relatively rarely in the mythological
texts. These appearances are as follows: in
the Baal cycle (KTU 1.2 i 7-8) Baal curses
Yam (-sea) inviting -*Horon (cf.
-*Horus!) and 'Ashtart-5m-Baal' (see below)
to smash his skull—Keret uses the same
curse on his son Yasib in KTU 1.16 vi 54-
57, showing it to be formulaic language.
When Baal loses control in the divine coun-
cil at the appearance of Yam's ambassadors,
-Anat and Ashtart restrain him forcibly
(KTU 1.2 i 40). When Baal is about to kill
Yam, Ashtart intervenes: cither to taunt
Baal(?), or more probably to urge him to
deliver the coup de gráce (KTU 1.2 iv 28-
30). In the Keret story, in addition to the
curse noted above, Hurriya is compared in
her beauty with Anat and Ashtart (KTU 1.14
iii 41-44 = vi:26-30). The fragmentary KTU
1.92 seems to have contained a myth con-
ceming Ashtart (PRU 5, 3-5: §1; HERR-
MANN 1969:6-16). In KTU 1. 100, a series
of spells against snake-bites, she is paired
with Anat (in the order Anat and Ashtart) in
ll. 19-24, in addition to further mentions
alone, twice as a toponym (cf. KTU 1.108.
2). In the fragmentary KTU 1.107, another
such text, Anat and Ashtart are invoked. The
latter appears again as a toponym. In KTU
1.114 (the Marzihu text), Ashtart and Anat
(in that order) summon the dog-like Yarihu
in order to throw him meat (ll. 9-11); and,
when >El becomes drunk, Anat and Ashtart
go off to find purgatives, returning as
Ashtart and Anat (a chiastic arrangement, ll.
22-26).
The relation of Ashtart and Anat sug-
gested by these occurrences is evidently
close. It may represent an early stage in a
process of syncretism of the two goddesses.
It may be noted that their iconography is
similar; because both appear armed and
wearing the Egyptian Atef crown. This close
relationship is also reflected in the Egyptian
evidence. They are commonly understood to
be consorts of Baal; but there is no direct
evidence for this at Ugarit. The interpreta-
tion of various texts as describing sexual
intercourse between Anat and Baal has
recently been questioned (P. L. Dav, The
Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (ed. D.
Jobling; Cleveland 1991] 141-146, 329-333;
id, JNES 51 [1992] 181-190), and no such
relationship between Ashtart and Baal is
mentioned. (The evidence cited could equal-
ly well be used to define her as Horon's
consort.) The nearest the tradition comes
even to associating them is in the title ‘srt
šm b'l. This has been interpreted in two
ways: as ‘Ashtart-name-of-Baal’, sc. as the
reputation, honour, or even ‘Shakti’ of Baal
(e.g. GINSBERG, ANET 130a), or as ‘Ashtart-
heavens-of-Baal' (Dussaup 1947:220-221,
who cites Astarte's epithets Asteria, Astroar-
che, Astronoé and Ourania). The latter sense
is to be preferred. This title also appears on
Eshmunazar's sarcophagus (below). In addi-
tion to various mentions in minor texts,
Ashtart appears in the pantheon lists (KTU
1.47. 25 = KTU 1.118. 24) as the equivalent
of Ishtar in RS 20. 24, 24.
Egypt. Astarte is mentioned a number of
times in texts from Egypt. In one instance,
her name is written *ntrt. Even if this is
simply a misspelling, as LECLANT (1960:6 n.
2) suggests, it is still ‘revealing’ (but cf.
ANET 201a n. 16). In the Contendings of
Horus and Seth (iii 4), Seth is given Anat
and Astane, the daughters of >Re, as wives.
This is a mythologisation of the importing
of Semitic deities into Egypt under the
Hyksos and later, and the New Kingdom
fashion for the goddesses in particular. Seth
and Baal were identified. But this does not
justify retrojecting Egyptian mythological
relationships into the Ugaritic context. Anat
110
ASTARTE
and Astarte are described in a New King-
dom text (Harris magical papyrus iii 5 in:
PRITCHARD [1943:79]) as “the two great
goddesses who were pregnant but did not
bear", on which basis ALBRIGHT (1956:75)
concludes that they are "perennially fruitful
without ever losing virginity”, He also
asserts that “sex was their primary func-
tion". Both assumptions are questionable,
not to say mutually incompatible! As wives
of Seth, who rapes rather than makes love to
them, their fruitless conceptions are an
extension of his symbolism as the god of
disorder, rather than qualities of their own.
In the fragmentary ‘Astarte papyrus’ (ANET
17-18; see HELCK 1983) the goddess is the
daughter of ->Ptah and is demanded by the
—Sea in marriage. This myth may be related
to a recension of the Ugaritic Baal myth: as
well as to that of -*Perseus and Andromeda.
Astarte's primary characteristic in Egypt is
as a war-goddess. An inscription at Medinet
Habu (ARE iii 62, 105), for instance, says of
Rameses JI that Mont and Seth are with
him in every fray, and Anat and Astarte are
his shield. She frequently appears in New
Kingdom art armed, wearing the Atef crown
and riding a horse (LEcLANT 1960). A
Ptolemaic text (ANET 250 n. 16) calls her
"Astarte, Mistress of Horses, Lady of the
Chariot". The first part may echo ATU 1.86.
6, which appears to link Ashtart (and Anat?)
with a horse (PRU 5, 189 [$158], Wvarr,
UF 16 [1984] 333-335). In the now lost
Winchester stela (EDwarps, JNES 14
[1955] 49) the goddess appears on a lion (a
trait normally associated with Ishtar) and
was apparently identified with Qadeshet and
Anat.
Phoenicia. Though she was undoubtedly
an important deity in Phoenicia throughout
the first millennium, there is surprisingly
litde direct written evidence. KA/ lists only
1] Phoenician examples: ranging from Ur
and Egypt to Malta and Carthage. The most
important items are the following. The sar-
cophagus of Tabnit from Sidon dates from
the sixth century BCE (KA/ 13, ANET 662a).
Since the king is also priest of Ashtart. we
may suppose she was an important goddess
in the city: if not its patroness. This is in
interesting tension with Athirat’s apparently
similar status in the Keret story (KTU 1.14
iv:34-36). The curse of the goddess is in-
voked against grave-robbers. The sarcopha-
gus of his son Eshmunazar (KAI 14, ANET
662ab). from the beginning of the following
century, states that his mother was priestess
of Ashtart; and that the royal family spon-
sored (rebuilt?) a temple for Ashtart (in the
form Ashtart-§m-Baal) in —Sidon, thus
benefitting her cult in Byblos. A votive
throne from south of Tyre, dating to the
second century BCE (KAI 17), addresses the
goddess as ‘my Great Lady’ (rbty); but per-
haps without the old ideological overtones.
The same expression is used of Ashtart and
‘Tanit of the Lebanon’ (this may denote a
local feature at Carthage) on an inscribed
slab, of uncertain date, from Carthage (KA/
81).
It will be apparent from the lack of bibli-
cal references to a living cult of Anat that
the goddess must have undergone some
transformation by about the beginning of the
first millennium BCE. The constant juxtapo-
sition of the goddesses in the Ugaritic and
Egyptian records indicates what must have
happened. They appear to have fused into
the goddess ->Atargatis; although we have
just seen that Ashtart also retained her inde-
pendence for centuries. The name Atargatis
(Greek, Aramaic ’tr‘?’) is generally agreed to
be made up from the Aramaic development
of Ashtart (‘Strt) into Atar Cr note the
weakening of the guttural) together with
Anat (‘nt) weakened by assimilation of the
medial n into 'r(1). Some see Asherah as-
similated to Anat (sce AsTOUR, Hellenose-
mitica [19672] 206); but this is less likely.
Occasional inscriptions to the goddess are
found in Aramaic (KAI 239, 247, 248).
Atargatis, in her form at Hierapolis in the
second century CE, is the subject of Lucian's
work De Dea Syria. Lucian writes of Astarte
of Sidon, §4, whom he identifies as the
-»Moon. Hc also claims that the local priest-
hood identified her with Europa. He
identifies the goddess of Byblos (probably
another local Astarte) with ^ Aphrodite. The
111
ASTARTE
common identiate in the Cypriot cult (§6),
the Astarte of a temple on the Lebanon
mountain (sc. at Afqa), he says was founded
by Kinyras (sc. Kinnor) (§9). The goddess
(Atargatis) of Hicrapolis, founded by Deuca-
lion or Semiramis, he identifies with Hera
or Derceto ($812, 14). Given the character
of Atargatis, it is perhaps significant that
Anat is called both ‘mistress of dominion’
and ‘mistress of the high heavens’ (b‘It drkt
b‘lt mm rmm: the. Ugaritic equivalents of
Derceto and Semiramis) among other titles
in KTU 1.108. 6-7. Much of Lucian's infor-
mation seems to be a loose mixture of
Greek and Syrian traditions, but still has
some genuine echoes from the past. Another
important source reflecting a Graeco-Semitic
rationalising of tradition is Eusebius’ Praep.
Ev., which has Astarte as a daughter of
Ouranos (~Heaven) and sister to Rhea and
Dione: all three become wives of Kronos.
Astarte has seven daughters by Kronos. The
latter appears to be the equivalent of >El. A
direct quotation from Philo Byblius states
that “Astarte, the great goddess, and Zeus
Demarous, and Adodos king of gods, reigned
over the country (sc. Phoenicia) with the
consent of Kronos. And Astarte set the head
of a bull upon her own head as a mark of
royalty, and in traveling round the world she
found a -*star fallen from the sky, which
she took up and consecrated in the holy
island Tyre. And the Phoenicians say that
Astarte is Aphrodite.” (1.10:17-18, 21) The
Greek goddess -^Artemis may also preserve
traits of Phoenician Ashtart (WEsr, UF 23
[1991] 379-381).
III. The divine name Ashtart occurs nine
times in MT, from which one should per-
haps be subtracted (1 Sam 7:3) and to which
a further instance should perhaps be added,
ie. Judg 3:7. This alteration, widely ac-
cepted, is based on the wording of Judg
2:13. It summarises the popular devotions of
the pre-monarchical period as apostasy. This
verse raises some interesting questions. MT
reads labba‘al wélá'astárót, using the singu-
lar of ba‘al, (supported by LXX) but, on
most scholars’ assessment, the plural form
for the goddess (supported by LXX!). Thus
RSV, REB, read respectively ‘the Baals and
the Ashtaroth' and ‘the baalim and the
ashtaroth'. Note, however, that bé'álim does
occur in the plural in 2:11. (Clearly there is
some redundancy in vv 11-13.) RSV recog-
nises the names, though plural. REB gen-
ericises them. JB, on the other hand reads
‘Baal and Astarte’. The 'Baalim' are often
referred to in the plural (‘emphatic plural’:
BDB 127) and are so construed by many
commentators. The Ashtaroth are, thus,
understood as a class of goddesses. Whether
or not ’asérdér should be corrected at Judg
3:7, it is the same principle. But, given the
phonology of the divine name, we should
perhaps question the plural interpretation:
even if it be allowed that it came to be
understood in this way. The only vocalised
forms of the name are, of course, the
Hebrew and Greek. The other West Semitic
forms are conventionally vocalised 'Ashtart'
or ‘Athtart’; but it is quite possible that the
Original vocalisation was “attardt(u),
which. with the southern shift of à to 6 (as
in Dāgān > Dágón) would become 'astárót
in Hebrew. Conversely, the expected singu-
lar—if the form found were the plural—
would be “‘astdrd, with the final -at
weakening to d. The toponyms mentioned
below support this alternative. explanation.
Further, the three-vowel formation is sup-
ported by the other form occurring, viz.
'astóret. To argue that this formation is due
to the adoption of the vowels of bdser begs
the question. There would have needed to be
at least the vocal skeleton (that is, a word or
in this case part of a word carrying two
vowels) for the bó$et vowels to fit. The
adoption of this vowel pattern (bdSet) is per-
haps not in dispute, though the reason com-
monly given is arguably misconstrued.
JasrROW's suggestion (1894) makes better
sense, in offering a closer parallel to thc
revocalising of the tetragrammaton to carry
the vowels of *ádónay. lt is suggested, there-
fore, that ‘Ashtaroth’ is in fact a singular
form, though it might well come to be inter-
preted in the plural, as an indication of the
scribal tradition’s view of the enormity of
worshipping other deities, and thus repre-
112
ASTARTE
senting all such cults as polytheistic. As for
‘Ashtoreth’ (‘astéret), this may well be
explained as the singular carrying the
vowels of bófer; albeit on JASTROW's under-
standing of the usage (1894). It is, however,
possible that another explanation of this
form is the assumption of an early form
*'astárit, in. which case the conventional
shift of à-i to ó-e (as in šāpit > $opej) would
occur. If this is so, we should look for dia-
lectal variants of the name.
Judg 10:6, | Sam 7:4 and 12:10 all refer
to ‘the Baals and the Ashtaroth'. In the
second instance, LXX has the curious read-
ing tas Baalim Kai ta alsé Astaróth, "and the
(f.!) Baals and the (n. pl.!) groves-Ashtaroth",
an impossible combination of Ashtart and
Asherah elements, while in the third, LXX
reads tois Baalim Kai tois alsesin. In 1 Sam
7:3 the allusion looks like a secondary addi-
tion at the end of the sentence (hdsirit ’et-
?élóhé hannékár mittókékem wéhàá'astárót).
LXX, however, reads ...kai ta alsé, thus
presupposing Aid'áserím. In 1 Sam 31:10, the
armour of Saul is hung on the walls of ‘the
temple of Ashtart (‘astdré1)’ (LXX to Astar-
teion, // | Chr 10:10: bét "élóhéhem). Com-
mentators usually change the pointing to
‘astoret (thus SMITH, The books of Samuel
[ICC; Edinburgh 1899] 253) or regard the
temple as dedicated to ‘the Ashtaroth’ (pl.:
thus HERZBERG, / and IH Samuel [London
1964] 233). On the basis of the argument
that the form is singular, no change to MT
is required.
The other three occurrences all point the
name 'astóret and do not use the article.
These passages overtly refer. however, not
to an Israelite or Judahite goddess, but to
‘Ashtoreth, goddess (’éléhé!) of the Sidon-
ians' in 1 Kgs 11:5.33 as importations by
Solomon to please his wives; while in 2 Kgs
23:13, in the account of Josiah’s destruction
of Ashtart’s shrine, she is referred to as
Sigqtts, ‘abomination’. It is probably Ash-
tart who was denoted by the title -*'Qucen
of heaven', referred to in cults of the end of
the monarchy (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19.25).
As well as serving as the divine name,
the word appears in the expression ‘aStérét
sõn in Deut 7:13; 28:4.18.51. It means
something like ‘lamb-bearing flocks’ or
‘ewes of the flock’. This appears to be an
application of the name of the goddess as a
term for the reproductive capacity of ewes.
It also appears in a toponym, which goes
back to the pre-settlement era. It denotes a
city named after the goddess. Gen 14:5
mentions Ashtaroth Qarnaim, — which
AsTOUR (ABD 1 (1992] 491; contrast Dav,
ABD | [1992] 492) takes to be Ashtaroth
near Qarnaim, and identifies with the Ashta-
roth associated with -*Og king of —Bashan
(Josh 9:10). In Josh 21:27, this appears as
béestérd, (LXX Bosoran = Bosra!) which
should, however, be harmonised with
‘astarét (LXX Aséroth) in 1 Chr 6:56 (71).
In Josh 12:4; 13:12.31, this is linked with
Edrei (the latter added to Josh 9:10 in
LXX), and the two cities appear together as
the seat of the chthonian god ‘Rapiu’ in
KTU 1.108. 2-3 (most recently PARDEE,
RSOu IV [Textes paramythologiques; Paris
1988] 81, 94-97). It is probably also the city
Astartu mentioned in the Amarna letters (EA
197:10, 256:21). This pronunciation and
obvious sense (as the name of a singular
goddess) may be taken to confirm the singu-
lar interpretation of the biblical toponym
and divine name. It is supported by the refe-
rence to the Beth-Shean temple of the god-
dess in 1 Sam 31:10. 1 Chr 11:44 is the gen-
tilic of the city.
The problem of pointing may be resolved
thus: ‘Ashtaroth’ is the Hebrew and 'Ash-
toreth' a Phoenician (Sidonian) form of thc
same name. The goddess is well-established
as a war-goddess (by the Egyptian epi-
graphic and iconographic evidence, as well
as the trophies offered at Beth Shean), while
her ‘sexual’ role. conceived as primary by
ALBRIGHT (1956), is scarcely hinted at by
the evidence adduced. It appears, rather, to
belong to a blanket judgment on Canaanite
goddesses made by biblical scholars on the
basis of meagre evidence such as Hosea’s
sexual allusions. It is better explained as a
metaphor for apostasy (cf. B. MARGALIT, VT
40 [1990] 278-284). The Hebrew singular
form 'astárót has subsequently been read as
113
ATARGATIS
a plural and incorporated into the reference
to b&Glim wéhd‘astarét. In doing so, it has
simply become, like bé'álim, a generic term.
It is comparable to the Akkadian expression
ilànu u istarátu, *gods and goddesses’.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archeology and the Relig-
ion of Israel (Baltimore 19564) 73-78; P.
BonDREUIL, Ashtart de Mari et les dieux
d'Ougarit, MARI 4 (1989) 545-547; D. J. A.
CLINES, Mordecai, ABD 4 (1992) 902-904,
esp. 902; A. Cooper, Divine names and
epithets in the Ugaritic texts, RSP III $23,
403-406; J. Day, Ashtoreth, ABD I (1992)
491-494; M. DELCOR, Le culte de la ‘Reine
du Ciel’ selon Jer 7, 18; 44, 17-19, 25 et ses
survivances, Von Kanaan bis Kerala (FS.
Van der Ploeg, eds. W. L. Delsman et al.,
AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982) 101-
122; -Detcor, LIMC II.1 (1986) 1077-
1085; R. Dussaup, Astarté, Pontos et Baal,
CRAIBL (1947) 201-224; W. HELCK, Zur
Herkunft der Erzählung des sog. “Astarte
Papyrus”, Fontes atque Pontes. FS. H.
Brunner (ed. M. Görg; Wiesbaden 1983)
215-223; W. HEMPEL, A Catalog of Near
Eastem Venus Deities, SMS 4 (1982) 9-22;
W. HERRMANN, Aštan, MIO 15 (1969) 6-
52; F. O. HVIDBERG-HANSON, La déesse
TNT (Copenhagen 1979) i 106-112, ii 147-
155; HvipsBerG-HANsoN, Uni-Ashtart and
Tanit-Iuno Caelestis, Archaeology and Fer-
tility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (ed.
A. Bonanno; Valetta 1986) 170-195; M.
Jastrow, The element bošet in Hebrew
proper names, JBL 13 (1894) 19-30; *J.
LECLANT, Astarté à cheval d'après les repré-
sentations égyptiennes, Syria 37 (1960) 1-
67; R. du MESNIL du BuissoN, ‘AStart et
*AStar à Ras-Shamra, JEOL 3 (1946) 406;
C. A. Moore, Esther, Book of, ABD 2
(1992) 633-643, esp. 633; S. M. OLYAN,
Some Observations Conceming the Identity
of the Queen of Heaven, UF 19 (1987) 161-
174; M. H. Pope, ‘Attart, ‘Aštart, Astarte,
WbMyth V1, 250-252; *J. B. PRITCHARD,
Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain
Goddesses Known through Literature (AOS
24; New Haven 1943) 65-76, 90-95; M.
WEINFELD, The Worship of Molech and the
Queen of Heaven and Its Background, UF 4
(1972) 133-154.
N. WYATT
ATARGATIS ‘Atapyatis
I. The goddess Atargatis does not occur
in the Bible, but her sanctuary, an Atar-
gateion, is mentioned in 2 Macc 12:26. It
was situated near Qarnaim, present day
Sheich Sa‘ad 4 km north of Ashtarot-
Qarnaim in the Hauran (cf. 1 Macc 5:42-44;
2 Macc 12:21-23; M. C. Astour, Ashte-
roth-Karnaim, ABD | [1992] 49). Her name
is a compound of Ashtarte (-*Astarte) and
‘Anat (Anat) and is spelled in various
ways: in Aramaic ‘trth, trr, trth, "trt,
trt, in Greek ‘Atapyatic, ‘Atdpyatic,
‘Attaya@n, ‘Atapam, ‘Atapyam; the apo-
cope form gave Derketo. Her main sanctu-
ary was in Hierapolis/Mabbug in northem
Syria, where she was venerated together
with Hadad (Zeus), the Syrian god of
—heaven, rain and fertility. From there her
cult spread throughout Syria, northern Mes-
opotamia and into the West, where she is
known as the Dea Syria.
II. The cult of Atargatis in Syria and
Mesopotamia is known from a wide variety
of literary sources, inscriptions, coins, sculp-
tures and terracottas, which display a range
of local variants as well as a general pattern.
The earliest phase is represented by a bewil-
dering varicty of late 4th and early 3rd cent.
BCE coins from Hierapolis. Her name occurs
on them as ‘th and as ‘trth. The original
name of the goddess is certainly ‘th, where-
as the element ‘tr, derived from ‘Str, has the
meaning of goddess, so that the full name
‘trth means “the goddess ‘Ateh”, ‘Ateh
being the goddess par excellence. The name
‘th is the Aramaic form of Anat and fre-
quently occurs as a theophoric element in
proper names in Syria and northem Mes-
opotamia (DRUVERS 1980:88). The goddess
is represented on these coins with a turreted
tiara, with a lion or riding on a lion,
between two sphinxes or enthroned, with a
variety of objects in her right hand, a branch
or a cup, and sometimes leaning on a
114
ATARGATIS
sceptre. This iconographical repertoire
represents a mother goddess, a protecting
potnia thérén, with life-giving and protec-
tive aspects. It is partly related to the icono-
graphy of -*Cybele, the Magna Mater.
Coins from Hierapolis from the 2nd and 3rd
cent. CE usually picture an enthroned Atar-
gatis between two lions with different at-
tributes in her hand, tympanum, cars of
corn, staff or spindle, mirror, sceptre,
semeion, or a leaf, and with different jewel-
lery and headdress, sometimes with fishes or
~doves. Another type is Atargatis with a
mural crown. As such she functions as the
—Tyche of Hierapolis and other Syrian and
Mesopotamian towns like Edessa, Harran,
Nisibis, Resh Aina and Palmyra. Other icon-
ographical types are an enthroned Atargatis
accompanied by one lion, without lions, or
in a standing position. This variety is partly
caused by the spread of the dominant cult of
Hierapolis throughout the Syrian and Mes-
opotamian area and the subsequent adapta-
tion of local cults of mother goddesses
modelled on that of Hierapolis. The wide
range of variants in the iconography as well
as in the epigraphic repertoire of Atargatis
demonstrates this process of religious assi-
milation which made Atargatis of Hierapolis
into the Dea Syria venerated throughout the
Roman empire. Lucian of Samosata wrote
his De Syria Dea in the second century CE
on the goddess of Hierapolis, her sanctuary
and her cult in which he relates her to a
range of other goddesses such as -*Hera,
-— Athena, -*Aphrodite, -*Artemis, Nemesis
and the Moirai, in order to explain her real
character. She displays therefore aspects
which are represented by other goddesses in
hellenistic culture. This process often makes
it difficult to decide whether the cult of
Atargatis at a certain place is actually a
branch of the sanctuary of Hierapolis or a
local cult of a mother goddess adapted to
the practice of Hierapolis/Mabbug.
At Hierapolis Atargatis’ sanctuary func-
tioned as an asylum, where it was strictly
forbidden to kill an animal or a human
being, in accordance with the goddess’ life-
giving and protective character. Emascula-
tion was practised in her cult, a custom later
widely observed in Christian Syria. A large
pond with fish, usually carps, was part of
her sanctuary at Hierapolis and at other
places, e.g. at Edessa and on the island of
Delos, and symbolised Atargatis’ life-giving
and fertility aspects. Purification rites were
certainly part of her cult as well as a taboo
on certain food.
III. The sanctuary of Atargatis near
Qarnaim (2 Macc 12:26) has not been found
by archaeologists. An altar from Tell el-
Ash‘ari near ancient Qarnaim is dedicated to
Artemidi téi Kurdi, the mistress Artemis
(IGR III, 1163; see D. SouRDEL, Les cultes
du Hauran à l'époque romaine (Paris 1952]
42). Since Artemis is equivalent to Atargatis
in various inscriptions from Syria, Artemis
is here just another name of Atargatis,
which highlights her character of protectress
of animal and human life in the semi-nomad
culture of the mainly Nabatean and Arab
population of hellenistic Hauran. In such a
society a sanctuary of Atargatis functioned
as an asylum. The text of 2 Macc 12:21-26
suggests that Judas Maccabaeus’ enemies
took refuge inside the temenos of Atargatis,
where Judas killed them (sce E. KAUTZSCH,
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten
Testaments ] [Tübingen 1900] 111, note c.).
F. BAETHGEN (Beiträge zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1988] 68; cf.
e.g. J. A. MoNTGOMERY & H. S. GEHMAN,
Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951] 474; J. GRAY,
I & II Kings (London ?1977] 654) equated
the enigmatic deity —Tartak, venerated by
the settlers coming from Avvah (2 Kgs
17:31) with Atargatis. Since this
identification is very unlikely from an ety-
mological point of view, this interpretation
is now abandoned (cf. L. K. HANDY, Tar-
tak, ABD 6 [1992] 334-335).
IV. Bibliography
H. J. W. DRuVvERS, Cults and Beliefs at
Edessa (EPRO 72; Leiden 1980) 76-121;
DriJverS, Sanctuaries and Social Safety,
Visible Religion. Annual for Religious Icon-
ography 1 (1982) 65-75; Drivers, Dea
Syria, LIMC 11, 355-358; N. GLUECK, Dei-
ties and Dolphins. The Story of the Nabatae-
115
ATHENA
ans (London 1965) 359-392; M. Horic,
Dea Syria. Studien zur religiósen Tradition
der Fruchibarkeitsgóttin in’ Vorderasien
(AOAT 208; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979);
Ho6ric, Dea Syria—Atargatis, ANRW ll,
17,3 (1983) 1536-1581: R. MourERDE, Dea
Syria en Syrie, MUSJ 23 (1942-43) 137-
142; R. A. ODEN, Studies in Lucian’s De
Syria Dea (HSM 15: Missoula 1977); H.
SEvnIG, Les dieux de Hiérapolis, Syria 37
(1960) 233-252; SEvRIG, Le monnayage de
Hiérapolis de Syrie à l'époque d' Alexandre,
Revue numismatique (1971) 11-12; P.-L.
VaN BERG, Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae 1.
Les sources littéraires, 2 vols. (EPRO 28;
Leiden 1972); F. R. WALTON, Atargatis,
RAC 1 (1950) 854-860.
H. J. W. DRUVERS
ATHENA "A8nvaíia, 'A0rvn
I. Athena is the main polis divinity in
Greek religion. The Romans identified her
with Minerva (etrusc. Menrva); the Greeks
themselves found numerous homologues in
the ancient Near East, e.g. the Egyptian
Neith of Saïs (Mora 1985:95) and the Ug-
aritic-Syrian —>Anat (CIS 1,95). The affili-
ation between the armed Greek goddess and
Near Eastern armed goddesses like Anat or
— Ishtar (COLBOW 1991) is controversial, but
Oriental influence is plausible. In the Bible,
Athena occurs only as the root element in
the toponym Athens (Acts 17:15) and in the
anthroponym Athenobius (1 Macc 15:28).
Hl. An early form of her name, Arana
potinija, is attested in a Bronze Age Linear
B tablet from Knossos (GERARD-ROUSSEAU
1968:44-45). The meaning is disputed; pre-
sumably, it is “Mistress of (a place called)
At(h)ana". The debate about the priority of
Athenai (Athens) or Athena now favours the
place name; the Homeric and later forms of
her name, ‘A@nvaia - ‘A@nvain, are most
easily understood as adjectives, “She from
Athana(i)", “The Lady of Athens"; the
Homeric epithet Alalkemeneis connects her
with another town, the small Boeotian
Alalakomenai.
A fundamental function of Athena is the
protection of cities; as such, she bears the
epithet Polias or Poliouchos. This function
is already present in Homer. In time of cri-
sis, the women of Troy offer a peplos to her
enthroned image and pray for her protection
(Iliad 6,302-303). Athens especially is
defined through her cult and mythology
(Iliad 2,549-550). In later texts, one of her
main epithets is Polias or Poliouchos, and
her temple is attested on many acropoleis
throughout the Greek world; only Apollo is
as often attested as owner of a main polis
sanctuary.
After the Minoan and Mycenaean Bronze
Age culture had been discovered as the
possible precursors of Greek culture,
scholars tried to derive Athena’s paramount
function and character from the role of a
Mycenaean palace goddess which in turn
would go back to a Minoan house goddess
(NILSSON 1950:488-501). The main argu-
ment for the first thesis was that in Mycenae
and presumably in Athens a temple of Athe-
na in the first millennium preserved the
location of a Mycenaean palace; other argu-
ments—her relationship to the snake which
had been understood as the guardian of the
house, with the so-called Shield Goddess of
Mycenae, Known from iconographical
sources—scemed to point in the same direc-
tion; the Minoan roots were scen in her
association with snake and bird. The deriv-
ation remains hypothetical at best; especially
the thesis of a Minoan origin seems to read
diachronically what could also be viewed
functionally.
Her protection takes two forms, that of a
talismanic statuette of an armed goddess
whose possession guarantees the safety of a
town (the palladium, which Herodotus 4,189
defines as a “statue of (Pallas) Athena"), and
that of her being the goddess of war or
rather of warriors. According to myth, Troy
would survive as long as the palladium was
inside; the town fell, after Odysseus and
Diomedes had stolen it. Other towns
claimed to possess it afterwards, chiefly
Athens (Pausanias 1,28,9) and Rome (Livy
5,52,7 etc.); in all cases, the story fits a pat-
tern of myth and ritual which need not be
connected with Athena.
Like the Palladion, Athena usually bears
116
ATHENA
weapons, helmet, lance, and shield. As a
warrior goddess, Athena is differentiated
from -*Ares, the god of war, though the two
are often paired together as divinitics of war
and battle (e.g. Homer, /liad 5,430). Ares
represents the fierce forces of fighting and
killing without relationship to polis life
where he has no important festivals; as a
foreigner to the polis, myth makes him
come from Thrace (Homer, /liad 13,301).
Athena, on the other hand, is the warlike
protectress of the polis against enemy
attacks; as such, she protects the warriors.
This role is reflected in the protection of
mythical heroes, especially young ones like
Achilles (/liad) and Jason, but also Odys-
seus (Odyssey). This has been taken to mir-
ror her role in initiation rituals of young
warriors (BREMMER 1978); in fact, her con-
nection with rituals which derive from this
fundamental institution is somewhat
tenuous: in the Athenian Aglaurion, she
received the ephebic oath as Athena Arcia,
together with Ares, Enyo, Enyalios and
other local divinities (M. N. Topp, A selec-
tion of Greek Historical Inscriptions 1l
[Oxford 1948] no. 204), and she was the
main divinity in the Attic-Ionian festival of
the Apatouria (besides Zeus) whose func-
tion—the integration of young members into
the phratry—reflects similar concerns.
She is more prominent as a divinity pre-
siding over the ritual passage of young girls
into society, especially but not exclusively
in Athens. The Athenian Arrhephoroi, two
girls from noble families, had to serve a
year on the acropolis. Their ritual obliga-
tions associate them with female adult life,
their main duty being to start weaving the
peplos for the goddess, their cultic roles
bringing them together also with the cult of
— Aphrodite; their aetiological myth, the
story of Erichthonios and the daughters of
Cecrops, focuses rather on the themes of
sexuality and its dangers (BURKERT 1966).
Similar rituals lie behind, e.g. the ritual of
the Locrian Maidens who were annually
sent to Athena Ilias (GRAF 1978).
Compared to -*Artemis, who is morc
prominent as a protectress of young women
but whose main concem is with their biol-
ogical function, Athena's domain is the cor-
rect social behaviour of women; from this
stems her function as Erganc, in which she
presides over the female work. But the role
of Athena Ergane was more global: together
with Hephaestos, she protected also the arti-
sans over whose skills she watched; she had
found out how to hamess a horse, had
taught how to build ships (her first construc-
tion was Jason's Argo) and had cultivated
the olive trec. The common denominator of
these functions, as DETIENNE & VERNANT
(1974) pointed out, is Athena's role as pur-
veyor of practical intelligence and clever-
ness as a fundamental ingredient of civiliza-
tion; the myth of her contest with
—Poseidon over the possession of Athens
which was decided by the respective gifts, a
salty spring from Poseidon, the cultivated
olive tree from Athena, confront and evalu-
ate miraculous nature which is socially use-
less as opposed to socially very useful
nature, which has been transformed and
civilized.
Athena’s main Athenian festivals give
ritual expression to these themes; they clus-
ter around the beginning of Athenian year in
the month Hekatombaion (July-August)
(DEUBNER 1932:9-39; BURKERT 1977:347-
354). The cycle begins towards the end of
the last month but one, Thargelion (May-
June): on its 25th day, the Plynteria
("Cleansing Festival"), the old wooden
image of Athena on the acropolis was ritual-
ly cleansed: its garments and ornaments
were taken off, the image was carried to the
sea, bathed, and brought back towards night
onto the acropolis, where it was clad with a
new peplos. The ritual depicts, in an casily
understandable and widely diffused symbol-
ism, the periodical renewal of the city's
religious centre. Early in the following
month (MIKALSON 1975:167), during the
Arrhephoria, the Arrhephoroi ended their
year of service on the acropolis by a secret
ritual which brought them from the realm of
Athena to the one of Aphrodite (Pausanias
1,27,3), thus designating the passage to
female adulthood; city and demes celebrated
the day with sacrifices, i.e. to the polis pro-
tectors Athena Polias and Zeus Policus, and
117
ATHENA
to Kourotrophos, the protectress of human
offspring.
The first month of the year saw two state
festivals of Athena which both dramatized
the polis itself. On Hecatombaion 16, the
Synoikia recalled the (mythical) constitution
of the polis from independent villages by
Theseus; the goddess received a sacrifice on
the acropolis. After the ritual refounding of
Athens, the Panathenaia of Hecatombaion
28 presented the polis in all its splendour.
Its main event was an impressive proces-
sion, idealized in Pheidias’ frieze of the
Parthenon; it moved from the margin of the
city to its heart, the acropolis, and exhibited
all constituent parts of the polis, from its
officials at the head to its young warriors at
the end; in the centre, it carried the new
peplos for the goddess, which had bcen
begun by the Arrhephoroi and was finished
by representatives of all Athenian women.
The presentation of this new garment links
this final festival to the beginning of the
cycle, the Plynteria. It also connects the
Panathenaia with a further Athenian festival
outside the New Year cycle, the Chalkeia of
Pyanopsion 30 (October-November), in
which the artisans, especially the metal-
workers, led a sacrificial procession to Athe-
na Ergane and Hephaistos.
Though her main festivals seem to
express an understandable and easy symbol-
ism, her mythology is not without para-
doxes— she is not only a virgin and a female
warrior, but also the mother of Erichthonios,
sprung from the head of her father, fully
armed; she is closely connected with the
snake and the owl, animals of earth and
night. Evolutionary models dissolved the
tensions into a historical fusion of hetero-
gencous elements (synthesis NILSSON 1963:
433-444); KERÉNY1 (1952) tried to dissolve
some-of the paradoxes with the help of ana-
lytical psychology; contemporary scholar-
ship seems reluctant to follow and prefers
functional analyses.
Athena’s powers are ambivalent. Her
warlike qualities protect the town but also
make use of the horrors of war: her main
symbol, often used as a deadly weapon, is
the aegis; it contains the Gorgon’s head sur-
rounded by snakes whose looks turned all
on-lookers to stone. Besides, she shares this
ambivalence with the young warriors them-
selves who are positioned outside polis
society. Her practical intelligence also is
ambivalent because it is open to abuse; her
mother Metis, “Crafty Intelligence”, could
have offspring which threatened Zeus’
powers, therefore, the god swallowed the
pregnant goddess and gave birth to Athena
from his head (Hesiod, Theog.886-900. 924-
926). The myth is comparable to the one of
the ambivalent -*Dionysos: similar to poss-
ible Near Eastern narrative models (KIRK
1970:215-217), the story evaluates civilizing
intelligence as having a Zeus-like power, but
lying outside the norms of nature; Hephae-
stos, the divine blacksmith and artisan,
shares some of these ambivalences.
III. The Bible never mentions Athena,
although Athens and the Athenians occur
several times in NT (Acts 17:15-16; 17:21-
22; 18:1; 1 Thess 3:1). Paul's discourse on
the Areopagus (Acts 17:22) stresses the
religious zeal of the Athenians without
giving any details except the altar of the
—Unknown God.
IV. Bibliography
J. BREMMER, Heroes, Rituals and the Trojan
War, Studi storico-religiosi 2 (1978) 5-38;
W. BURKERT, Kekropidensage und Arrhe-
phoria. Vom Initiationsritus zum Pan-
athenienfest, Hennes 94 (1966) 1-25;
BURKERT, Griechische Religion der archa-
ischen und klassischen Epoche (RdM 15;
Stuttgart 1977); G. CoLsow, Die kriege-
rische Ištar. Zu den Erscheinungsformen
bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte
des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends
(Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 12;
Munich 1991); M. DETIENNE & J. P. VER-
NANT, Les ruses de l'intelligence. La mètis
des grecs (Paris 1974); L. DEUBNER,
Attische Feste (Berlin 1932); M. GÉRARD-
Rousseau, Les mentions religieuses dans
les tablettes mycéniennes (Incunabula Grac-
ca 29; Rome 1968); F. Grar, Die lokrischen
Müdchen, Studi storico-religiosi 2 (1978)
61-79; C. J. HERINGTON, Athena Parthenos
118
ATUM
and Athena Polias (Manchester 1955); K.
KERENYI, Die Jungfrau und Mutter der grie-
chischen Religion. Eine Studie iiber Pallas
Athene (Albae Vigiliae, N.S. 12; Zürich
1952); G. S. Kirk, Myth. Its Meaning and
Function in Ancient and Other Culture (Sat-
her Classical Lectures 40, Berkeley 1970); J.
D. MIKALSON, The Sacred and Civil Calen-
dar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975);
F. Mona, Religione e religioni nelle storie
di Erodoto (Milan 1985); M. P. NILSSON,
Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Sur-
vival in Greek Religion, 2nd edition (Lund
1950); NiLssoN, Geschichte der griech-
ischen Religion. Erster Band: Die Religion
Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Welt-
herrschaft, 3rd edition (HAW V/2.1; Munich
1965).
F. GRAF
ATUM
I. Atum, sun god and eldest of the
Ennead of Heliopolis. occurs in the Bible in
the place-name Pithom (Exod 1:11), Gk
Tatovupoc, Eg Pr-/tm ‘House of Atum’.
Recently, it has been suggested to explain
the place-name Etam (Exod 13:20; Num
33:6-8), the etymology of which H. CAZEL-
LES was unable to determine with certainty
(CAZELLES, Les localisations de l'Exode et
la critique littéraire, RB 62 [1955] 321-364,
357-359) as an abbreviated spelling of (Pr)-
Itm ‘(House) of Atum’ (M. Gora, Etam und
Pitom, BN 51 [1990] 9-10). K. Mv$uiwiEC
(Zur Ikonographie des Gottes “HPQN
(StAeg 3; 1977] 89-97) connects the Greek
name with "Hpov (Heron), a god who is
related to Atum (Heron-Atum). It is highly
probable that Pithom/Heroopolis can be
identified with Tell el-Maskhutah at the cast
end of the Wadi Tumilat, where a temple of
Atum has been found (A. B. LLovp, Hero-
dotus Book Il, Commentary 99-182 |EPRO
43; Leiden 1988] 154-155). According to
BLEIBERG (1983) the evidence for ident-
ifying Pithom with Heroopolis is incon-
clusive.
The name Atum is generally interpreted
as a derivation from the Egyptian stem tm
which can mean ‘not to be’ as well as ‘to
be complete’ (BERGMAN 1970:51-54; Mys-
LtWiEC 1979:78-83). In religious language,
the different aspects of a god are often
reflected in his name. Using theological
puns, the Egyptians associated the name
Atum with the complicated divine nature of
the god who created the world by devel-
oping the potencies of his primordial unity
into the plurality of the well-ordered cos-
mos. Though in the Hebrew Bible the god
Atum occurs only as an element in topo-
nyms, his role as a creator god bears some
remarkable similarities to that of --Yahweh
in biblical thought.
II. Atum was a highly speculative god
(BarTA 1973:80-81), whose divine being
was claborated by the theologians in a cos-
mogonical doctrine. According to this doc-
trine, in the beginning there was the Nun, an
abyss with neither light nor limits. The Nun
represented the undifferentiated unity of the
precreation state which the Egyptians con-
ceived of as non-being. The Nun was the
primary substance, the sum of virtualities,
from which all life emerged. Nun is termed
the Eldest One and the father of the gods
(CT V1 343,-344.g). Still Atum was not a
younger and thus secondary god. He was
coexistent and consubstantial with the
-— Chaos (J. ASSMANN, Zeit und Ewigkeit im
alten Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
der Ewigkeit [AHAW 1; Heidelberg 1975)
21). Atum was a god who had no father and
no mother. He was mysterious as to his
birth, because he was unbegotten and came
into being by spontaneous self-generation
(DE Buck 1947; cf. the self-produced
{avtoyovoc] and unbegotten [dyévvntog]
god of the Corpus Hermeticum: F. DAUMAS,
Le fonds égyptien de l'hermétisme, Gnosti-
cisme et monde hellénistique. Actes du Col-
loque de Louvain-la-Neuve 11-14 mai 1980
[Louvain-la-Neuve 1982] 3-25, esp. 19-20).
The god owed his powerful creative force to
nothing outside himself. He was the causa
sui. Paradoxically, Atum and Nun were both
absolute gods and they both could claim the
priority which is a characteristic of a creator
god (J. ZANDEE, De Hymnen aan Amon van
119
ATUM
papyrus Leiden 1 350, OMRO 28 [1947] 66-
75, 112-120).
Before creation, Atum was entirely alone
in the Nun. According to Egyptian concep-
tions, the solitude of a god points to his pri-
macy as a creator god (ASSMANN 1979:23-
24). Atum was the primordial god who was
regarded as already existing when nothing
as yet existed (GRAPOw 1931:34-38). The
urge, however, to create was inherent to
Atum's nature. Being a creator god, Atum
was in fact the creative will, the causa
efficiens, which performed the transition
from pre-existence to existence. In the older
Heliopolitan version (S. SAUNERON & J.
YovorrE, La naissance du monde selon
l'Egypte ancienne, La naissance du monde
[SO 1; Paris 1959] 17-91, esp. 46), the ac-
tual creative act is explained in terms of
sexual appetite as the inclination towards
Being (ASSMANN 1969:203-204, with ref-
erences; cf. the Orphic cosmogonical Eros
and -*Zeus, who turned into Eros when
about to create). Being alone in the Nun, the
god had no female partner with whom to
produce offspring. In a manner characteristic
of a creator god, Atum was a unity embra-
cing both masculine and feminine elements
(S. SaAUNERON, Remarques de philologie ct
d'étymologie (en marge des textes d'Esna),
Mélanges Mariette [IFAO 32; Cairo 1961]
229-249 § “Le Créateur androgyne”). Plural-
ity is immanent in the primordial nature of
Atum. In the same manner, creator god-
desses like -*Isis and —Neith were mascu-
line for 2/3 in their nature and feminine for
1/3 (ibid. 244). Atum was man-woman, 'He-
She’ (Eg pn tn: CT H 161.a; cf. the dichot-
omic creator god in Gnosticism and the
Neo-Platonic Corpus Hermeticum: P. LABIB,
Egyptian Survivals in the Nag Hammadi
Library, Nag Hammadi and Gnosis. Papers
read at the First International Congress of
Coptology, Cairo, December 1976 (NHS 14;
Leiden 1978) 149-151; W. Scott, Hermeti-
ca III [Boston 1985] 135; Gen 1:1: Elohim
created the world without a consort). The
actus purus then is described as an act of
masturbation. The god masturbated, swal-
lowed his seed and gave birth to his son Shu
by spitting him out and to his daughter
Tefnut by vomiting her forth (Pyr. 1248.a-d;
CT | 345.c, II 18.a-b; cf. NHC V 81.17-18;
Philo of Alexandria, Ebr. 30: the creation of
the visible world is the result of an act of
begetting). In the Books of the Underworld
(HORNUNG 1984:372, 438), ithyphallic crea-
tures are often depicted as creative forces.
Apis, bull-god of fertility, is associated
with Atum. Atum was the great masturbator
(Eg iw.s ‘.s) of Heliopolis who begot by
using his fist and brought forth by his mouth
which functioned as a womb (J. ZANDEE,
Sargtexte, Spruch 77 (CT II, 18), ZAS 100
[1973] 71-72). In texts dating to the
Ptolemaic period, the goddess -*Hathor had
been introduced as the hypostasis of the
god’s sexual desire, whereas Jusaas (Eg iw.s
“s, ‘as she comes she grows (?)', a pun)
had become the hypostasis of the acting
hand (DERCHAIN 1972). It has been sug-
gested that the Heliopolitan conception of
creation resulting from masturbation found
expression in the ithyphallic demiurge Bes
Pantheos and in the name Adoil ydw?l, 'His-
hand-is-god’, in 2 Enoch (Religions en
Egypte hellénistique et romaine. Colloque
de Strasbourg 16-18 mai 1967 [Paris 1969]
31-34). It has also been supposed to be
reflected in the rays of Aton ending in small
hands reaching out to the King and the
Queen in their role of Shu and Tefnut (K.
MvsLiwiEC, Amon, Atum and Aton: The
Evolution of Heliopolitan Influences in
Thebes, L'Egyptologie en 1979. Axes priori-
taires de recherches [Colloques internatio-
naux du C.N.R.S. 595; Paris 1982] 285-
289). Tefnut was regarded as the hand of
god (H. Brunner, LdA 3 [1980] 217-218).
Atum performed the creation on the Pri-
mordial Hill, a cosmic place, which was
identified with the god (BARTA 1973:82) and
later to be surmounted by the temple of
Heliopolis. The god alighted at dawn on the
Hill in the shape of the Bennu, a bird whose
name could be a play upon the name bnbn
of the Primordial Hill, on whn ‘to rise (of
the sun)’ and perhaps on bnn ‘to beger
(ASSMANN 1969:203). It has been pointed
out that the Bennu is often depicted on a
120
ATUM
standard. (V. NorrER, Biblischer Schóp-
Jungsbericht [SBS 68; Stuttgart. 1974] 47)
which was symbolic of victory over Chaos
(ASSMANN 1969:195-196). The hierophany
of the god drove off Chaos and called the
well-ordered Cosmos into being. Atum was
also said to have ascended from the chaos-
waters with the appearance of a snake, the
animal renewing itself every morning (BD
87). Chaos, however, was considered to be
still immanent in the Cosmos (DERCHAIN
1962:177-178; H. HOoRNUNG, Chaotische
Bereiche in der geordneten Welt, ZÁS 81
[1956] 28-32). At the creation, Atum revers-
ed his nature of non-being and for this rea-
son Chaos and Cosmos differred, not in con-
tents, but in their organization. Creation is
organised Chaos (DERCHAIN 1962:183). In
the famous eschatological text BD 175 (J.
ASSMANN, Zeit und Ewigkeit [AHAW:;
1975] 24-26, with references to similar
texts), which was still current in the Graeco-
Roman period (E. Orro, Zwei Paralleltexte
zu TB 175, CdE 37 (1962] 249-256), Atum
tells of his decision to annihilate the world
he created, restoring it to its original state of
Chaos (S. Scuorr, Altügyptische Vorstel-
lungen vom Weltende, Studia biblica et
orientalia, 1l: Oriens antiquus [AnBib 12;
Roma 1959] 319-330). Atum was the god of
pre-existence and post-existence (ASSMANN
1979:23). The demiurge, who encompassed
being and non-being as coincidentia oppos-
itorum, causes both creation and annihilation
(cf. Deut 32:39: “I destroy and I heal").
Only -*Osiris was to remain as the Lord of
Etemity together with Atum after the god
had turned himself into his primordial form
of a snake, symbol of time and eternity (L.
KAkosy, Osiris - Aion, OrAnt 3 [1964] 15-
25, 20-21, with references). In the Book of
the Underworld Amduat (Sth hour; see
HORNUNG 1984:102-103, bottom register),
the eschatological snake seems to be de-
picted in the cave of Sokaris containing the
Chaotic powers of the Underworld. In the
Llith hour of Amduat (HORNUNG 1984:174-
175, upper register), Atum has taken on his
human shape after the Chaotic powers had
been defeated. To gain immortality, the
deceased (= Osiris) is equated with Atum
(BERGMAN 1970:53-54). A bronze statuette
of Atum shows the god with the attributes
of Osiris (J. BAINES, A bronze statuette of
Atum, JEA 56 [1970] 135-140). In BD 87,
the deceased wishes to tum into the shape of
the snake Sato (Eg s? 5, ‘son of the
-*earth'), the embodiment of Atum (M.-T.
DERCHAIN-URTEL, Die Schlange des “Schiff-
briichigen” (SAK 1; 1974] 83-104, 90-92).
Atum represents life after death (CT
V.291.k). Atum and Osiris are often paired
on stelae (K. MYv$rrwiEc, Beziehungen
zwischen Atum und Osiris nach dem Mitt-
leren Reich, MDAIK 35 [1979] 195-213)
and at the Judgment of the -Dead Atum
acts in favour of the deceased (R. GRIES-
HAMMER, Das Jenseitsgericht in den Sarg-
texten [ÄA 20; Wiesbaden 1970] 76-77).
Atum did not create from a primary sub-
stance but the god emanated, thus producing
Shu, the air-god and his twin sister Tefnut
(moisture?). Creation begins with the transi-
tion from unity to duality (B. STRICKER,
Tijd, OMRO Supplement 64 [1983] 42-82,
64 n. 222: BERGMAN 1970:59-61). Shu and
Tefnut became the parents of Geb, the earth,
and his sister and wife Nut, the sky. Cre-
ation was a theogony and a cosmogony at
the same time. The theologians incorporated
the gods Isis, Osiris, Seth and Nephthys,
who reflected the social and political condi-
tio humana, into the cosmogony. The gods
constituted the Great Ennead of Heliopolis,
i.e. the epiphany or Pleroma of Atum, who
was called the creator of the gods
(MyStiwiec 1979:171-172) and the Great
Bull of the Ennead, referring to his priority
as a creator god. Atum is the god of many
descendants (RYHINER 1977:132 n. 39). The
Ennead was in fact the genealogical tree of
the Pharaoh (BarTA 1973:41-48), headed by
Atum and at the bottom Horus, the god
connected with historical times (ASSMANN
1984:144-148). Pharaoh was of cosmic
dimensions and of primeval birth (L. KAKo-
sy, The primordial birth of the king [StAeg
3; Budapest 1977] 67-73). He was crowned
by Atum (ARE 2 [1906] 89-90, 92), his
father (BARTA 1973:162), who once niled
121
ATUM
the earth but was said to be weary of his
reign (Book of the Divine Cow: E. Hor-
NUNG, Der dgyptische Mythos von der Him-
melskuh, Eine Atiologie des Unvollkomme-
nen [OBO 46; Freiburg, Göttingen 1982)).
In his human shape, Atum is depicted
wearing a bull’s tail and the double crown,
symbols of royalty (MySLiwiec 1979:197,
213-227). As the god’s representative on
earth (R. ANTHES, Der Kónig als Atum in
den Pyramidentexten, ZÁS 110 [1983] 1-9),
Pharaoh mediates between gods and men,
thus maintaining the cosmic harmony
(ASSMANN 1979:21, with references).
According to the Shu-spells C7 [ 314-II
45 (R. FAULKNER, Some notes on the god
Shu, JEOL 18 (1964] 266-270), Shu was not
generated through an act of self-begetting
but Atum created him in his mind and ex-
haled him through his nostrils together with
his sister Tefnut. The god embraced his
children, thus guaranteeing the continuity of
divine life and of the cosmic harmony which
resulted from the god's creative act
(ASSMANN 1969:103-105; MySLIwiEc 1978:
17). The name Shu is derived from Eg $wj
‘to be empty’ and Eg Sw ‘air’, ‘light’
(BERGMAN 1970:54-55, with references).
The god separated the sky and the earth
(H. TE VELDE, The theme of the separation
of heaven and earth, StAeg 3 [1977] 161-
170), thus creating the cosmic space to be
filled with the god's divine parousia. In fact,
Shu was a second creator god, who sus-
tained the world with life-giving air. Shu
was created from the breath of Atum (e.g.
CT 1.338b, 345.b-c, 372b-374b). At the
creation, Atum appeared from the chaos-
waters as the Bennu, a bird connected with
air and for this reason often compared with
the breath of Elohim moving over the waters
(V. Notter, Biblischer Schépfungsbericht
[SBS 68, Stuttgart 1974] 46-54). Atum ini-
tiated the creation but he remained outside
the created world with which he was con-
nected through his son Shu (ASSMANN
1979:24-25). His hypostases, Shu and Tef-
nut, were the cosmic principles of life itself
rather than constellative gods dominating a
specific department (AsSMANN 1984:209-
215).
Shu and Tefnut had been with their father
in a spiritual state (CT 80). They were of
one being (Op00vo10¢) with Atum, thus
making a trinitarian unity (DE BUCK 1947;
S. MonENZ, Agyptische Religion [RdM 8:
Stuttgart 1970] 272-273, with references to
Christian views on Trinity). Conceptually,
the world existed before the actual creation.
Creation by means of the divine Spirit and
Word is considered to be a genuine Helio-
politan conception by some scholars, but
according to others it has been taken from
the Memphite cosmogonical myth (J. ZAN-
DEE, Hymnical Sayings addressed to the
Sun god by the High-priest of Amun
Nebwenenef, from his tomb in Thebes,
JEOL 18 (1964) 253-265). D. MULLER (Die
Zeugung durch das Herz, Or 35 [1966] 256-
274) has shown that creation by means of
masturbation is inseparably linked to the
god’s heart or creative Spirit. At the cre-
ation, Atum mentioned the names of the pri-
mordial gods (CT II 7c-8a). Hu, the creative
Word, and Sia, Intelligence, are the first-
born children of >Re-Atum (BD 17, CT IV
227b-230b). They assisted at the creation
and made life possible (ASSMANN 1969;
145). Atum created the world with his heart
and his tongue (= Spirit and Word, ZANDEE
1964); cf. the role of pre-existential -Wis-
dom (sophia/hokmâ) and Word (-*logos/
dábàr) in e.g. Gen 1:1, Ps 33:6, 4 Ezra 6:38,
John 1:1, Sir 1:1-4, 24:1-9.
The unique and single creative act by
means of the Divine Word is opposed to the
principle of cyclic creation. In the solar
cycle, Atum usually represents the aging sun
god, the Old One, to whom the solar Night-
Bark was assigned (MySLIwiEc 1979:163-
164). Atum is also regarded as the ->moon,
the sun's substitute at night (P. DERCHAIN,
Mythes et dieux lunaires en Egypte, La lune,
mythes et rites [SO 5; Paris 1962] 17-68). A
bronze statuette shows Atum having the
features of an old man (J. BAINES, A bronze
statuette of Atum, JEA 56 [1970] 135-140;
Baines, Further remarks on statuettes of
Atum, JEA 58 [1972] 303-306). In trigrams
representing the three phases of the sun god
(Khepri-Re-Atum), the god is symbolised by
the hieroglyph of an old man leaning on a
122
ATUM
staff (RYHINER 1977:125-137). In the binary
solar cycle, Atum is opposed to Khepri, the
young sun god, whose name is derived from
Eg lipr ‘to become’ (J. ASSMANN, Chepre,
LdA 1 [1975] 934-940). Khepri-Atum en-
compassed the sunrise and the sunset, thus
reflecting the entire solar cycle. In the Book
of the Earth (HoRNUNG 1984:430, 444),
Khepri and Atum represent the Beginning
and the End. In the context of PGM VII
515-524, the vox magica AQ ‘the First One
and the Last One’ could be interpreted as
the composite Khepri-Atum (J. BERGMAN,
Ancient Egyptian Theogony [Numen
supplement 43; Leiden 1982] 36; cf. Rev
21:6: “I am AQ, the Beginning and the
End"). The sun-disc is often depicted con-
taining Khepri and the ram-headed sun god
(= Atum: MySiiwiec 1978:39-68). At the
sunset as well as during the journey through
the Underworld, Atum is regarded as the
Living One (ASSMANN 1969:142-143). The
entrance of the god at night into the body of
Nut is equated with sexual union. Atum
becomes the Kamutef ‘Bull of his Mother’,
begetter of his own mother (CT I 237b, II
60c; BARTA 1973:150), who at dawn gives
birth to Atum as the young sun calf
(Mv$tiwiEC 1978:38) or as a beautiful lad.
The god is Puer-Senex, thus showing the
features of the pantheistic sun god (RYHINER
1977:137; cf. E. JuNop, Polymorphie du
dieu sauveur, Gnosticisme et monde hel-
lénistique. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-
Neuve 11-14 mai 1980 [Louvain-la-Ncuve
1982] 38-46). At night the god received his
own eye (= sun-disc), vehicle of the young
sun god and agent of renewal, and protected
it during the journcy through the Under-
world (AsSMANN 1969:50-51). The god
defcated the enemies of the sun, thus restor-
ing harmony and entering into the role of
Horus (HORNUNG 1984:206, with n. 14). As
destroyer of enemies Atum can take on the
shape of an ichneumon (E. BRUNNER-
Traut, Ichneumon, LdA 3 (1980] 122-123)
or he is represented as an arrow-shooting
monkey (E. BRUNNER-TRAUT, Atum als
Bogenschiitze, MDAIK 14 [1956] 20-28).
Atum is the father of the two horizontal
lions, Shu and Tefnut, who assisted as mid-
wives (Pyr. 1443a) at the birth of Re-
Harakhte, the sun god (My$LIwiEc 1978:69-
74). Atum, Shu and Tefnut are also repre-
sented in the shape of a sphinx (G. FECHT,
Amama-Probleme, ZAS 85 [1960] 83-118,
117; MySiiwrec 1978:12-27).
III. Bibliography
J. ASSMANN, Liturgische Lieder an den
Sonnengott (MAS 19; Berlin 1969);
ASSMANN, Primat und Transzendenz. Struk-
tur und Genese der ägyptischen Vorstellung
eines “Höchsten Wesens”, Aspekte der
spätägyptischen Religion (ed. W. Westen-
dorf; GOF IV,9; Wiesbaden 1979) 7-42;
ASSMANN, Ägypten. Theologie und Frém-
migkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Stuttgan,
Berlin, Köln, Mainz 1984) 144-149, 209-
215; W. BARTA, Untersuchungen zum Göt-
terkreis der Neunheit (MAS 28; 1973); J.
BERGMAN, Mystische Anklünge in den alt-
ägyptischen Vorstellungen von Gott und
Welt, Mysticism. Based on Papers read at
the Symposium on Mysticism held at Abo on
the 7th-9th September 1968 (eds. S. Hart-
man & C.-M. Erdsman; Stockholm 1970)
47-76; E. L. BLEiBERG, The Location of
Pithom and Succoth, The Ancient World,
Egyptological Miscellanies, vol. VI (1983)
21-27 nos. 1-4; H. BONNET, Atum, RARG
71-74; A. DE Buck, Plaats en betekenis van
Sjoe in de Egyptische theologie (Amsterdam
1947); P. DERCHAIN, L’étre et le néant
selon la philosophie égyptienne, Dialoog.
Tijdschrift voor wijsbegeerte 2 (1962) 171-
189; Dercnain, Hathor Quadrifrons.
Recherches sur la syntaxe d'un mythe égyp-
tien (Istanbul 1972); E. HoRNUNG, Ágyp-
tische Untenseltsbiicher, eingeleitet, über-
setzt und erläutert (Zürich, Munich 1984);
L. Kaxosy, Atum, LdA 1 (1975) 550-552;
K. MySziwiec, Studien zum Gott Anon, I:
Die heiligen Tiere des Atum (Hildesheimer
Agyptologische Beiträge 5; Hildesheim
1978); MYŚLIWIEC, Studien zum Gott Atum,
ll: Name, Epitheta, Ikonographie (Hildes-
heimer Agyptologische Beiträge 8; Hildes-
heim 1979); M.-L. RYHINER, A propos de
trigrammes panthéistes, REg 29 (1977) 125-
137; J. ZANDEE, Das Schópferwort im alten
Agypten, Verbum. Essays on Some Aspects
of the Religious Function of Words Dedi-
123
AUGUSTUS — AUTHORITIES
cated to Dr. H. W. Obbink (Utrecht 1964)
33-66.
R. L. Vos
AUGUSTUS -> RULER CULT
AUTHORITIES ££ovciat
I. The plural ‘authorities’ (exousiai)
functions, strictly speaking, not as a name
but as a cultic epithet denoting celestial
forces (see GrtApicow 1981:1217-1221,
1226-1231). The term is derived from Gk
éEovoia and corresponds to the verb
&5eottv ('have permission, possibility, auth-
ority’). The designation then refers to those
who have been given authority, the bearers
of authority. Characteristically, in the NT
(e.g. Eph 3:10, 6:12; Col 1:16; 1 Pet 3:22)
the plural form of the term always occurs
together with similar notions in liturgical
formulae.
II. There are no antecedents for the NT
usage of exousiai in the LXX or other pre-
Christian Hellenistic texts. However, its ori-
gin must be sought in apocalyptic (see /
Enoch 61:10; 2 Enoch 20:1 (J); Ass. Isa.
1:4; T. Levi 3:8; cf. 1 Enoch 9:5 (Gk); T.
Levi 18:12; Apoc. Bar. (Gk) 12:3; T. Abr.
9:8; 13:11; T. Sol. 1:1; 15:11; 18:3; 22:15,
20; titulus B I [p. *98 ed. McCown]), in
magic (see PGM 1.215-216; IV.1193-1194;
XII.147; XVILa.5), and perhaps in Gnostic-
ism (see Corp. Herm. 1.13, 14, 15, 28, 32;
XVI.14; Frg. XXIII [Kore Kosmou) SS, 58,
63). Thus, the linguistic evidence is am-
biguous with regard to any specific origin of
the usage. Precise Hebrew or Aramaic
equivalents or antecedents are missing (cf.
Su-B 3.581-3.584; MicHL 1965:79-80); in
Latin translations the word potestas is used.
III. In the NT the epithet is always found
in christological formulae of a hymnic na-
ture. | Cor 15:24 speaks of the eschatol-
ogical destruction of all celestial entities
(arché, exousia, dynamis) as part of the
completion of the kingdom of God. These
entities can also be categorized as ‘the celes-
tials’ (fa epourania) located in the middle
ranges of the cosmos (Phil 2:10; Eph 1:3.
20-21; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). —Christ's victory
over them implies that these forces were
regarded as evil prior to their defeat and
subjugation by Christ, in whose service they
continue henceforth. This change is the rea-
son for the hymnic praises in Col 1:16;
2:15; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12. As the lists of
celestial beings indicate, they are many in
number and include —archai, exousiai (Auth-
orities), Kosmokratores (World Rulers),
pneumatika tés ponérias (Evil Spirits; Eph
6:12). Presumably, they possess their auth-
ority from primordial times when the creator
bestowed it upon them; but, since they be-
came evil and demonic, the redeemer had to
subdue them. This happened after his resur-
rection when Christ ascended into -*heaven
and took his place at the right side of God
(1 Pet 3:22). Christ's enthronement may
also be the reason why their names
(onomata) were withheld. God so exalted
Christ that he ‘gave him the ->name that is
above every name' (Phil 1:9; cf. Eph 1:21:
‘above every name that is named’). This
implies that the demons lost their names as
well as the power that goes with them. As a
result, they are no longer to be invoked and
worshipped. Rather, they themselves wors-
hip Christ (Phil 2:10; Rev 5:11-14; etc.).
IV. Use of thc designation continues in
later Christian sources, especially in the
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Acts Andr.
6; Acts John 79; 98; 104; Acts Phil. 132;
144; Acts Thom. 10:86; 133), and in Gnostic-
ism (see Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v.
&5ovoia, sec. A.8-10; F; G; MicuL 1965:
97-98; 112-114; SiEGERT 1982: 243).
V. Bibliography
C. E. ARNOLD. Ephesians: Power and
Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians
in Light of Its Historical Setting (SNTSMS
63; Cambridge 1989) [& lit; BAGD, s.v.
&5ovoia [& lit]; I. BRoER, €&ovoia, EWNT
II (1981) 23-29 [& lit]; W. CARR, Angels
and Principalities: The Background, Mean-
ing and Development of the Pauline Phrase
hai archai kai hai exousiai (SNTSMS 42;
Cambridge 1974) [& lit]; C. Corre, J.
MAIER, J. TER VRUGT-LENTZ, E. SCHWEI-
ZER, A. KALLIS, P. G. VAN DER NAT & C.
124
AVENGER — AYA
D. G. MULLER, Geister (Diimonen), RAC 9
(1976) 546-796 [& lit]; W. FOERSTER,
eEcativ, éEovoia xtA. especially sec. C.6,
TWNT 2, 557-572: TWNT 10, 1080-1081 [&
lit; B. GrADiGOW, Gottesnamen (Gottes-
epitheta) I (allgemein, RAC 11 (1981)
1202-1238; W. GRUNDMANN, Der Begriff
der Kraft in der ueutestamentlichen Ge-
dankenwelt (BWANT 4:8; Stuttgart 1932);
J. MICHL, Engel I-IX, RAC 5 (1965) 53-258;
F. SieGERT, Nag-Hammadi-Register: Wór-
terbuch zur Erfassung der Begriffe in den
koptisch-gnostischen Schriften von Nag-
Hammadi. (WUNT 26; Tiibingen 1982).
H. D. Betz
AVENGER “2;
I. In Ps 57:3 the designation Elohim
—Elyon occurs in parallelism with “the god
who avenges me". DAHOOD took the expres-
sion ?el gómér to be a reminiscence of a
divine name Gomer El (1953). He translated
the expression as ‘the Avenger El’ (1968:
49).
II. The root GMR is well attested in the
Semitic languages (Ges!8 223). From the
basic denotation ‘to come to an end, to bring
to an end’, it has developed the secondary
senses ‘to destroy’ (Phoen mgmr means
'destruction') and ‘to avenge’ (in Ugaritic
and Hebrew). Though the latter meaning is
sometimes related to a separate root (GMR II)
meaning ‘render good, protect’ (so M.
TsEvAT, A Study of the Language of the
Biblical Psalms (Philadelphia 1955] 80-81),
it is not at odds with the notion of bringing
to an end; compare the verb Sallém (pi‘el),
"to pay (back)', from the root SLM, ‘to be
complete’.
Both in the Ugaritic and the Hebrew
onomasticon the root GMR occurs in theo-
phoric names. Ugaritic examples are the
names Gamiraddu ('Adad is avenger') and
Gimraddu ('Addu is my revenge’, for both
names and similar ones see F. GRÖNDAHL,
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit
[StP 1; Rome 1967] 128; cf. P. D. Miller,
The Divine Warrior in Early Israel [Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1973] 41). As Hebrew counter-
parts one might adduce Gemaryah (Isa 29:3)
and Gemaryahu (Jer 36:10-12.25). Such
names demonstrate that the participle
gamiru (the one who avenges, avenger)
could be used as a divine epithet. [t does not
occur as an independent divine name, how-
ever. Nor is it attested in the Ugaritic litera-
ture in connection with El, so that Dahood’s
hypothetical manifestation of the god El
known under the name *Gamir-El remains
without textual basis.
HI. The phrase "I call upon Elohim-
elyon, upon the god who avenges me"
(egrà? le'lóhim *elyón la'el gómer ‘alay) in
Ps 57:3 does not necd to contain an echo of
the hypothetical divine name Gomer-El in
order to make good sense. The principal
reason to posit El-gomer or Gomer-E] as a
traditional El manifestation is the parallel
with Elohim-elyon (and more particularly so
if the latter were to be corrected into El-
elyon, Elyon) Yet the parallelism of the
verse is not synonymous but synthetical (W.
BOHLMANN & K. ScHERER, Stilfiguren der
Bibel |Fribourg 1973] 38): hence the article
before "él, serving here as a relativum.
IV. Bibliography
A. Cooper, Divine Names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic Texts, RSP III (AnOr 51; Rome
1981) 444-445; M. DaHoop, The Root GMR
in the Psalms, Theological Studies 14
(1953), 595-597; Danoop, Psalms 1I: 51-
100 (AB 17; Garden City 1968) 49-55.
K. VAN DER TOORN
AYA
I. Aya was the name of a syncrctistic
deity in Ugarit, equated with the Mes-
opotamian deities Aya and Ea. The name is
of unknown etymology. ROBERTS (1972: 20-
21) argued for a original spelling 'ay(yJa
deriving from an original root *nvv "to
live" and related it to the adjective hayy(sen)
"alive" in Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic. In the
OT Aya occurs several times (e. g. Gen
36:24; 2 Sam 3:7; | Chr 7:28) as a proper
name. [t is regarded by some authors as a
hypocoristic form to be connected with the
Ugaritic deity.
125
AYA
II. Aya is mentioned in the trilingual
Ugaritic god-list RS 20.123+ (J. NouGay-
ROL, Ug 5 [1968] 248:32): dA-A: e-ia-an:
ku-šar-ru. The logographic writing SA-A is
used in Mesopotamia to denote the goddess
Aya, the spouse of the sun-god Shamash
(>Shemesh). She was worshipped together
with him in Sippar, Larsa and perhaps also
in Babylon. Like Shamash she was a deity
of light sharing several aspects with -*Ish-
tar too. The Babylonians worshipped her as
a young girl and called her kallatu “bride”
and hirtu spouse“. Aya is attested already
in Presargonic personal names (BOTTERO
1953:32) and therefore one of the oldest
Semitic deities known to us from Mesopot-
amia. Her equivalent in the Sumerian pan-
theon was named Shenirda or Sudaga (A.
FALKENSTEIN, ZA 52 [1957] 305). An Edom-
ite king by the name of Aya-rammu is men-
tioned in Sennacherib's annals (D. LUCKEN-
BILL, The Annals of Sennacherib [OIP 2;
Chicago 1924] 30: ii 57).
In the Ugaritic god-list Aya is preceeded
by the Ugaritic Sun-Goddess Shapshu. This
deity was female, and this change in gender
might have been the reason for connecting
the logographic writing of her companion
(9A-A) with the almost homophonic Hurrian
name (Eyan) of Ea, the Akkadian god of
sweet waters and wisdom, and with his
Ugaritic equivalent Kushara (Kir, -*Koshar).
Ea too is known from Presargonic per-
sonal names and belongs to the oldest Sem-
itic pantheon in Mesopotamia (ROBERTS
1972). In all probability he was originally a
god of springs and wells, and was soon
equated with Enki, the Sumerian god of
- wisdom and skills, whose domain was the
Abzu—the subterranean sweet-water ocean—
and who was worshipped in the South-Mes-
opotamian city of Eridu (modern Abu-
Shahrain, -*Ends of the Earth). He
combined knowledge and wisdom with thc
cleansing and restorative powers of fresh-
water. In Sumerian mythology, Enki is one
of the creators and organizers of the uni-
verse. Especially the creation of man is
ascribed to him. Within Akkadian epic tradi-
tion he increasingly assumed the role of a
trickster, whose advice saved gods and
humans alike from seemingly hopeless situ-
ations. He was revered for instance, for
saving the human race from total destruction
by the deluge. As a patron deity of erudition
and scholarship on the one hand, and incan-
tations and purification rituals on the other,
Ea became one of the supreme gods in the
Mesopotamian pantheon. During the first
millennium BCE most of his functions had
already been transferred to his son
-*Marduk, the city god of Babylon, but Ea
remained the ultimate source of wisdom and
deep insight throughout Mesopotamian his-
tory.
Ill. In the OT Aya is found several times
as a personal name. In Gen 36:24 and 1 Chr
1:40 as name of the cldest son of Zibeon
and in 2 Sam 3:7; 21:8.10 and 11 as name
of the father of Rizpah. Twice Aya is men-
tioned as the name of a place in connection
with —Bethel (1 Chr 7:28 and Neh 11:31).
Several authors (GINSBERG & MAISLER,
JPOS 14 [1934] 257; W. FEILER, ZA 45
[1939] 219-220; J. BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon
and Israel [Cambridge 1972] 126 n. 46)
connected these names as_ hypocoristic
forms with the Hurrian deity Aya. Other
scholars regarded Aya as an animal name
("hawk, kite") used as personal name (/PN
230), or as interrogative pronoun "where
is...?” (W. F. ALBRIGHT, JAOS 74 [1954]
225-227). Most dictionaries distinguish
between the personal names and the place
name.
IV. Bibliography
J. BorrÉRo, Les divinités sémitiques an-
ciennes en Mésopotamie, Le antiche divinità
semitiche (StSem 1; Rome 1953) 17-63, esp.
32-33 and 36-38; E. EBELING, A.A, RLA 1
(1928) 1-2; EBELING, Enki, RLA 2 (1933)
374-379; D. O. EDZARD, Aja; Enki, WbMyth
1/1, 39, 56-57; H. D. GALTER, Der Gott
Ea/Enki in der akkadischen Uberlieferung
(Graz 1983) [& lit.; S. N. KRAMER & J.
MAIER, Myths of Enki, The Crafty God
(Oxford 1989) [& lit.]; E. LAROCHE. Le
"panthéon" hourrite de Ras Shamra, Ug 5
(1968) 518-527, esp. 525; J. J. M. ROBERTS,
The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of
126
AYISH — AZABBIM
the Semitic Deities attested in Mesopotamia
before Ur III (Baltimore 1972) 19-21.
H. D. GALTER
AYISH —> ALDEBARAN
AZABBIM C252 ‘Idols’
I. The plural noun ‘dsabbim, ‘idols’, is
derived from the verb ‘dsab I, ‘form,
fashion, shape’, which is attested in Job
10:8: "Your hands fashioned and made me"
(sce also Jer 44:19). The verb should not be
confused with ‘dsab II ‘to be sad, sorrow-
ful’. The singular of the noun ‘eseb meaning
‘(clay) vessel, pot’ is attested in Jer 22:28:
“Is this man Coniah a wretched broken pot,
a vessel (kéli) no one wants? Why are he
and his offspring hurled out, and cast away
in a land they knew not?"
IL. Attested 17 times in the Hebrew
Bible, the plural noun ‘dsabbim ‘idols’ is
especially characteristic of Hosea (4:17; 8:4;
14:9), who uses this noun to refer to the
golden calves at Dan and Bethel (13:2). In
the view of Hosea as in that of the unnamed
author of 1 Kgs 12:28-30 the veneration of
these cultic appurtenances by the people of
the Northern Kingdom (Samaria) was apos-
tasy no less than the worship of other gods,
who were commonly represented by
anthropomorphic statues.
Micah, speaking in the name of the
Lorp, tells us that the ‘dsabbim, i.c., cultic
appurtenances of Samaria, will be destroyed;
not because of their inherent inappropriate-
ness to the worship of Yahweh, but rather
because of the moral depravity involved in
their having been provided by the generous
donations of prostitutes from the fees they
received for services rendered (Mic 1:7; cf.
Deut 23:19).
From Pss 115:4 and 135:15 and their
respective contexts we learn of a time, per-
haps early in the Second Temple period,
when Isracl’s neighbours taunted her for
worshipping an unseen god while Israel in
retum taunted her neighbours for wor-
shipping anthropomorphic ‘“dsabbim, ‘idols’
fashioned by human hands from silver and
gold: “They have mouths, but they cannot
speak. They have eyes, but they cannot see.
They have ears, but they cannot hear. They
have noses, but they cannot smell. They
have hands but they cannot touch, feet. but
they cannot walk. They cannot make a
sound with their throats” (Ps 115:5-7; cf. Ps
135:15:17).
III. The priesthoods of the ancient Near
East distinguished between the cult statue
fashioned by human hands and the divinity,
which, it was believed, could be made to
reside within—but not only within—the cult
statue (DIETRICH & Lorerz 1992:20-37).
However, many of the common people with
whom Israelites came into contact did not
always distinguish between the divinity and
the cult statue. It should not be surprising,
therefore, that especially in the heat of relig-
ious polemic reflected in Pss 115 and 135,
the Israelite polemicist should poke fun at
this aspect of the popular religion of peoples
of the ancient Near East. The master pol-
emicist of ancient Israel, the so-called
Deutero-lsaiah, relates that at the time of the
capitulation of Babylon to Cyrus in the
autumn of 539 BCE the images representing
Bel (-^Marduk) and Nebo (Nabû) were
piled as a burden upon tired beasts, who
"cowered, they (like Bel and Nebo) bowed
as well. They (i.e., thc beasts) could not res-
cue the burden (viz., the ‘dsabbim), and they
themselves went into captivity” (Isa 46:2).
Apparently, Deutero-Isaiah bears witness
here to the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jer
$0:2: “Declare among the nations, and pro-
claim: Raise a standard, proclaim; Hide
nothing! Say: Babylon is captured. Bel is
shamed. Marduk is dismayed. Her ‘dsabbim
are shamed, her —gillflim are dismayed”. In
the Jeremian context both terms for idols
refer to the gods of Babylon while in
Deutero-Isaiah the term ‘dsabbim retains its
primary meaning and designates anthropo-
morphic statues of gods.
According to 2 Sam 5:21 the Philistine
soldiers abandoned their ‘dsabbirn, i.e., cult
statues, when they were defeated in the
battle of Baal-perazim. The MT of 1 Sam
31:9 refers to Philistine temples as "temples
127
AZAZEL
of their ‘dsabbim” although the LXX reads
"among their idols". The parallel passage in
] Chr 10:9, which speaks of "spreading the
bad news to their ‘dsabbim,” appears to
reflect the Philistine point of view and uses
‘dsabbim to refer to the deities represented
by or embodied in the statues (SCHROER
1987:317-320).
According to Ps 106:36.38 the Israelites
learned from their Canaanite neighbours to
worship and offer sacrifices to the Canaanite
‘asabbim. According to 2 Chr 24:17 the
death of the virtuous Judean high priest
Jehoiada was followed by many of the
Judean nobility’s abandoning worship of the
Lord in favour of the worship of ‘dsabbim.
Zech. 13:2, however, looks forward to the
eschatological time when “the very names
of the ‘dsabbim” will be erased.
Isaiah son of Amoz, speaking in the name
of the Lorp, puts into the mouth of the
Assyrian king (probably Sargon II) the rhe-
torical question: “Shall I not do to Jerusalem
and her *ágabbim what I did to Samaria and
her gods (élilim)?” (Isa 10:11). Of course,
Isaiah’s audience is meant to understand that
Jerusalem does not rely upon ‘dsabbim but
upon God.
IV. Bibliography
M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, “Jahwe und
seine Aschera". Anthropomorphes Kultbild
in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel (UBL
9; Münster 1992); A. GRAUPNER, *'àsab.
TWAT 6 (1987) 302-305 (& lit); S. Schroer,
In Israel gab es Bilder. Nachrichten von
darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament
(OBO 74; Freiburg & Gottingen 1987).
M. I. GRUBER
AZAZEL CINID
I. Both the etymology and the meaning
of the name ‘aza’zél, which appears in the
Old Testament only in Lev 16:8.10
[twice].26, are not completely clear. Al-
though the etymological hypothesis ‘zz <
*‘zz’l < ‘zz (‘to be strong’) + 7! (‘god’), i.e.
the result of a consonantal metathesis, ap-
pears to be the most likely explanation
(JANOWSKI & WILHELM 1993:128 with n.
98. cf. the form ‘zz’! in 4Q 180, 1:8;
11QTemple 26:13 etc., see Tawit 1980:58-
59), the meaning of the name *z'z/ remains
controversial. In the main the following
possibilities are under discussion (cf. also
HALAT 762): 1) ‘Azazel’ is the name or
epithet of a demon. 2) ‘Azazel’ is a geo-
graphical designation meaning ‘precipitous
place’ or ‘rugged cliff (DRIVER 1956:97-98;
cf. Tg. Ps.-J. Lev 16:10.22 etc.). 3) ‘Azazel’
is a combination of the terms ‘éz (‘goat’) +
"ozél ('to go away, disappear’, cf. Arabic zl)
and means ‘goat that goes (away)', cf. àxo-
nmopnaios (Lev 16:8.10a LXX), anonopry
(v 10b LXX), ó 6:£otaAuévog eig adeotv (v
26) or caper emissarius (Lev 16:8.10a.26 Vg),
English scapegoat, French bouc émissaire.
In order to define the word as the name
or epithet of a demon one could refer pri-
marily to the textual evidence: according to
Lev 16:8.10 a he-goat is chosen by lot ‘for
Azazel’ in order to send it into the desert (v
10.21) or into a remote region ‘for Azazel’.
Since la‘aza’zél corresponds to lEYHWH (v
8), ‘Azazel’ could also be understood as a
personal name, behind which could be
posited something such as a ‘supernatural
being’ or a ‘demonic personality’. However,
one should be cautious of too hasty an
ascription.
II. Various theses have been proposed in
recent scholarly discussion concerning the
identity of the figure of Azazel, as well as
conceming the understanding of the Azazel
rite (Lev 16:10.21-22). These can be clas-
sified as the nomadic, the Egyptian and the
South Anatolian-North Syrian models.
The underlying assumption of the nomad-
ic model is that the ‘scapegoat’ is not only
chosen by lot ‘for Azazel’ (Lev 16:8.10, cf.
mYom III:9-IV:2), but is also sent ‘to him’
into the desert or a remote region (Lev
16:10.21-22, cf. 11QTemple 26:11-13; mYom
VI:2-6). The result of this combination was
the positing of a ‘desert demon’ Azazel. In
other words, it was assumed that Azazel
lived in the desert and was a demon. DUHM
and others spoke of a 'Kakodümon der
Wüste’, who was to be appeased through the
offering of a he-goat (sa‘ir, DUHM 1904:56,
128
AZAZEL
cf. Ges.!7 576; HALAT 762). This thesis is,
however, to be viewed skeptically, since the
goat chosen ‘for Azazel’ (v 8, the second
goat is chosen ‘for YHWH’) is not sent ‘to’
Cel [or something similar]) Azazel but ‘for
Azazel into the desen? — (lafázá?zel
hammidbüárá). The central issue is the expla-
nation of the expression ‘for (lë) Azazel’;
the solution should lie in the original mean-
ing of the ritual.
Nevertheless the thesis of a ‘desen
demon’ Azazel has found acceptance and
has been advocated until the present day.
Variations of this thesis have been proposed
by L. Rost (Passover ritual in the spring and
‘scapegoat’ ritual in the autumn as corre-
sponding carly Israelite rituals) and recently
by A. Strobel (the integration of a pre-Israel-
ite [El-]ritual into the Palestinian calendar
and into the celebration. of the Day of
Atonement). In addition the original de-
monic character of Azazel was always
underlined by positing a connection between
the goat (sá'fr) chosen for Azazel with the
*séirim ('demons'; Isa 13:21; 34:14, cf.
Lev 17:75; 2Chr 11:15), which naturally
results in the image of a demon in goat form
for the 'scapegoat'. Finally, since the time
of Eissfeldt the ivory plaque from Megiddo
(Loup, The Megiddo Ivories [OIP 52; Chi-
cago 1939] P1.5,4.5) has been viewed as an
iconographic proof of the demon hypothesis
(for a critique see JaNowsk! & WILHELM
1993:119-123).
Recently an Egyptian explanation has
been proposed, which bases itself on the
Egyptian ‘d? ‘injustice; evil-doer, culprit’
and Egyptian dr ‘to expel’ or dr ‘to keep at
a distance, remove’. According to this the-
ory an original ritual of elimination has been
enriched through the addition of the concept
of a ‘scapegoat’-receiver in the form of a
demon, who bears traits of the Egyptian god
Seth, the classic ‘God of Confusion’. This
relationship is expressed in his name.
According to Górg the name ‘rzi < Eg.
‘dsdrf (< ‘d? + dr/I) means ‘the expelled or
removed culprit’ and is an expression of the
interpretative model ‘the guilty one belongs
there whence his guilt ultimately comes’
(GóRG 1986:13), namely from the (eastern)
desert. This is where the Egyptian model
comes into contact with the nomadic onc.
This thesis is, however, inacceptable, since
it neither accords with the perspective of
Lev 16 nor is it supported by the adduced
Egyptian comparative material. (JANOWSKI
& WILHELM 1993:123-129).
The third model is the South Anatolian-
North Syrian one. It appears to be the most
plausible one, both conceptually and philo-
logically. It holds that the Azazel rite is a
type of elimination rite (spatial removal [eli-
minatio} of a physically understood pollu-
tion through the agent of a living substitute),
for which there are parallels both within
(Lev 14:2b-8.48-53; Zech 5:5-11) and outs-
ide the OT. The extra-biblical parallels point
to an origin in the South Anatolian-North
Syrian ritual tradition, whence this rite spre-
ad on the one hand into the Palestinian-Isra-
elite (‘scapegoat’ ritual, Lev 16) and on the
other into the Ionian-Greek sphere (Phar-
makos-rites in Kolophon, Abdera, Athens
and Massalia/Marscille). Its home is to be
found most probably in Southern Anatolia-
Northem Syria, as has become increasingly
evident in recent years. In support of this
conjecture the relevant Hurrian material
from Kizzuwatna as well as the Canaanite
'scapegoat' ritual (KTU 1.127:29-31), which
may form a missing link between the South
Anatolian-North Syrian and the Palestinian-
Israelite ritual traditions, can be adduced.
How this transfer of ritual proceeded has not
yet been worked out in detail. Just as
questionable is whether there are analogies
for the name and person of Azazel in Uga-
rit; Lorerz (1985) postulates a ‘lesser
divinity’ ‘zz’! analogous to Ugaritic ‘zb‘l
(KTU 1.102:27).
III. The decisive question in the interpre-
tation of Lev 16:10.21-22 in the context (!)
of Lev 16 is whether the figure of Azazel is
original to the chapter or has 'developed' in
connection with the composition/redaction
of Lev 16. In order to answer this question,
it is necessary to differentiate between the
religious history of Lev 16:10.21-22 and the
tradition/redaction history of Lev 16.
129
AZAZEL
In its ritual-historical aspect the Azazel
rite belongs to the oldest core of the ritual
and represents a type of ritual (the elimin-
ation rite), which is at home in South
Anatolia-North Syria and is also known in
Mesopotamia (WRIGHT 1987:31-74). The
‘motif of the scapegoat’ in its various mani-
festations is well attested particularly in the
Hittite-Hurrian rituals from Kizzuwatna in
southeast Anatolia (KÜMMEL 1968; JaANow-
SKI & WiLHELM 1993:134-158). Various
animals, such as cattle, sheep, goats, don-
keys or mice, can be the bearers of the pol-
lution which is magically eliminated by
means of a living substitute. The term *z'z/
could be interpreted against the background
of these Hurrian ritual traditions. JANOWSKI
& WILHELM have proposed tying the term
in with the Hurrian azus/zhi. The latter is
known in the form azas/zhu(m) already in
the Akkadian language oath ritual from
north Syrian Alalah (A/T 126:17.24.28), and
in the form azus/zhi it appears frequently in
the great itkalzi-ritual in connection with
sacrificial terms with negative connotations
(e.g. arni 'sin' (« Akk arnu] etc.). The root
can be assumed to be azaz- or azuz-, for
which, however, only a Semitic etymology
(root ‘ZZ < Akk ‘ezézw ‘be angry’, Heb
*dzaz ‘be strong’, etc.) but no Hurrian one
can be posited. Since the ‘anger of the
divinity’ in this ritual tradition can be under-
stood as an impurity which is ritually re-
deemable, the expression /'zz| (« *l'zzl)
could then be derived from an original
definition of the elimination-rite, whose
meaning one could then transcribe as 'for
‘azavél = for [the elimination of] divine
anger’ (for a critique see DIETRICH &
LonErz 1993: 106-115).
The question of the integration of the
Anatolian-North Syrian material of the
second millennium BCE and in particular of
the expression *‘zz’l (> ‘z’z/) into the tradi-
tion of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16
cannot be simply resolved. The following
development, however, would appear to be
possible:
Azazel belongs to the oldest core of the
ritual tradition of Lev 16. It is a part of the
religious-magical conceptual world of North
Syria, as becomes evident in the ritual tradi-
tion borrowed from there (Alalah) and
brought to Anatolia (Kizzuwatna). The
Ugaritic religion possibly played the role of
mediator in this process (sec esp. KTU
1.127:29-31). At an early date the term
azaz/azuz, also borrowed in this connection,
would have been misunderstood (for a criti-
que sec DiETRICH & LonEgrz 1993:115-116).
In the attempt to understand the term, thc
pattern of El-names used to describe demo-
nic beings may have been influential, and
may have determined the interpretation in
the sense of a ‘desert demon’. The adaptive
process took place in the context of the tra-
dition formation of Lev 16, when one was
able to view ‘Azazel’ as the name of a
demon according to genuine Israelite inter-
pretative presuppositions, i.e. from the per-
spective of post-exilic monotheism. The
integration of the figure named ‘Azazel’ into
the tradition of Lev 16 was occasioned by
the motive of the 'deserUsteppe' or the
'remote region' (v 10.21-22) into which the
goat is sent to remove the impurity. The
concept of the 'desert demon' Azazel was
born together with the desert motif.
Characteristic of the final form of Lev 16
is the symmetry of the two goats, the one
for —Yahweh and the one for Azazel (v 8-
10). The rituals tied in with them (the atone-
ment rites v 11-19 and the elimination rite v
10.21-22) are to be understood as comple-
mentary acts, which have given the complex
construction of Lev 16 its unmistakable
form.
IV. The Jewish and Christian history of
interpretation of the figure of Azazel stands
in no relationship to its laconic treatment in
Lev 16. In the latter Azazel receives no
sacrifices (the ‘scapegoat’ is no sacrificial
animal), nor are any (demonic) actions
ascribed to him. The eliminatory function of
the Azazel-rite stands in the foreground.
The process of the demonization of
Azazel was intensively pursued in early
Judaism under the influence of dualistic ten-
dencies (J Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4-8; 13:1; cf.
54:5-6; 55: 4; 69:2; Apoc. Abr. 13:6-14;
130
AZAZEL
14:4-6 etc.; see HANSON 1977:220-223;
NICKELSBURG 1977:357-404; GRABBE 1987:
153-155; JSHRZ V/6 [1984] 520-521).
Azazel taught human beings the art of work-
ing metal (7 Enoch 8:1), enticed them to
injustice and revealed to them the primordial
divine secrets (7 Enoch 9:6; cf. 69:2). As an
unclean bird he is the personification of
ungodliness (Apoc. Abr. 13:7; 23:9) and the
lord of the heathens (Apoc. Abr. 22:6). As a
serpentine creature he tempted Adam and
Eve in paradise (Apoc. Abr. 23:5.9); the
Messiah will judge him with his cohorts (/
Enoch 55:4, cf. 54:5 and RAC 5 [1962]
206f). In rabbinic Judaism the name is only
rarely to be found (RAC 9 [1976] 684).
V. Bibliography
M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Der biblische
Azazel und AIT *126, UF 25 (1993) 99-117;
G. R. Driver, Three Technical Terms in the
Pentateuch, JSS 1 (1956) 97-105, esp. 97-
100; H. Dunm, Die bösen Geister im Alten
Testament (Tübingen & Leipzig 1904); *M.
GörG, Beobachtungen zum sogenannten
Azazel-Ritus, BN 33 (1986) 10-16; GÖRG,
Asasel, NBL 1 (1991) 181-182; GÖRG, “Asa-
selologen" unter sich — cine enge Runde?,
BN 80 (1995) 25-31; L. L. GRaBBE, The
Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Inter-
pretation, JSJ 18 (1987) 152-167; P. D.
HANSON, Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and
Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11, JBL
96 (1977) 195-233; *B. JaNowskKi & G.
Der Bock, der die Sünden
hinaustrágt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des
Azazel-Ritus Lev 16,10.21f. Religionsge-
schichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleina-
sien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament
(OBO 129: Fribourg & Göttingen 1993)
109-169 [& lit.]; H. M. KÜMMEL, Ersatzkó-
nig und Sündenbock, ZAW 80 (1968) 289-
318; *O. LonETZ, Leberschau, Siindenbock,
Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. Leberschau und
Jahwestatue in Ps 27, Leberschau in Ps 74
(UBL 3; Altenberge 1985) 35-57; J. MiLGR-
OM, Leviticus I-I6 (AB 3; New York etc.
1991) 1071-1079; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG,
Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11, JBL
96 (1977) 383-405; S. M. OLYAN, A Thou-
sand Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and
the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism
(TSAJ 36; Tübingen 1993); A. STROBEL,
Das jerusalemische Sündenbock-Ritual.
Topographische und landeskundliche Erwi-
gungen zur Überlicferungsgeschichte von
Lev 16,10.21f., ZDPV 103 (1987) 141-168;
H. TAwiL, Azazel. The Prince of the Steppe:
A Comparative Study, ZAW 92 (1980)
43-59; D. P. WRIGHT, The Disposal of
the Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible
and in Hittite and Mesopotamian
Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta 1987) 15-
74; *WRIGHT, Azazel, ABD 1 (1992) 536-
537.
WILHELM,
B. JANOWSKI
131
BAAL 553
I. The name ba'al is a common Semitic
noun meaning 'lord, owner'. Applied to a
god it occurs about 90 times in the OT. The
LXX transcribes Baad, Vulgate Baal, plural
BaaAii and Baalim. Though normally an
appellative, the name is used in Ugaritic
religion as the proper name of a deity. Also
in the Bible, the noun occurs as the name of
a specific Canaanite god.
II. According to Pettinato the noun ba‘al
was originally used as a divine name. It is
attested as such already in third millennium
texts. The mention of d5a,-al, in the list of
deities from Abu Salabikh (R. D. BiGGs,
Inscription from Abu Salabikh [OIP 99;
Chicago 1974) no. 83 v 11 = no. 84 obv. iii
8°) provides the oldest evidence of Baal's
worship. Since the Abu Salabikh god list
mentions the god amidst a wealth of other
deities, each of them referred to by its
proper name, it is unlikely that ba‘al should
serve here as an adjective. The appellative
‘lord’, moreover, has a different spelling,
viz. be-lu or ba-ah-lu. In texts from Ebla
(ca. 2400 BCE) the name Baal occurs only as
an element in personal names and top-
onyms.
PETTINATO (1980) makes a case for Baal
being an originally Canaanite deity (so also
DaHoop 1958:94; Pope & ROLLIG 1965:
253-254; vAN ZuL 1972:325), and argues
that he should be distinguished from
-*Hadad. Their identity is nevertheless often
emphasized in modem studies. Many
scholars hold that Hadad was the real name
of the West Semitic weather god; later on he
was simply referred to as ‘Lord’, just like
Bel (‘lord’) came to be used as a designa-
tion for Marduk (so e. g. O. EISSFELDT,
Baal/Baalat, RGG 1 [19573] 805-806;
DaHoon 1958:93; GEsE 1970:120; DE Moor
& MULDER 1973:710-712; A. Caquot &
M. Sznycer, LAPO 7 [1974] 73). Yet the
parallel occurrences of b'f and hd (Haddu)
in, e.g., KTU 1.4 vii:35-37; 1.5 i:22-23; 1.10
11:4-5 do not necessarily support this
assumption. It could also be argued, with
KAPELRUD (1952:50-52), that the name of
the Mesopotamian weather god Hadad/
Adad, known in the West Semitic world
through cultural contact, was applied sec-
ondarily to Baal. 1f Baal and Hadad refer
back to the same deity, however, it must be
admitted that, in the first millennium BCE,
the two names came to stand for distinct
deities: Hadad being a god of the Aramae-
ans, and Baal a god of the Phoenicians and
the Canaanites (J. C. GREENFIELD, Aspects
of Aramean Religion, Ancient Israelite Re-
ligion [FS. F. M. Cross; ed. P. D. Miller, Jr.,
et al.; Philadelphia 1987] 67-78, esp. 68).
In the texts from Ugarit (Ras Shamra)
Baal is frequently characterized as aliyn b‘l,
‘victorious Baal’ (see e.g. KTU 1.4 v:59; 1.5
v:17; 1.6 v:10; 1.101:17-18); aliy grdm,
‘mightiest of the heroes’ (KTU 1.3 iii:14;
iv:7-8; 1.4 viii:34-35; 1.5 ii:10-11, 18; for a
closer analysis see DIETRICH & LoreTZ 1980:
392-393); dmrn. ‘the powerful, excellent
one’ (KTU 1.4 vii:39; cf. KTU 1.92:30); or
b‘l spn (KTU 1.16 i:6-7; 1.39:10; 1.46:14;
1.47:5; 1.109:9, 29 —Zaphon, -*Baal-Za-
phon). The latter designation is also found,
in syllabic writing and therefore vocalised,
in the Treaty of Esarhaddon of Assyria with
king Baal of Tyre (SAA 2 [1988] no. 5 iv
10': dBa-al-sa-pu-nu). It also occurs in a
Punic text from Marseilles (KAJ 69:1) and a
Phoenician text from Saqqara in Egypt (KA/
50:2-3). The Baal residing upon the divine
mountain of Sapanu (the Jebel el-Aqra',
classical Mons Casius, cf. the name Hazi in
texts from Anatolia) is sometimes referred
to in Ugarit as i/ spn (KTU 1.3 iii:29; iv:19;
note, however, that the latter designation
132
BAAL
may also be used to refer to the collectivity
of gods residing on Mount Zaphon). Appar-
ently, in the popular imagination, Baal's
palace was situated on Mount Zaphon (KTU
1.4 v:55; vii:6; cf. srrt spn, ‘summit of the
Sapànu', KTU 1.3 i:21-22; 1.6 vi:12-13, and
mrym spn, ‘heights of the Sapànu', KTU 1.3
iv:l, 37-38; 1.4 v:23). In a cultic context
Baal was invoked as the god of the city-
state of Ugarit under the name b'| ugrt
(KTU 1.27:4; 1.46:16 [restored]; 1.65: 10-
11; 1.105:19; 1.109:11, 16, 35-36).
Such genitival attributions as b'| ugrt may
be compared with those that are known from
Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions: b'l
krntry$ (KAI 26 A 1I:19); b'l Ibnn ('Baal of
the ->Lebanon’, KA/ 31:1-2); b'l sdn (‘Baal
of --Sidon’, KAJ 14:18); bl sind (KAI
24:15); bil $myn (‘Baal of the Heavens’,
KAI 202 A 3); b'l §mm (KAI 4:3, —Baal
shamem); cf. also b'l ’dr (KAI 9 B 5); b‘l
hmn (KAI 24:16; Hermon); b‘l mgnm (KAI
78:3-4). For other special forms of Baal see
the survey by Pore & ROG LIG 1965:253-
264. It is also to be noted, finally, that the
Ugaritic Baal in his capacity as lord over the
fertile land is said to be bn dgn, ‘the son of
-—Dagan' (KTU 1.5 vi:23-24; 1.10 iii:12, 14;
1.14 ii:25; iv:7). Yet as a member of the
pantheon, the other gods being his brothers
and sisters, Baal is also the son of —El—
since all gods are ‘sons of El’ (KTU 1.3
v:38-39; 1.4 iv:47-48; v:28-29; 1.17 vi:28-
29; once Baal addresses El as ‘my father’,
KTU 1.17 i:23). There is no particular ten-
sion between these two filiations; they
should certainly not be taken as an indica-
tion to the effect that Baal was admitted into
the Ugaritic pantheon at a later stage. On the
contrary: the appellative bn expresses appur-
tenance to a certain sphere. Baal was judged
to be a member of the Ugaritic pantheon,
and as such he was a son of El. Inasmuch as
his activity was concemed with the fertility
of the fields he was a son of the grain god
Dagan.
The excavations at Ras Shamra have
supplied us with various figurative represen-
tations of the god Baal (A. Caquot & M.
SZNYCER, Ugaritic Religion [Leiden 1980]
pl. VIII c (?), IX a-d, X, XII). Such icono-
graphic representations are known from
other places in the Syro-Palestinian area too,
though their interpretation is fraught with
difficulties; an unambiguous identification
with Baal is rarely possible (P. WELTEN,
Götterbild, männliches, BRL [1977?] 99-
111; cf. R. HACHMANN [ed.] Frühe Phó-
niker im Libanon: 20 Jahre deutsche Aus-
grabungen in Kadmid ’el-Léz [Mainz am
Rhein 1983] 165).
The worship of Baal demonstrably per-
vaded the entire area inhabited by the
Canaanites. During the period of the Middle
Kingdom, if not earlier, the cult was adopted
by the Egyptians, along with the cult of
other Canaanite gods (S. MORENZ, Agyp-
tische Religion [RdM 8; Stuttgart 19772]
250-255). In the wake of the Phoenician
colonization it eventually spread all over the
Mediterranean region.
The domain or property of the god con-
sists either of a natural area or one created
by human hand; the relationship of the god
to his territory is expressed with a genitival
construction: Baal is the lord of a mountain,
a city, and the like. The place may either
coincide with a sanctuary, or contain one.
Since the separate population groups within
the Syrian-Palestine area each knew their
own Baal, as the literary documents show, it
may be assumed that people had a well cir-
cumscribed image of the god as a deity of
fundamental significance for the human
existence (cf. A. CAQvuor & M. SZNYCER,
LAPO 7 [1974] 77). The conclusion is
confirmed by the frequency of Baal as
theophoric component in personal names
(PN 114, 116, 119-122; KAI III, 45-52; F.
GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte
aus Ugarit [Rome 1967] 114-117.131-133).
Also in the Amarna letters there occur
proper names compounded with the divine
name Baal (if 4im may be read as ba‘lu, e.g.
EA 256:2, 5; 257:3; 314:3; 330:3).
Since the information conceming Baal in
the Bible is negatively biased, a characteri-
zation of the god and his attributes must be
based in the first place on texts from the
Syro-Canaanite world. The examination of
133
BAAL
the Iron Age inscriptional material, how-
ever, be it Phoenician, Punic, or Aramaic, is
not especially productive. Though Baal or
one of his manifestations is frequently men-
tioned, he usually appears in conjunction
with other gods, his particular field of action
being seldom defined. Only the Phoenician
inscription of Karatepe (8th century BCE)
yields information in this respect (KA/ 26).
It tells about Baal in a way that is reminis-
cent of the mythic tradition of Ras Shamra.
King Azitawadda calls himself ‘steward’
(brk, cf. Akk abarakku, Ebla a-ba-ra-gu, see
M. KREBERNIK, WO 15 [1984] 89-92) and
‘servant’ (‘bd) of Baal (KA/ 26 A I:1). He
claims that the god appointed him in order
that he (i.c. the king) might secure for his
people prosperous conditions (KA/ 26 A I:3,
8; I[:6). A possible counterpart may be
found in the Aramaic inscription of Afis (8th
century BCE) where King Zakir (or Zakkur)
of Hamat and Lu‘ash says that Baal-Shamin
appointed him king over Hazrak (KA/ 202 A
3-4) and promised him aid and rescue in
distress (lines 12-13). On occasion, Baal is
asked to grant life and welfare (KA/ 26 A
IIl:11: C 1II:16-20; 1V:12; cf. 4:3: 18:1,7;
266:2). In the Karatepe inscription, as in the
inscription from Afis (B 23), the heavenly
Baal (Baal-shamem) is mentioned besides
other gods as guarantor of the inviolability
of the inscription (A 11I:18; cf. KA/ 24:15-
16); it is an open question whether he
differs from the god Baal or whether he is
really the same deity approached from a dif-
ferent angle. Some random data may be
culled from the remaining texts. The Phoen-
ician incantation of Arslan Tash (KAI 27),
presumably dating from the 7th century BCE
(unless it is a forgery, as argued by J.
TEIXIDOR & P. AMIET, AulOr 1 [1983] 105-
109), has been thought to mention the eight
wives of Baal (l. 18); it is also possible, if
not more likely, that the epithet b‘? qdš
refers back to -*Horon, whose 'seven con-
cubines' are mentioned in line 17 (cf. NESE
2 [1974] 24). A Nco-Punic inscription from
Tunesia refers to Baal-hamon and Baal-
addir (KA/ 162:1), apparently as gods that
are able to grant pregnancy and offspring.
These few testimonies give only a very
general idea of Baal. The capacities in
which he acts, as kingmaker and protector,
benefactor and donator of offspring, do not
distinguish him from other major gods.
Far more productive are the mythological
texts from Ras Shamra ca. 1350 BCE, which
contain over 500 references to Baal. They
help us to delineate the particular province
of the god. The myths tell how he obtained
royal rule and reigns as king (KTU 1.2
iv:32; 1.4 vii:49-50). He is called sovereign
(‘judge’, tpt, a title more frequently applied
to the god Yammu) and king (KTU 1.3 v:32;
1.4 iv:43-44). Several times his kingdom,
his royal throne and his sovereignty are
mentioned (KTU 1.1 iv:24-25; 1.2 iv:10; 1.3
iv:2-3; 1.4 vii:44: 1.6 v:5-6; vi:34-35; 1.10:
13-14). His elevated position shows itself in
his power over clouds, storm and lightning,
and manifests itself in his thundering voice
(KTU 1.4 v:8-9; vii:29, 31; 1.5 v:7; 1.101:3-
4). As the god of wind and weather Baal
dispenses dew, rain, and snow (KTU 1.3 ii:
39-41; 1.4 v:6-7; 1.5 v:8; 1.16 iii:5-7; 1.101:
7) and the attendant fertility of the soil
(KTU 1.3 ii:39; 1.6 iii:6-7, 12-13 [note the
metaphor of *oil and honcy', for which see
also the Hebrew phrase ‘a land flowing with
milk and honey' in Exod 3:8.17; Lev 20:24;
Deut 26:9; cf. Amos 9:13; Ps 65:12]; KTU
1.4 vii:50-51). Baal's rule guarantees the
annual return of the vegetation; as the god
disappears in the underworld and returns in
the autumn, so the vegetation dies and
resuscitates with him. Being the major one
among the gods, or rather perceived as such,
Baal was naturally a king to his Ugaritic
devotees. Yet kingship is not Baal’s sole
characteristic; it is merely the way he is
extolled. His nature is far more rich.
Baal is seen at work not just in the cycli-
cal pattern of the seasons. He is also called
upon to drive away the enemy that attacks
the city (KTU 1.119:28-34), which shows
that the god also interferes in the domain of
human history. His involvement in matters
of sex and procreation, though often
mentioned in secondary studies, is not very
explicit in the texts. A passage in the Epic
134
BAAL
of Aghat narrates how Baal intercedes with
El, that the latter might grant a son to
Dan’el (KTU 1.17 i:16-34). Yet this is
almost the only testimony concerning Baal's
involvement in the province of human fertil-
ity. The other texts referred to in older stu-
dies are either misinterpreted or highly
dubious. Thus KTU 1.82 is not an incanta-
tion asking Baal to grant fertility, but a text
against snake bites (G. DEL OLMO LETE, La
religión cananea según la liturgia de Ugarit
[Barcelona 1992} 251-255). KTU 1.13 may
indeed be an incantation against infertility,
with Baal in the role of granter of offspring
(J. C. pe Moor, An Incantation Against In-
fertility, UF 12 [1980] 305-310). but other
interpretations can also be defended with
some plausibilty (see, c.g., LAPO 14 [1989]
19-27). On the whole it seems mistaken to
infer from Baal's role as bestower of natural
fertility that he fulfilled the same role in the
domain of human fertility. Also, at Ugarit,
there are other gods who might equally be
called upon to bless a family with children.
A further theme in the myths is the antag-
onism between Baal and Yammu the god of
the sea (KTU 1.2). In addition to this
tablet from the Baal Cycle, other texts al-
lude to the theme; they speak of Baal's
combat against the -*River (Nahar) and the
monsters tnn (Tunnanu, ->Tannin), bin ‘glin
(the twisted serpent), /tn bin brh (Litanu, the
fugitive serpent; -*Leviathan), and Slyt
(Salyatu; KTU 1.3 iii:39-42; 1.5 i:1-3, 27-
30)—all belonging to the realm of Yammu
according to KTU 1.3 iii:38-39. It is interest-
ing to compare these data with the account
by Philo Byblius: “Then Ouranos [= El]
again went to battle, against Pontos [=
Yammu]. Yet having turned back he allied
himself. with Demarous [= Baal]. And
Demarous advanced against Pontos, but
Pontos routed him. Demarous vowed to
offer a sacrifice in return for his escape”
(Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 1.10.28; cf. H. W.
ATTRIDGE & R. A. Open, Jr., Philo of
Byblos: The Phoenician History {Washing-
ton 1981} 52-53, 190 nn. 119-120).
These reports might lead to the con-
clusion that Baal is revered as the god who
protects against the forces of destruction.
More particularly, however, his defeat of
Yammu symbolizes the protection he can
offer sailors and sea-faring merchants. Baal
is a patron of sailors (C. GRAVE, The Ety-
mology of Northwest Semitic sapdnu, UF
12 [1980} 221-229 esp. 228; cf. M. BIETAK,
Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Agypten
und Levante | [1990] 9-16). In the Baal
temple of Ugarit a number of votive anchors
have been found. Sailors could descry from
afar the acropolis temple, so they knew
where to turn to with their supplications for
safekeeping and help (cf. M. YON, Ougarit
et ses Dieux, Resurrecting the Past: A Joint
Tribute to Adnan Bounni [ed. P. Matthiae,
M. van Loon & H. Weiss; Istanbul/Leiden
1990] 325-343, esp. 336-337). This observa-
tion is confirmed by a reference in the treaty
of Esarhaddon with king Baal of Tyre. It
shows that Baal Zaphon had power to rescue
at sea, since the curse speaks about the pos-
sibility of Baal Zaphon sinking the Tyrian
ships by means of a sea-storm (SAA 2 no. 5
iv 107-13").
Finally attention. should be paid to a
rather different aspect of the way believers
thought Baal might intervene in their lives.
It concerns Baal's connection with the
netherworld, as it is expressed in the myth
about Baal's fight with —>Mot (personified
death). Mythological fragments not belong-
ing to the Baal Cycle have increased our
knowledge of this side of the god. Baal is
called with the epithet rpu (Rapi’u), ‘healer’
(cf. Hebrew rodpé’). DIETRICH & LORETZ
have shown that Baal is called rpu in his
capacity as leader of the rpum, the Reph-
aim (1980:171-182). They find the epithet in
KTU 1.108:1-2. and guess KTU 1.113
belongs to the same category of texts. The
Ràpi'üma (Hebrew répa’im) are the ghosts
of the deceased ancestors, more especially
of the royal family. Baal is their lord in the
realm of the dead, as shown by the circum-
location zbl bl ars (prince, lord of the
underworld’; DIETRICH & Loretz 1980:
392). According to KTU 1.17 vi:30 Baal is
able to vivify, which DIETRICH & LORETZ
interpret to mean that he activated the dece-
135
BAAL
ased and thus played a major role in the
ancestor cult. The expression adn ilm rbin
(KTU 1.124:1-2) may also be understood as
an epithet of Baal, designating him as ‘lord
of the great gods’, i.e. of the deified ances-
tors (1980:289-290).
III. The biblical references in which 222
means 'husband' (e.g. Gen 20:3; Exod
21:3.22) fall outside the scope of this article.
Only Hos 2:18 is ambiguous in this respect.
Evidently the verse did not originate as a
dictum of Hosea; it was written at a later
time (so already W. W. Graf BAUDISSIN,
Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und
seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte [ed.
O. Eissfeldt; Giessen 1929], Vol. 3, 89-90;
recently J. JEREMIAS, Der Prophet Hosea
[ATD 24/1; Géttingen 1983), ad locum). In
the eschatological future, according to the
prophet, the Israelites will call Yahweh
‘my man’ and no longer ‘my Baal’. Since
otherwise Baal is never used as a designa-
tion of Yahweh, both ‘my man’ (isi) and
‘my Baal’ (ba‘dli) are to be understood as
‘my husband’, even though the former is
more common in this sense than the latter
(Gen 2:23; 16:3; Lev 21:7; Num 5:27 and
often). In the background, however, the
verse is a polemic against the cult of Baal
(thus also the LXX by the plural Baad).
The name Baal is used in the OT for the
most part in the singular, and rarely in the
plural; it is generally preceded by the article
(Num 22:41 is no exception because it char-
acterizes a cultic place). On the basis of this
data, EISSFELDT has denied that there were a
great number of Baals, distinguished from
each other by reference to a locality or some
other specification, such as a genitival at-
tribute (->Baal-berith) or an apposition (Baal-
zebul, thus to be read instead of -*Baal-
zebub; see O. EISSFELDT, Ba‘al-Samem und
Jahwe, ZAW 57 [1939] 1-31, esp. 15-17 =
KS II [1963] 171-198, esp. 184-185). The
many local Baals are rather to be understood
as manifestations of the one Baal wor-
shipped among the Canaanite population
(thus DE Moor & MULDER 1973:709-710,
719-720; but note the critical observations
by KOHLEWEIN 1971:331).
The frequent occurrences of the name
Baal in the OT are instructive about the kind
of relations that the Israelites entertained
with the deity. During the early history of
Israel the name was by no means applied to
Yahweh, as is sometimes affirmed (pace
KAPELRUD 1952:43-44). The proper name
Bealiah (1 Chr 12:6[5]), meaning ‘Yahweh
is Baal/Lord’, is insufficient evidence to
prove that Baal was a customary epithet of
Yahweh. The theophoric component ‘Baal’
in proper names reveals most bearers of
these names to be worshippers of Baal, or to
come from a family of Baal worshippers.
All kinds of observations in the Bible docu-
ment the fact that the Israelites addressed a
cult to Baal. From a religio-historical point
of view this comes hardly as a surprise.
Also among the Ammonites Baal enjoyed a
certain popularity (see Gen 36:38-39 for
Baal as thcophoric element in an Ammonite
personal name; the god is possibly men-
tioned in the Amman theatre inscription, see
K. P. JACKSON, The Ammonite Language of
the Iron Age [HSM 27; Chico 1983] 45 and
U. HÜBNER, Die Ammoniter [ADPV 16:
Wiesbaden 1992] 21-23: b" occurs as a
theophoric clement in a personal name on a
seal from Tell-el-‘Uméri: b‘lys‘, HUBNER
1992:86; B. BEckiNG, JSS 38 [1993] 15-
24). In addition to the more general refer-
ences in Judg 6:31-32: 1 Kgs 18:21.26: 2
Kgs 10:19-20.28, there are references to the
temple of Baal (1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 10:21.
23.25-27; 11:18); his altar (Judg 6:25.28.30-
32; 1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 21:3); his cultic
pillar (2 Kgs 3:2; 10:27); his prophets (1
Kgs 18:19.22.25.40; 2 Kgs 10:19); and his
priests (2 Kgs 11:18). It cannot be said that
the cult of Baal flourished only in certain
periods or in a number of restricted areas;
nor was it limited to the Canaanite part of
the population (assuming that Canaanites
and Israelites were distinguishable entities).
The general impact of his cult is proven, in
the negative so to speak, by the reports
about its suppression in Israel and Judah (1
Sam 7:4; 12:10; 2 Kgs 10:18-28; 11:18;
23:4-5; 2 Chr 23:17; 34:4), and by the ref-
erences to the handful of faithful who had
not bowed to Baal (1 Kgs 19:18; 2 Chr
17:3). Similarly the increasingly sharp pol-
136
BAAL
emics which came to dominate the Israelite
literature (cf. KOHLEWEIN 1971:331) attest
to the fact that during the early Iron Age the
god Baal played a large part in the belief of
the Israclite population. F. E. EAKIN, Jr.
(Yahwism and Baalism before the Exile,
JBL 84 [1965] 407-414) correctly empha-
sizes that until Elijah, the worship of
Yahweh and the cult of Baal coexisted with-
out any problem. It should be remembered,
moreover, that the cult of Baal did not cease
to be practised, notwithstanding the notice
in 2 Kgs 10:28 which says that “Jehu wiped
out Baal from Israel”.
The polemics gained prominence as the
worship of Yahweh gained ground. Their
typical means of expression is the accusa-
tion that the Israelites turned away from
Yahweh at a very early stage in their his-
tory; they allegedly preferred to bring
sacrifices to the Baalim or to Baal, and they
continued to do so until the end of the exist-
ence of the independent states of Israel and
Judah (sce e.g. Judg 2:11-13; 1 Kgs 16:31-
32; 2 Kgs 17:16; Hos 11:2; Zeph 1:4; Jer
9:13). In Judaism the substitution of the read-
ing ‘Baal’ by bdSet, ‘ignominy, disgrace,
dishonour’ became customary (-*Bashtu);
the Septuagint used the terms aioxybvn (1
Kgs 18:19.25; with Aquila and Theodotion
Jer 11:13) and &i8oAov (Jer 9:13; 2 Chr
17:3; 28:2). The few references suggest that
the Greek pejorative names were seldom
used. Yet it should be noted that Baad is
often preceded by the feminine article,
which fact must be interpreted as a re-
flection of a reading 1 aioxóvn. The Vul-
gate throughout renders Baal and Baalim
(for the historic development of that usage
cf. DE Moor & MULDER 1973:719).
The figure of Baal which the Bible pre-
sents as being worshipped by the Israclites
must have resembled the Baal known from
Syrian and Phoenician sources, most notably
the Ugaritic tablets. As the biblical data are
unyielding with information about the nature
of Baal, however, the researcher is often
reduced to guesses based on comparative
evidence.
The first source to be dealt with is the
cycle of Elijah narratives, as they are con-
cerned with the competition between Baal
and Yahweh—or rather the respective
groups that claim loyalty to the one or the
other. The central issue of the battle is the
ability to produce rain, and hence to grant
fertility to the fields (cf. 1 Kgs 17:1.7.14;
18:1.2.41-46). It is Yahweh's prophet who
announces the withholding of the rain and
its ultimate return. His message is that rain
and fertility of the soil do not depend on
Baal but on Yahweh (cf. Hos 2:10). Appar-
ently | Kgs 18:38 ("Then the fire of
Yahweh fell") is to be understood as a refer-
ence to lightning and thunder. It has often
been noted that this implies a transference of
certain qualities of Baal onto Yahweh. Else-
where, too, Yahweh has assumed character-
istics of Baal. He is associated with winds,
clouds, rain, flashes, and thunder (Exod
19:9.16; Amos 4:7; Nah 1:3; Ps 18 [2 2
Sam 22]:14-15; 77: 18-19). It is Yahweh
who gives the ‘dew of heaven’ and the ‘fat-
ness of the earth’ (Gen 27:28)—something
normally associated with Baal.
Baal’s chthonic aspect should also be
taken into consideration. It, too, has been
transferred and projected upon Yahweh, thus
widening his sphere of action. Yet a distinc-
tive difference remains. Unlike Baal in the
Ugaritic tradition, Yahweh is never said to
be descending into the netherworld for a
definite amount of time, in order to fortify
the dead. Yet Yahweh was believed to pos-
sess the ability to perform acts of power
within the realm of the dead inasmuch as he
was able to resuscitate from the dead, or to
interfere in matters of the underworld. The
texts that say so (Amos 9:2; Hos 13:14; Isa
7:11) date from the 8th century BcE. They
voice a conviction not formerly found; it
was a prophetic innovation with far-reaching
consequences. The ground for it had been
prepared by the popular belief that Baal, as
an important deity in human life, must
equally have power over the realm of the
dead. In the mind of the believer, there are
no fixed limits to the power of the god.
The tradition of Baal as the slayer of the
sea and its monsters was also known in
Palestine (—>Leviathan). This is shown, for
instance, by the fact that in later times
137
BAAL
Baal’s victories have been ascribed to
Yahweh. In passages which are almost lit-
eral echoes of certain Ugaritic texts and
expressions, Yahweh is celebrated as the
one who defeated Yammu and the sca
dragons tannin, liwyatan, nahas, bariah
respectively ndha§ ‘aqgallatén (Isa 27:1;
51:9-10; Jer 5:22; Ps 74:13-14; 89:10-11).
In addition there is the defeated monster
~Rahab, so far absent from the mythology
of Ras Shamra.
The Canaanite cult of Baal as described
in the Bible, and practised by the Israclites,
has certain traits that are not without paral-
lels outside the Bible. The ecstatic beha-
viour of the Baal prophets described in |
Kgs 18:26.28, the bowing to the image of
the god (1 Kgs 19:18), and the kissing of his
statue (Jer 2:8; 23:13) are hardly typically
Israelite (cf. R. DE Vaux, Les prophètes de
Baal sur le Mont Carmel, Bible et Orient
[Paris 1967] 485-497).
Considering the data about Baal surveyed
until now, it cannot be excluded that the
Palestinian Canaanites called their god Baal
with the title ‘king’ as well—in the same
manner as the Ugaritic texts do. El too may
have received the title. Such practices will
undoubtedly have been an influence in the
Israelite use of the epithet in relation to
Yahweh (cf. ScuMipT 1966). Yet we are not
in a position to determine exactly when and
how the transfer of the title came about.
Because of the similarity between the two
gods, many of the traits ascribed to Yahweh
inform us on the character of the Palestinian
Baal. For lack of other data, it is impossible
to say whether the resulting image is com-
plete. Also, it cannot be excluded that the
Palestinian cult of Baal, and its theology,
differed at various points from that which is
found in the Ugaritic texts. The case of
Rahab, mentioned before, offers a telling
illustration. Something, however, which can
hardly be correct about the Palestinian Baal
is the accusation that child sacrifice was an
element in his cult (Jer 19:5; 32:35). The
two texts that say so are late and evidently
biased in their polemic; without confirma-
tion from an unsuspected source their infor-
mation should be dismissed. Similarly the
idea of cultic prostitution as an ingredient of
the Baal cult should not be taken for a fact.
This too is an unproven assumption for
which only Jer 2:23 and Hos 2:15 can be
quoted in support; neither text is unam-
biguous (cf. bE Moor & MuLperR 1973:
717-718).
Baal held a unique position among the
inhabitants of Palestine. People experienced
the pattern of the seasons, and the regular
return of fertility, as an act of Baal’s power.
Yahweh was initially a god acting mainly in
the realm of history. Owing to his growing
place in Israelite religion, his sphere of
influence gradually widened to eventually
include what had once been the domain of
Baal as well. His rise in importance was
only possible, in fact, through his incorpora-
tion of traits that had formerly been charac-
teristic of Baal only.
IV. Bibliography
M. J. DAHooD, Ancient Semitic Deities in
Syria and Palestine, Le antiche divinità
semitiche (ed. S. Moscati; Rome 1958) 65-
94; M. DirETRICH & O. LonErz, Baal Rpu
in KTU 1.108; 1.113 und nach 1.17 V1 25-
33, UF 12 (1980) 171-182; DiETRIECH &
LonETZ, Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Adonis
and Adonaj, UF 12 (1980) 287-292; DiET-
RIECH & LomErz, Die Ba'al-Titel bl arg
und aliy qrdm, UF 12 (1980) 391-393;
DIETRIECH & LoreTZ, Ugaritische Rituale
und Beschwörungen. Texte aus der Umwelt
des Alten Testaments, TUAT 2 (1986-89)
328-357; O. EISSFELDT, Baal Zaphon, Zeus
Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten
durchs Meer (Halle 1932); G. FoHnER, Elia
(Zürich 19682); H. GESE, RAAM. 119-134;
R. HILLMANN, Wasser und Berg. Kosmische
Verbindungslinien zwischen dem kanaani-
ischen Wettergott und Jahwe (Halle/Saale
1965); A. S. KAPELRUD, Baal in the Ras
Shamra Texts (Oslo 1952); J. KÜHLEWEIN,
222. THAT 1 (1971) 327-333; J. C. DE
Moon & M. J. MuLptER, 293, TWAT 1
(1973) 706-727; M. J. MULDER, Ba'al in het
Oude Testament (Kampen 1962); MULDER,
Kanaiinitische Goden in het Oude Testament
(Kampen 1965) 25-36; G. PETTINATO, Pre-
138
BAALAT
Ugaritic Documentation of Ba‘al. The Bible
World. Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon
(ed. G. Rendsburg er al.; New York 1980)
203-209; M. H. Pope & W. ROLLIG, Syrien.
Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phinizier,
WbMyth Wl 217-312; W. H. SCHMIDT,
Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel
(BZAW 80; Berlin 19662); P. XELLA,
Aspekte religiöser Vorstellungen in Syrien
nach den Ebla- und Ugarit-Texten, UF 15
(1983) 279-290 (esp. 284-286); P. J. VAN
ZuL, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connection
with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1972).
W. HERRMANN
BAALAT 7292
I. Ba‘alat, ‘mistress’, ‘lady’, 'sover-
eign’ (Heb ba‘dlat, Phoen/Ug b'lr, Akk
bélni), is attested as both a divine name and
an epithet in the ancient Near East from the
middle third millennium sce. Though the
term is attested in the MT as a place name
(Josh 19:44; 1 Kgs 9:18; 2 Chr 8:6), it does
not occur in the biblical text as the desig-
nation of a divinity.
Il. In Akkadian, the epithet is applied to
a number of goddesses, most often asso-
ciated with fertility and birth, as delit ili. In
addition to being a common designation of
-Ishtar, this epithet is also associated with
specific goddesses, their cities, or their func-
tions.
At Ugarit, bit occurs as both an epithet
and a divine name. In several ritual texts,
offerings are made to bt bhtm, ‘the
mistress of the palaces’, whose identification
remains questioned. M. C. Astour (JNES
27 [1968] 26) suggested a relation with Akk
belet ekallim, ‘the mistress of the palace’
(see also PARDEE 1989-90:445). In a myth-
ological text (KTU 1.108:6-8), however, b‘Ir
is a designation for the goddess -*Anat,
called blr mlk blt drkt b'lt Simm rnm (Ft
kpt. ‘mistress of kingship, mistress of do-
minion, mistress of the high heavens, Anat
of the headdress”. It is also attested in the
personal name abdi-4bélm, ‘servant’ of
Beltu', from Uganit.
The majority of the attestations of b'/t as
a divine name are associated with the god-
dess Ba‘alat of Byblos (b‘lr gbl), ‘the
Mistress/Sovereign of Byblos’, to whom a
sanctuary from the early second millennium
BCE was dedicated. As Sbélm Sa "YGubla,
this goddess is regularly referred to in the
Amama correspondence of Rib-Addi to the
Pharaoh from the fourteenth century BCE.
The inscriptional evidence from the first
millennium BCE demonstrates that she was
the leading dynastic deity of that city. In the
tenth century BCE inscription of Yehimilk,
b'lt gbl is invoked alongside ->Baal-shamem
as part of a pair in parallel to 'the assembly
of the holy gods of Byblos' (mplirt °l gbl
qdsm, KAI 4:3-4). The entire inscription of
Yehawmilk (KA/ 10; fifth century BCE) is
dedicated to Ba‘alat, indicating the import-
ance of this goddess to the ruling dynasty of
the city.
The relief on the upper register of the
latter inscription depicts the deity with the
headdress commonly associated with the
Egyptian -*Hathor, an identification also
made with the Baʻalat (blr) of the Proto-
Sinaitic inscriptions (fifteenth century BCE).
With which of the major goddesses of Cana-
an the ‘Mistress of Byblos’ is to be equated
remains debated. Though it is common to
identify b*It gbl with -*Astarte, based on the
association of Astarte with -*Aphrodite in
later sources, there appears to be good rca-
son to question the equation. While there is
evidence from Ugarit suggesting that b‘/r
was an epithet of Anat, there are also rea-
sons to interpret b‘/t as a title of -Asherah,
who was known in Egypt as Qudsu. While it
is possible that b'/r gbl is to be equated with
the great Canaanite goddess Asherah, this
deity could have been a syncretistic deity
that combined some of the aspects of
Asherah, Ashtarte, and Anath.
III. In the OT. b'/t does not occur as a
divine name or as an epithet of a deity. It is
attested, however, in two place names. In
Josh 19:44, ba'álát occurs as the name of a
town included in the territorial allotment to
Dan. A town by the same name is also listed
among those sites which were fortified by
139
BAAL TOPONYMS
Solomon (1 Kgs 9:18; 2 Chr 8:6). Its loca-
tion remains uncertain. In Josh 19:8, in the
list of towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon,
occurs the name ba‘dlat bé’ér, "Mistress of
the Well’, which could well be identified
with Bir Rakhmeh to the southwest of
Beersheba. Apart from the possible refer-
ences to a divinity ‘Ba‘alat’ that may have
been the basis for the ctymology of these
two place names, there exists no evidence
for the worship of a goddess ‘Ba‘alat’ in the
biblical materials.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Proto-Sinaitic In-
scriptions and Their Decipherment (Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1969) 16-17, 27-28, 39; R. J.
CLIFFORD, Phoenician Religion, BASOR 279
(1990) 55-64; R. S. Hess, Divine Names in
the Amarna Texts, UF 18 (1986) 149-168:
W. A. MAER in, “Aserah: Extra biblical
Evidence (HSM 37; Atlanta 1986) 81-96; R.
A. ODEN, JR., Studies in Lucian's De Syria
Dea (HSM 15; Missoula Mont. 1977) 77-
78; D. PaARDEE, Les Textes Para-Mytho-
logiques de la 24e Campagne (1961) (RSOu
IV; Paris 1988); PARDEE, Ugaritic Proper
Names, AfO 36-37 (1989-90) 390-513; K.
L. TALLovist, AKKGE 57-66.272-276.
E. T. MULLEN, JR.
BAAL TOPONYMS
I. The nine toponyms -*Baal-gad,
Baal-hamon, —Baal-hazor, -Baal-hermon,
—Baal-judah, -*Baal-meon, -Baal-perazim,
-—Baal-shalisha, and -*Baal-tamar include
various descriptive combinations which are
compounded with the divine name or appel-
lative Baal. They are all located in the
Canaanite hill country, save for Baal-meon
which is located on the plain east of the
Dead Sea.
There is a difference in the distribution of
toponyms which are named by masculine
(Baal-X) and feminine (Baalah, Bealoth,
Baalath-X) forms. The former are attached
to the highlands whereas the latter appear in
the lowlands (Baalath; Mt Baalah) and the
Negeb (Baalah; Baalath-beer/Bealoth). An
exception is Kiriath-jearim which appears
both in the masculine (Kiriath-baal, Baal-
judah) and feminine (Baalah) forms. The
difference in distribution may be due to the
connection of Baal-toponyms to mountain
and hilly peaks, the feminine forms being
reserved for other topographical areas.
I]. Baal is neither attested in pre-Israel-
ite place names nor does it appear in Syrian
second millennium BCE documents. Morc-
over, Syro-Palestinian and Cypriote topo-
nyms compounded with Baal are attested
only in Neo-Assyrian records of the first
millennium BCE, namely Ba’li-sapuna (Jebel
Aqra‘), Ba’li-ra’si (Mount Cannel), Ba’il-
gazara Ba'il-burri and Ba’li. The hill country
of Canaan is hardly ever mentioned in the
Egyptian sources of the second millennium
BCE and we still do not know whether any
of the biblical Baal toponyms antedates the
Iron Age. Since most of them are located in
the hill country, which was quite empty in
the Late Bronze Age and was settled only in
the Iron Age, most (or even all) of these
sites must have been founded and named
only at that time.
Place names in the former areas of
Canaan are not called by the names of the
new national gods of the first millennium
BCE (e.g., -> Yahweh, -*Milcom, -*Chemosh,
—Qés, etc.). On the other hand, many places
are called by the names of the older Canaan-
ite deities, like -Baal, ->El (Bethel, Elto-
lad), Dagan (Beth-dagon), Shamash (Beth-
shemesh, see -*Shemesh), -*Horon (Beth-
horon), Ashtoreth (Ashtaroth, see —> Astarte)
and -*Anat (Beth-anath, Anathoth). Some of
these names may be regarded as survivals of
pre-Israelite names, others were apparently
new settlements of the Iron Age I-II.
HI. Names of individual gods can also be
titles. Baal (like El) can be both the name of
the god Baal or a title, ‘lord’, referring to
another deity. Each Baal toponym must be
analyzed in order to ascertain which of the
two alternative interpretations is preferable.
IV. Bibliography
W. BonÉE, Die alten Ortsnamen Palüstinas
(Hildesheim 19682) 95-97; B. S. J. IssER-
LIN, Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-Names
in Palestine: A Historical and Geographical
140
BAAL-BERITH
Sketch, PEQ 89 (1957) 133-144; H. Tap-
MOR, Erlsr 25 (1996) 286-289.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-BERITH, i^2 £22, i72 UN
I. Baal-berith (‘Baal of the Covenant’;
Judg 8:33 and 9:4) and El-berith (‘El of the
Covenant; Judg 9:46) occur only in the
Book of Judges as specifications of the
Canaanite fertility gods -*Baal and —EI of
Shechem, an ancient Canaanite city in the
hill country between Mount Gerizim and
Mount Ebal. Also in Ugaritic texts bri
(‘covenant’) is found in connection with
Baal.
H. In the OT Shechem is often
mentioned. Already in Gen 12:6-7 we are
told that Abram went as far in Canaan as the
sanctuary at Shechem, and the terebinth tree
of Moreh, and that he built there an altar “to
the Lorp who had appeared to him”. This
suggests that already in ‘patriarchal’ times
the Shechem area was a religious centre (see
e.g. Gen 33:18-20; 35:4; Josh 24:32). In
Josh 24 it is told that Joshua concluded a
covenant at Shechem, resulting in a confed-
eracy of twelve Israelite tribes. Josh 24:25-
26 informs us that "Joshua drew up a statute
and an ordinance" (cf. Deut 11:26-32) for
this confederacy in Shechem, and that he
took "a great stone and set it up under the
terebinth in the sanctuary of the LomDp".
Many older scholars even suggested that
Shechem was the original home of the
Hebrew covenant as against Sinai-Horeb or
Kadesh and that the city was the amphi-
ctyonic sanctuary of the tribal confederacy
of Isracl (ROWLEY 1950:125).
In this city the dramatic story of Abi-
melech, son of Jerubbaal (Gideon) by his
Shechemite concubine (Judg 8:31) took
place, as told in Judg 9. We are informed
that in this time the gods of the city were
the Canaanite gods Baal-berith and El-
berith. So Shechem was a Canaanite enclave
at the time of Abimelech, and the “citizens
of Shechem" might not have been Israclites,
but Canaanite inhabitants (FowLER 1983:
52). A shrine of Baal-berith should have
been in the city (9:4). But his cult must also
have been popular among those Israelites
who lived in the neighbourhood of Shechem
(8:33). In 9:46, on the other hand, a erypt—
be it a subterreanean cave or a hidden dark
room or vault—of a temple of El-berith in
Migdal-Shechem (‘Tower of Shechem’) is
mentioned. Is this a reference to the temple
of Baal-berith as that of El-berith, ‘the cov-
enant god’, and is the substitution of ‘El’ for
‘Baal’ due to “scribal orthodoxy” (Gray
1962)? Or have we to do with two different
temples? In the opinion of Simons (1943;
1959) and other scholars Migdal-Shechem
(Judg 9:46-49) is to be distinguished from
the city of Shechem. It must have been situ-
ated in the neighbourhood of that city as
its advanced defensive bulwark (Mount
Zalmon, Judg 9:48, identical with ‘Beth-
Millo' in Judg 9:6.20). But in Abimelech's
time this stronghold must have developed
into a small settlement, depending on the
mother-city of Shechem, symbolized by the
surviving original name as well as by the
cult of a common deity Baal-berith/El-
berith. NIELSEN (1955) identified Migdal-
Shechem and Beth-Millo (Judg 9:6.20) with
the main building on the acropolis of Tell
Balatah.
The questions to be dealt with here are
primarily archaeological. The mound (Tell
Balatah) of—presumably—biblical Shechem
has been excavated by various expeditions
since 1913 (Sellin and Welter between 1913
and 1934; G. E. Wright led eight campaigns
between 1956 and 1969). According to
Wright, a massive structure, with walls
seventeen feet thick, had replaced the coun-
yard temples of Shechem at about 1650 BCE.
According to CAMPBELL (1962), it is quite
likely that all the structures mentioned in
Judg 9:4.6 and 9:46 are part of the complex
in Shechem's sacred precinct.
Other buildings which could be inter-
preted as sanctuaries, have been found with-
in and nearby the city too (WRIGHT 1968).
The existence of these sanctuaries outside
the sacred precinct, and even outside
Shechem. can throw indirect light on the tra-
ditions of sacred places in the Shechem
141
BAAL-BERITH
pass. But at the same time it complicates the
issue of whether there was only one temple
for one deity called now Baal-berith now EI-
berith, or there were actually two shrines
one for Baal-berith and one for El-berith.
The latter possibility is accepted on good
grounds by many modern scholars (SOGGIN
1967; 1988: DE Moor 1990). There is also
an identification of an excavated building on
Mount Ebal with the El-berith temple of
Judg 9. It was Zertal who surveyed Mount
Ebal during five campaigns (starting in
1982), and found there a “temenos wall”
enclosing a large central courtyard. An ani-
fact was discovered, which has been sub-
jected to different interpretations: a great
altar (ZERTAL 1985; 1986), a watchtower
(SOGGIN 1988), or even an old farmhouse
(KEMPINSKI 1986). Zertal saw it at first as a
cultic site for the tribal Israelite confederacy
which he associated with the biblical tradi-
tion (Deut 27:4; Josh 8:30-35). But Soggin
is of the opinion that it could be the Migdal-
Shechem, a small fortified settlement, with a
holy place and an altar for El-berith. It
ought to be said that the identification of the
building within Shechem, excavated by
Wright, as the temple of El-berith is also
seriously disputed (FOWLER 1983).
As is known, El and Baal were important
deities in the Ugaritic and Canaanite pan-
theon, and it is not unlikely that they could
both have had a shrine in Shechem (MuL-
DER 1962; SOGGIN 1967). In Ugarit too, El
and Baal both had a temple (J. C. DE Moor,
The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth
of Ba‘lu [Kevelaer 1971} 111). Besides, in
KTU 1.3 1:28, brt ‘covenant’ may have been
used in connection with Baal. According to
Cross (1973) the name i! brt is also used in
a Hurrian hymn for El. Scumitt (1964)
argued that this god was originally identical
with the Indian-Iranian god Mitra (‘agree-
ment’ in Semitic form), for in the second
millennium sce the Indo-Iranians were
widely scattered throughout the Near East; i/
brt, however, should be interpreted as the
Old Semitic deity /labrat (M. DIETRICH &
W. Mayer, UF 26 [1994] 92 with lit.).
III. It is not easy to determine which was
the special character of Baal-berith and of El-
berith in Judg 9. There is in the first place
the question of the age and the composition
of the traditions in Judg 9. Jaroš (1976:76-
77) takes Judg 9:8-15.26-40.46-54 as an old
tradition; Judg 9:1-7.16a.19b-21.23-24.41-
45.56-57 as a later one; Judg 16b-19a.22.55
were added by a later hand. The fact that
both deities are mentioned in one and the
same area only in this composite story
(Shechem) could be an indication that there
was a close connection between the two dei-
ties in the Shechemite pantheon, analogous
to the connection between Baal and El in
the Ugaritic pantheon. It may even be that
the passage in which El Berith is mentioned
is the older tradition. Baal Berith, however,
is pictured as a Canaanite god who was
worshipped by many Israelites too (Judg
9:33).
Of the old versions LXX offers two dif-
ferent translations of the book of Judges,
one represented by codex B (Vaticanus), the
other by codex A (Alexandrinus). LXXA
tries to translate terms like Baal-berith
(Baad S:a@jxn>), whereas LXXB often
simply transcribes the Hebrew expression
with Greek letters (v 4: BaaABepi0; v 46:
Boi8nABepi0; NIELSEN 1955:142). The
Peshitta and the Targum translate the
Hebrew text as bé‘al qéyám[a?] (Baal of the
covenant). In v 46 the Targum paraphrases
the difficulties in this way: “...to the gather-
ing place of the house of God to cut a cov-
enant". In the same way the Vulgate para-
phrases the second part of v 46: “...they
went into the shrine of their god Berith,
where they had concluded a covenant with
him, and therefore that very fortified place
had got its name" (... ingressi sunt fanum
dei sui Berith ubi foedus cum eo pepigerant
et ex eo locus nomen acceperat qui erat
valde munitus). In Judg 8:33 Vulg. translates
as Baal foedus, but in 9:4 the Hebrew
expression is oddly transcribed: Baalberith.
There are scholars who believe that Israel
drew its belief in a divine covenant with
Yahweh from an analogous cult of Baal-
berith in Shechem, or even that ba'al was
only an epithet for Yahweh in the stories of
142
BAAL-BERITH
Judges (KAUFMANN 1961:138-139). The
view that Baal-berith officiated as supervisor
and guardian of a political treaty between
Shechem and some other city-states or the
local Israelite population is accepted by
many scholars. Hence the explanation of his
name as Baal-berith. But that there had been
a profound influence from this Baal upon
Israel is unprovable. {srael’s tradition of the
Sinai covenant was not moulded upon the
pattern of the Shechem covenant of Baal-
berith (CLEMENTS 1968). On the other hand
the story in Judg 9 presupposes some
normal relations between Shechemites and
Israelites (NIELSEN 1955:171). But this does
not mean that Yahweh was worshipped in
Shechem with the name Baal-berith, as
GRESSMANN (1929:163-164) suggested.
Another view regarding the nature of
Baal-berith is that he was one of the parties
of a covenant to which his worshippers
formed the corresponding party. so that a
religious, or cultic, covenant was involved.
Clements points out that a part of the popu-
lation of Shechem is described as “men of
Hamor" (in Gen 34 the name Hamor means
‘ass’), and that the ritual for the affirmation
of a covenant by the slaughtering of an ass
is testified in the ancient Near East. Those
who were bound under covenant having par-
ticipated in this ritual became "sons of
Hamor” (“sons of the ass“). The covenant of
Hamor “was almost certainly related to
Baal-Berith, who was the chief god of the
city” (CLEMENTS 1968:29; see also
ALBRIGHT 1953:113, who was of the opin-
ion that Baal-berith was an appellation of
the god —>Horon). This suggests a divine
covenant between the local Baal and certain
citizens of Shechem rather than a covenant
in which Baal acted as the guardian of a
local political treaty (CLEMENTS 1968:31).
In Judg 9 it is shown, however, that this
god was also a god of fertility and vegeta-
tion (v 27)—so was Baal in the Canaanite
pantheon: the men of Shechem went out into
the field, gathered the grapes from the
vineyards, trod them and held festival,
coming “into the house of their god". The
identity of this god goes unsaid, but it must
be either El or Baal—and most likely the
latter one. Much of the later Israelite ethos
was opposed to the tradition of the Canaan-
ite Baal. So it is very unlikely that the cove-
nant tradition is derived from the covenant
tradition of Baal-berith of Shechem. The
name ‘Berith’, however, may refer to his
function among the Shechemites “as the wit-
Ness or guarantor of the covenant between
two peoples” (Lewis 1992).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the Re-
ligion of Israel (Baltimore 1953) 113; T. A.
Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von
Salomo bis Herodes ! (Leiden 1970) 388-
394.595-597. E. F. CAMPBELL, Shechem
(City), IDBS (1962) 821-822; R. E. CLEM-
ENTS, Baal-Berith of Shechem, JSS 13
(1968) 21-32; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth
and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1973);
I. FINKELSTEIN, The Archaeology of the
Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem 1988), esp.
81-85; M. D. FowLer, A Closer Look at the
"Temple of El-Berith" at Shechem, PEQ
115 (1983) 49-53; J. Gray, Baal-Berith,
IDB | (1962) 331; H. GRESSMANN, Die
Anfänge Israels (Gdttingen 1929, 2nd ed.);
K. Jaroš, Sichem; Eine archäologische und
religionsgeschichtliche Studie (OBO 11;
Freiburg & Göttingen 1976); Y.
KAUFMANN, The Religion of Israel, transl.
and abridged by M. Greenberg (London
1961); A. Kempinski, Joshua’s Altar—An
Iron Age I Watch-tower?, BAR 12 (1986)
44-49; T. J. Lewis, Baal-Berith, ABD
1(1992) 550-551; E. Lipinsxi, El-Berit,
Syria 50 (1973) 50-51; M. J. MULDER,
Ba'al in het Oude Testament ('s-Gravenhage
1962), esp. 134-139; J. C. DE Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite
Monotheisin (BETL 91; Leuven 1990); E.
NIELSEN, Shechem; A Traditio-Historical
Investigation (Copenhagen 1955, 2nd ed.);
H. H. RowLEY, From Joseph to Joshua;
Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeol-
ogy (London 1950), esp. 125-129; G.
ScHMITT, El Berit - Mitra, ZAW 76 (1964)
325-327); J. A. SOGGIN, Bemerkungen zur
alttestamentlichen Topographie Sichems mit
besonderem Bezug auf Jdc. 9. ZDPV 83
143
BAAL-GAD — BAAL-HAZON
(1967) 183-198; SocciN, The Migdal
Temple, Migdal Sekem Judg 9 and the Arti-
fact on Mount Ebal, ‘Wiinschet Jerusalem
Frieden'. IOSOT Congress Jerusalem 1986
(ed. M. Augustin & K.-D. Schunck; Frank-
furt am Main 1988) 115-119; G. R. H.
WRIGHT, Temples at Shechem, ZAW 80
(1968) 1-35: A. ZERTAL, Has Joshua's Altar
Been Found on Mt. Ebal?, BAR 11 (1985)
26-43; A. ZERTAL, How Can Kempinski Be
So Wrong!, BAR 12 (1986) 43,49-53.
M. J. MULDER
BAAL-GAD 7; 552
I. A location on the northern border of
the allotments of the twelve tribes (Josh
11:17; 12:7; 13:5). Perhaps Baal should be
taken as the name of the god and gad as an
appellative ("Baal is fortune") rather than the
other way round ('Lord Gad') Gad is
known both from place names (Migdal-gad)
and personal names (Gaddi, Gaddiel, Gad-
diyau) and is best understood as an appel-
lative, i.e., ‘fortune’. -*Gad as a divine
name is attested only in the post-exilic
period (Isa 65:11) and since that time ap-
pears as a theophoric element in names
(TWAT 1 [1973] 920-921).
II. Baal-gad appears in juxtaposition to
Lebo-hamath (Josh 13:7), the northern bor-
der of the Land of Canaan. It is described as
being situated “in the valley of Lebanon”
(Josh 12:17), “below mount -*Hermon"
(Josh 13:5), and “in the valley of --Lebanon
under mount Hermon” (Josh 11:17). The
valley of -*Lebanon is identified with the
Beqa‘ of Lebanon and the Hermon is ident-
ical with Jebel esh-Sheikh, the southern
peak of the Anti-Lebanon. The apparent dis-
crepancy between the two descriptions ("in
the valley of Lebanon” and “below Mount
Hermon") may be accounted for assuming
that the author of the descriptions treated the
Litani river as part of the valley of Lebanon.
For him, Lebo-hamath marked the northern
end of the valley and Baal-gad its southem
end. Baal-gad must be sought north or cast
of the land of Mizpeh (the Marj-‘Ayyun val-
ley) (Josh 11:3), along the south-western
foot of Mount Hermon. It is best located at
the headwaters of the Hasbani river, near the
modern town of Hasbaya.
Baal-gad appears as the opposite extremity
of Mount Halak (Josh 11:17; 12:7), the south-
eastern border of the tribal allotment, and
marks the northern border of the tribal allot-
ments. It must have been a prominent place,
situated in a fertile watery region, and may
well have been a cult place for a local Baal. Its
location is about 17 km north of Dan, the main
cult centre of -- Yahweh in the north Israelite
areas. The relationship of the two cult centres
remains unknown (sec also Baal toponyms).
III. Bibliography
P. W. SKEHAN, Joab's Census: How far
North (2 Sm 24,6)?, CBQ 31 (1969) 47-48;
N. NA'AMAN, Borders and Districts in Bibli-
cal Historiography (Jerusalem 1986) 41-43.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-HAMON xi 553
I. A location of a plantation of Solo-
mon which he granted to keepers and made
highly profitable (Cant 8:11). Its name may
be homonymous with the place Balamon
mentioned in Jdt 8:3, but they are two dif-
ferent sites. The latter is probably located in
the vicinity of Dothan (possibly Ibleam,
today Kh. Bel‘ameh). The name Baal-hamon
is not attested elsewhere in the OT and its
position remains unknown.
II. Literally, Baal-hamon means either
‘Baal of a multitude’ or ‘possessor of
wealth’. The first interpretation may ostens-
ibly be compared with the well known di-
vine title “LorD of hosts” (Yahweh Zeb-
aoth). However, the literary character of the
Song points strongly toward the second
interpretation. Baal-hamon may well have
been an actual site, but it was selected by
the author due to its connotation of richness
and abundance (see also —Baal toponyms).
HI. Bibliography
A. ROBERT, Les appendices du Cantique des
Cantiques (viii 8-14), RB 55 (1948) 171-
174; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7C;
Garden City 1977) 686-688.
N. NA'AMAN
144
BAAL-HAZOR — BAAL-HERMON
BAAL-HAZOR sn 5723
I. A location near the town of
Ophrah/Ephraim (possibly modem et-
Taibiyeh) where Absalom kept his sheep-
shearers and where he assassinated his half-
brother Amnon (2 Sam 13:23). [t scems that
-*Baal should be construed as the name of
god, i.e., ‘Baal of Hazor’. It is generally
identified with Jebel el-'Asür, the highest
mountain of Mount Ephraim (1016 m.
above sea level), 7 km. north-east of
-*Bethel. The site is not attested elsewhere
in the OT and has nothing to do with the
Hazor mentioned in Neh 11:33.
ABEL (1924) suggested to read 1 Macc
9:15 as heós Azórou óros (in place of heds
Azórtou órous), "as far as mount Hazor",
identifying it with Baal-hazor. lt is prefer-
able, however, to assume that already in the
Hebrew original text a mistake occurred,
and to read *sdwt ('mountain-slopes").
The place where God appeared to Abra-
ham after his separation from Lot (Gen
13:14) is called in the Genesis Apocryphon
by the name Ramath-hazor (IQGenAp
XXI:8). This town must have been in the
vicinity of Bethel. The identification of
Ramath-hazor with Baal-hazor is appealing
in the light of the well known tendency to
replace names of negative connotation by
more neutral appellations. Also, according
to the Genesis narratives, Abraham stayed
near Bethel after his separation from Lot.
II. It is not clear whether Baal-hazor
was a place of worship for Baal. Defining its
location by the neighbouring town of
Ophrah/'Ephraim may indicate that the place
was of secondary importance. Nor is the ori-
gin of its name clear. Was it called by the
name of -»Hadad or Baal of Hazor, the
major Canaanite city of the second millen-
nium BCE, by people who migrated thence
after its destruction and settled in the hill
country of Ephraim? In that case, no place by
the name Hazor should be sought in the vicin-
ity of the mount (see also Baal toponyms).
Ill. Bibliography
F. M. ABEL, Topographie des campagnes
Maccabéennes, RB 33 (1924) 385-387; W.
F. ALBRIGHT, Ophrah and Ephraim, AASOR
4 (1924) 124-133; N. AviGAD & Y. YADIN,
A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the
Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem 1956) 28.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-HERMON 75 573
I. A location on the northern border of
the allotments of the twelve tribes (Judg 3:3;
| Chr 5:23). It scems that -Baal should be
construed as the name of a god, i.c., ‘Baal
of -Hermon'. Hermon is identical with
Jebel esh-Sheikh, the southern peak of the
Anti-Lebanon (Deut 3:8; 4:48; Josh 12:1, 5;
Judg 3:3; 1 Chr 5:23). The place to which
the toponym refers must be sought some-
where on its slopes.
II. In the list of people Yahweh left
within the territory of Canaan appear "the
Hivites who dwelt on Mount Lebanon, from
Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath"
(Judg 3:3). The same borders are defined in
Josh 13:5 ("from -*Baal-gad below Mount
Hermon to Lebo-hamath") and Baal-hermon
is seemingly identical to Baal-gad, a place
located on the south-western side of
Hermon. However, | Chr 5:23 describes the
confines of the eastern half of Manasseh's
dwelling places thus: "from -*Bashan to
Baal-hermon, Senir and Mount Hermon".
Baal-hermon must accordingly be sought on
the eastern side of Hermon and is possibly
one of its south-eastern peaks.
How could we account for the discrep-
ancy? Some scholars suggest that the text of
Judg 3:3 is corrupted and should not be
taken into account. Others suggest that |
Chr 5:23 is a conglomerate of elements bor-
rowed from various biblical sources (Deut
3:9; Josh 12:5; Judg 3:3) and is not a reli-
able source for topographical research. The
first seems to be better founded. Baal-her-
mon was probably a cult place for a local
Baal, at least in the time of the Chronicler.
It was located on one of the peaks on the
eastern slopes of Hermon and was deliber-
ately selected by the Chronicler to define the
border of Manasseh, the northernmost
Transjordanian tribe, in analogy to Baal-gad
which in the older sources defined the bor-
145
BAAL-JUDAH — BAAL MEON
der of the tribal allotments on the western
side of Hermon (sce also Baal toponyms).
III. Bibliography
B. MaisLER, Untersuchungen zur alten
Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und
Palästinas (Giessen 1930) 61-62, n. 7; W.
RuporPH, Chronikbücher (Tübingen 1955)
49-50; M. WOsr, Untersuchungen zu den
siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten
Testaments. 1. Ostjordanland (Wiesbaden
1975) 30 n. 100; 39.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-JUDAH *irr 553
I. Baal-judah is an appellation of the
town of Kiriath-jearim, the element ‘Judah’
distinguishes it from other localities called
by the name Baal (compare byt Ihm yhwdh).
It was identified at Deir el-'Azhar, a tell
near modern Abu-ghosh, about 12 km west-
northwest of Jerusalem.
If. The place appears only once, in a
corrupted form, in the introduction to the
story of the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem
(2 Sam 6:2). MT has mb‘ly yhwdh (“from
the citizens of Judah”). However, not only
does the sending of “all the people, who
were with him, from the citizens of Judah”
makes poor sense, but the subsequent
missSam ("from there") is without antecedent.
Most versions reflect mb‘ly yhwdh thus indi-
cating that the corruption in MT is very old.
LXX? adds afterwards en anabasei and
LXXE adds en te anabasei tou bounou (“in
the ascent [mlh] of the hill”). Syr wzi lgb‘
agrees with the LXXL.
|. Chr 13:6 reads b'lih °l qryt y‘rym ?$r
lyhwdh ("to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim
which belongs to Judah") 4QSam? and
Josephus agree. It is clear however that the
shorter unglossed reading of 2 Sam 6:2 in
MT and LXX is superior to this version.
The original text must have read rmb'l
yhwdh and the versions indicate that the m
is original (PisaNo 1984:102-103). On the
basis of the LXX and Syr one may further
suggest that the word bm‘lh originally
followed (note the threefold play of words
mb‘, bm‘th, th‘lwt) and was dropped due to
haplography. The ascent of the hill makes
good literary sense since it plays a central
role in the episode of the retum of the ark
and Uzzah’s death (vv 6-7). The text of v 2
may be reconstructed as follows: “And
David arose and went with all the people
who were with him from Baal-judah in the
ascent, to bring up from there the ark of
- God".
III. The city of Kiriath-jearim is referred
to as Kiriath-baal in Josh 15:60 and 18:14
and as Baalah in Josh 15:9-10 and 1 Chr
13:6. The narrative about the stay of the ark
at Kiriath-jearim indicates that a cult place
of -Yahweh was located on the hill near
the city (1Sam 7:1; 2 Sam 6:1-4). One may
suggest that the theophoric element ‘Baal’ in
the city’s name is a honorific title of
Yahweh, Lord of the city. Baal-judah is
probably an appellation meaning ‘Lord (of
the land) of Judah’ and Kiriath-baal means
‘city of the Lord’. The designation 'Baalah'
is either a hypocoristic form or a variant
name meaning ‘the Lady’. The city was
apparently a pre-monarchial centre of the
cult of Yahweh and lost its importance when
David transferred its most sacred cult object.
the ark, to Jerusalem.
LXX for both 2 Sam 6:2 and | Chr 13:6
has avoided the proper name Baal(ah)
(PisaNo 1984:103-104). This is part of a
general tendency and is indicated in other
toponyms that have the element — Baal (see
also -*Baal toponyms).
IV. Bibliography
R. A. CARLSON, David, the Chosen King
(Stockholm 1964) 62-63; J. BLENKINSOPP,
Kiriath-jearim and the Ark, JBL 88 (1969)
143-156; S. PisaNOo, Additions and Omis-
sions in the Books of Samuel (Freiburg &
Góttingen 1984) 101-104; P. K. MCCARTER,
Il Samuel (AB 8; Garden City 1984) 162-
163, 168.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-MEON jn 5273
I. A place in the land of Moab listed
among the towns of Reuben (Num 32:34;
Josh 13:17; 1 Chr 5:8; Mesha's inscription).
146
BAAL OF PEOR
It is also known as Beth-baal-meon (Josh
13:17) and Beth-meon (Jer 48:23). It is
generally identified with Khirbet Ma‘in,
about 8 km southwest of Madaba. However,
no Iron Age remains were found in the
course of excavations there. Baal-meon's
exact location has yet to be found.
Il. Baal-meon was an Israelite town
which was conquered by Mesha, king of
Moab, in the third quarter of the ninth cen-
tury BCE. Mesha rebuilt the town and made
a reservoir there (lines 9, 30 of his inscrip-
tion). From that time and until its de-
struction Baal-meon was a Moabite town
(Jer 48:23; Ezek 25:9).
The name Beth-baal-meon indicates that
the town has a temple dedicated to “the
Lord/Baal of Meon”. Who was ‘the Lord’ of
the town? In the light of the analogy to
Beth-peor (Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Josh
13:20), where the local manifestation of the
Baal, Baal of Peor, was worshipped, we
may assume that Baal-meon was likewise
the cult place of a local -*Baal, who gave
his name to the town (see also -Baal topo-
nyms).
III. Bibliography
M. PicciRiLLO, Le antichità bizantine di
Maʻin e dintomi, Liber Annuus Studii Biblici
Franciscani 35 (1985) 339-364 (esp. 339-
340); A. DEARMAN (ed.), Studies in the
Mesha Inscription and Moab (Atlanta 1989)
175-176, 225-226; K. A. D. SMELIK, Con-
verting the Past (OTS 28; Leiden 1992) 63,
66, 72.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL OF PEOR £2 553
I. This local god, mentioned only in the
OT, is associated with the mountain Peor in
the land of Moab (Num 23:28) and the place
Beth-Peor (Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Josh
13:20). He probably represents there the
chthonic aspect of the Canaanite god of fer-
tility, Baal (SpRoNK 1986:231-233). The
name Peor is related to Heb P'm, ‘open
wide', which in Isa 5:14 is said of the
*mouth' of the netherworld (XELLA 1982:
664-666). According to Num 25 the Israel-
ites participated in the Moabite cult honour-
ing this god. This incident is recalled in
Num 31:16; Deut 4:3; Josh 22:17; Hos 9:10;
and Ps 106:28 (MULDER 1973:720).
Il. A connection may be assumed with
the Canaanite deity Baal as known in Ugar-
itic mythology. In the cycle of Baal (KTU?
1.1-6) it is told that in the struggle for do-
minion Baal is temporarily defeated by
-'Mot. the god of death. Baal has to de-
scend into the netherworld to reside with the
dead. In KTU? 1.5 v:4 this is described as
Baal going down into the mouth of Mot
(bph yrd). It was believed that this coincided
with the yearly withering of nature in
autumn and winter. In the ritual text KTU?
1.109 we sec that this had its repercussions
on the cultic activities. In the offering list
Baal is mentioned among gods who were
supposed to be in the netherworld and who
received their offerings through a hole in the
ground (l. 19-23) (Spronk 1986:147-148;
TUAT 1U/3 316-317; DEL OLMO LETE
1992:183-186).
HI. Num 25 describes the cult of the
Baal of Peor as a licentious feast to which
the men of Israel were seduced by Moabite
women. In Ps 106:28 attachment to the Baal
of Peor is specified as ‘eating sacrifices of
the dead’ (Lewis 1989:167). In later Jewish
tradition the cult of the Baal of Peor is re-
lated to the Marzeah (Sifre Num 131 and the
sixth century cE mosaic map of Palestine at
Madeba). In the OT Heb marzéah is attested
in connection with mourning (Jer 16:5-7)
and excessive feasting (Amos 6:4-7). So it
unites the different elements of Num 25 and
Ps 106:28. This is even morc clear in the
ancient Ugaritic texts about the Marzeah.
though its connection with the cult of the
dead remains a matter of dispute (ScHMIDT
1994:265-266; PARDEE 1996).
The sexual rites connected with the cult
of the Baal of Peor have to do with the
aspect of fertility. As this cult is addressed
to Baal, who is the god of nature, it is hoped
to contribute to his bringing new life out of
death. It can be related to the myth of Baal
describing how (the bull) Baal during his
stay in the netherworld makes love to a
147
BAAL-PERAZIM
heifer, mounting her up to cighty cight times
(KTU? 1.5 v:18-21).
The name of Peor in itself already points
to a relation with the cult of the dead,
especially when it is observed that it shares
this association with other place names in
this region east of the Dead Sea (SPRONK
1986:228-229): Obot (Num 21:10-11; 33:
43-44), which can be translated as '-"spirits
of the dcad', Abarim (Num 21:11; 27:12:
33:44-48; Deut 32:49: Jer 22:20) 'those
who have crossed (the river of death)’ (cf.
-*Travellers), and Raphan (1 Macc 5:37),
which can be related to the -*Rephaim. It is
also interesting in this connection to note
that, according to Deut 34:6, Moses was
buried in the valley opposite Bet-Peor. It is
added that no one knows the precise place
of his grave. This has been interpreted in
midrashic tradition as a “precaution, lest his
sepulchre became a shrine of idolatrous
worship” (GOLDIN 1987:223). Indeed, with-
in this region this would not have been un-
likely.
In Num 25:18; 31:16; and Josh 22:17 the
Baal of Peor is indicated with the name Peor
only. This may suggest reluctance to use the
name of a pagan deity. On the other hand,
the name Peor with its clear association to
(the mouth of) the netherworld already indi-
cates the nature of this cult as a way to seek
contact with divine powers residing there.
IV. Bibliography
J. GOLDIN, The Death of Moses: An Exer-
cise in Midrashic Transposition, Love &
Death in the Ancient Near East. (FS Marvin
H. Pope; ed. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good;
Guildford 1987) 219-225; T. J. Lewis, Cults
of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit
(HSM 39; Atlanta 1989); M. J. MULDER,
ba‘al, TWAT | (1973) 706-727; G. DEL
OLmo LETE, La religión Cananea según la
litúrgia de Ugarit (AulOrSup 3; Sabadell
1992); D. PARDEE, Marzihu, Kispu, and the
Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minimalist View,
Ugarit, Religion and Culture (FS J. C. L.
Gibson; UBL; ed. N. Wyatt et al., Münster
1996) 273-287; B. B. SCHMIDT, Israel's
Beneficent Dead (FAT 11; Tübingen 1994);
K. SPRONK, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient
Israel and in the Ancient Near East (AOAT
219; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986); P. XELLA, Il
culto dei morti nell'Antico Testamento: tra
teologia a storia della religione, Religioni e
civiltà. Scritti in memoria di Angelo Brelich
(Bari 1982) 645-666.
K. SPRONK
BAAL-PERAZIM (375-992
I. A location south of Jerusalem, on the
way to Bethlehem, where David won his
first. victory over the Philistines (2 Sam
5:18-20; 1 Chr 14:9-11). In the story the
naming of the place is assigned to David
and explained thus: “Yahweh broke (pdras)
through my enemies before me, like a burst-
ing flood (peres máyim)" (v 20). Since the
name Baal-perazim is directly combined
with the divine help of -> Yahweh, it is clear
that the element ‘Baal’ was understood by
the author as a honorific title of Yahweh
(compare Hos 2:18). Whether the site had a
cult place for Yahweh is not clear. Its name
should best be translated ‘Lord of breaches’
or even ‘Lord of (divine) outburst’.
II. The Philistine onslaught apparently
antedated the conquest of Jerusalem by
David and was conducted from north to
south, penetrating via the Valley of Reph-
aim to Bethlchem, David's ancestral town (2
Sam 23:13-17). Baal-perazim must be
sought on the way to Bethlehem, and might
be identified with the Iron Age I site
excavated near modern Giloh. The site is
located on the summit of a prominent ridge
overlooking the Valley of -Rephaim and is
a reasonable candidate for Baal-perazim.
I. Baal-perazim is called mount
Perazim (har pérdsim) in Isa 28:21: "For the
Lorp will rise up as on Mount Perazim, he
will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon”.
The prophet alludes to David's two victor-
ious battles against the Philistines related in
2 Sam 5:17-25 and 1 Chr 14:8-16: the one
waged at MounuBaal Perazim and the
second waged in the valley near Gibeon. By
interchanging the nouns, the author deliber-
ately avoids the combination of Yahweh
with a place whose name has the clement
148
BAAL-SHALISHA —
Baal (see also Baal toponyms).
IV. Bibliography
G. DALMAN, Orte und Wege Jesu (Gütersloh
1924) 20-21; A. Mazar, Giloh: An Early
Israclite Settlement Site near Jerusalem, /EJ
31 (1981) 1-36 (esp. 31-32); N. NA'AMAN,
The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in Joshua and in
History, From Nomadism to Monarchy,
Archaeological and Historical Aspects of
Early Israel (ed. I. Finkelstein & N. Na’a-
man; Jerusalem 1994) 251-254.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-SHALISHA nJo3 523
I. A town from which a man came to
Elisha bringing "bread of the first fruits,
twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of
grain" (2 Kgs 4:42; compare Lev 2:11-12.
14-16). Elisha stayed then at Gilgal, near
Jericho. According to Rabbi Meir, there was
no other Palestinian place where fruits so
easily come to fruition as in Baal-shalisha
(Tosefta Sanh. 2,9; bSanh. 12a). Thus, Baal-
shalisha must be sought either in the Jordan
Valley or on the slopes overlooking Gilgal.
II. An important clue for the location of
Baal-shalisha is the land of Shalisha, one of
the four lands traversed by Saul while
searching for his father’s lost asses (1 Sam
9:4-5). Unfortunately, the description is
unclear and no identification has gained
scholarly acceptance. Since the land of
Shaalim is doubtless located near modern et-
Taiyibeh, the land of Shalisha may be lo-
cated to its east, on the eastern slopes of the
hill country. It is impossible to suggest a
definite location for Baal-shalisha, but its
identification with Kh. Marjameh (KALLAI
1971:191-196) is unlikely since it is situated
too far north.
III. LXX rendered the name Baith-
Sar(e)isa. This is part of the tendency of the
LXX to avoid the element Baal. Eusebius
likewise rendered it Baithsarisa and located
it fifteen miles north of Diospolis (Lydda). It
is clear that he was misled by the Greek
rendering. Thus, all suggested identifications
for Baal-shalisha in the area of Lydda (e.g.,
Kh. Sirisya, Kafr Thilth) must be abandoned
BAAL-SHAMEM
(see also Baal toponyms).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Ramah of Samuel,
AASOR 4 (1924) 115-117; Z. Karlar, Baal
Shalisha and Ephraim, Bible and Jewish
History. Jacob Liver Memorial Volume (ed.
B. Uffenheimer; Tel Aviv 1971) 191-196
(Hebrew); D. EDELMAN, Saul’s Joumcy
through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel's Ramah
(1 Sam. 9:4-5; 10:2-5), ZDPV 104 (1988)
44-58.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-SHAMEM Cn337222, poya
I. The title ‘Lord of Heavens’, used for
the various supreme gods in Syro-Palestine,
Anatolia and Mesopotamia during the 2nd
millennium BCE, later became the name of a
specific deity venerated throughout the
Semitic world from the Ist millennium BCE
until the first four centuries of the Christian
era. St. Augustin (Quaest. Hept. VII 16) re-
fers to him as dominus coeli.
II. The earliest Phoenician attestation of
Baal-Shamem comes from the building-
inscription from the lOth century BCE of
king Yehimilk in Byblos (KA/ 4). Here
Baal-Shamem is named before the ‘Lady of
Byblos’ and ‘the assembly of the gods of
Byblos’; by implication he represents the
summit of the local panthcon. This is also
true for the Karatepe-inscription dating from
the last decades of the 8th century BCE (KA/
26 A III 18), where he heads a sequence of
gods, being named before —'El, Creator of
the Earth’. In the Luwian version of this
bilingual inscription, the ‘Weather-god of
Heaven' corresponds to Baal-Shamem. In
the treaty between Baal I of Tyre and the
Assyrian king Esarhaddon from 675/4 BCE
dBa-al-sa-me-me is also in the first position,
before Baal-malage and Baal-sapinu (SAA
2,5 1V:10). Later, in the Hellenistic period, a
temple at Umm el-Amed is dedicated to
Baal-Shamem (KA/ 18). In Greek inscrip-
tions from this region he is called Zeus
hypsistos, ‘Highest ~Zeus’, Zeus megistos
keraunios, 'Magnific lightning Zeus’ (CIS II
3912) or Theos hagios ouranios ‘Holy
149
BAAL-SHAMEM
heavenly god’ (name of a temple in the
Phoenician town Qede$/Kadasa). In Cyprus
a Phoenician inscription mentions a priest of
Baal-Shamem (RES 1519b); in Carthage, the
cult of the god Baal-Shamem existed (CIS I
464; 4874): a votive-inscription (C/S 1 3778
= KAI 78,2) mentions his name first and
foremost, even before the prominent gods
Tinnit and Baal-Hamon; cf. also C/S I 139 =
KAI 64,1 from Sardinia. In one of the minor
phrases in Punic speech in Plautus’ Poen-
ulus (vers 1027) bal samen is mentioned in
an uncertain context (M. SZNYCER, Les Pas-
sages puniques en transcription latine dans
le “Poenulus” de Plaute [Paris 1967] 144).
The cosmogony and theogony of
Sanchuniaton, transmitted to us by Philo of
Byblos (through Eusebius of Caesarea),
mentions that previous generations in times
of extreme drought entreated the sun for
help. "whom they take for the single god.
the lord of the heaven named Beelsamen.
This is the Lord of the Heaven among the
Phoinikes, Zeus among the Greeks" (Euseb-
ius, Praep. Evang. 1 10,7 = FGH III C 790,
F 2,7). This late source, dating from Hel-
lenistic times, points to the character of the
god Baal-Shamem, showing him to be the
supreme god with solar features—who,
when invoked because of drought, took on
aspects of a weathergod, too.
Baal-Shamem was particulary venerated
in the Aramaic kingdom Hamath in North-
em Syria, and later on in many places
throughout Aramaic-speaking regions. The
inscription. of Zakkur, king of Hamath,
written around 800 BCE, is the earliest ref-
erence and depicts b'[imyn (this being the
Aramaic orthography) as the deity of the
state of Hamath and the personal god of the
king (KA/ 202 A 3.11.13. B 23). Again, he
is mentioned at the top of the pantheon, the
gods Iluwer, Sams and Sahr being listed
after him, which demonstrates that his char-
acter is not restricted to a specific function
as weathergod or sungod in this period.
The next source, in which Baal-Shamem
is referred to, is the famous Adon-letter
from ca. 600 BCE (KA/ 266), where he is
called upon in the greeting-formula after the
'(Lord[?]) of the heavens and the earth’. The
boundary-inscription of Gözne (KAI 259),
dated in the Sth-4th century BCE, invokes
him before the Sun and the —Moon in the
curse-formula.
In the Aramaic texts from Egypt of the
Achaemenid period Baal-Shamem is not
mentioned in the archives from Elephantine.
But Proverb 13 in Ahiqgar, transmitted on
papyri from this colony, makes an allusion
to this god as the Holy Lord who estab-
lished the —wisdom for the people (J. M.
LINDENBERGER, The Aramaic Proverbs of
Ahigar [Baltimore/London 1983] 68-70;
LiNDENBERGER, The Gods of Ahiqar. UF 14
[1982] 114-116).
In inscriptions the Nabataeans invoked
Baal-Shamem as the ‘Lord of the World’
(mr *Im?) to deter grave-robbers from
Madain Saleh. The Nabatean-speaking tribes
in Hauran possessed a well-established cult
of Baal-Shamem, concentrated mainly at the
holy complex of Si'a, southeast of Kanatha,
a pilgrims’ sanctuary consisting of three
temples and some other buildings; this cultic
centre was erected between 33/32 and 2/1
BCE and, according to the latest inscription,
was still in use in 41/54 cr. Here Baal-
Shamem was worshipped along with the
highest Nabataean god Dusares who pos-
sessed a temple on a lower terrace in the
same holy precinct (H. C. Burer, Publ.
Princeton Arch. Expedition to Syria, II A 6:
Si [Sceia] [1916]).
In Palmyra, Baal-Shamem is one of the
prominent gods along with Bel. He resided
in a temple built in Corinthian style at the
southern part of the main stoa of the city,
which was constructed in 131 CE; along with
Aglibol. the moongod, and Malakbel, the
sungod, he formed a celestial triad and bore
the epithet of a 'Lord of the world’ (mdre
‘alma@).
At Hatra, in Northern Mesopotamia,
Baal-Shamem (various spellings bl§myn,
b'$myn and b'imn) had his own sanctuary
(the little *Hofhaustempe! Ill, building in-
scription F. VATTIONI, Le iscrizioni di Hatra
[1981] No. 49) and therefore his own cult in
the 2nd/3rd century ce. He is sometimes
150
BAAL-TAMAR
named in inscriptions with the title nl?
'king' or quh dy r*h ‘Creator of the Earth’
(Hatra 23 = KA/ 244:3) but is always
followed by the local triad Maran, Martan
and Barmarén; cf. the personal name
brb'l$myn Hatra 291,1; 314. In Hatra Baal-
Shamem did not play as prominent a role as
in the pantheon of Palmyra. According to
Isaak Antiochenus, Baal-Shamem was ven-
erated as ‘chief of the gods” in a cultic pro-
cession at Nisibis/Nuseybin during the 4th
century CE (P. BEDJAN, Homiliae WS.
Isaaci Syri Antiocheni 1 (1903] 589, 16ff.).
Besides this evidence, personal names exist
such as brb'sm(y)n in Syriac inscriptions (F.
VaTTIONI, Aug 13 (1973) 279ff., No. 51,
2.11.20; 69,8) in Latin Barbaesomen,
Barbaessamen (Dura Europos V/\ [1959]
100. III-Vf.3;: 100, XXX11,32) and in Greck
barbesamen (F. Cumont. Fouilles de
Doura-Europos [1926] 48).
A statue of Baal-Shamem (Barsamin) was
transported by the king Tigranes of Armenia
(first half of the Ist century BCE) from
Northern Mesopotamia and carried to the
temple of T'ordan in Ekeleac in Upper
Armenia (today Eastern Anatolia; Moses
von Chorene Il 14) during a military cam-
paign.
Also the Manichaean tradition has a rep-
resentation of a sort of sungod named Bal-
samos (i.e., Baal-Shamem), who bears the
epithet ho megistos angelos tou phótos ‘the
greatest angel of light" (Kólner Mani-Kodex
49,3-5, cf. A. HENRICHS & L. KOENEN,
ZPE 19 [1975] 48-49), this being the last
mention of the formerly highly estcemed
supreme god.
From this survey of the history of Baal-
Shamem's worship by Semitic peoples it is
obvious that both his character and appear-
ance have been subject to change. In the
beginning he is a sort of high-ranked weather-
god, therefore a god of farmers and city-
dwellers alike. Later on, he develops many
more solar features in accordance with a
general kind of 'solarisation' in Hellenistic
Syria, and his cult is also carried to 'caravan-
cities' such as Palmyra and Hatra.
HI. Since Baal-Shamem appears rela-
tively late in the vicinity of Palestine, it is
no surprise that there are no references to
him in the classical books of the OT. Mere
allusions such as Ps 104:1-4 or Hosea 6:3 to
a kind of weather-god cannot prove any
argument regarding this god. But in the
conflict following the Seleucid policy
against Juda, some passages in the book of
Daniel may be interpreted as allusions to the
Baal-Shamem. e.g. happeSa‘ £ómém (Dan
8:13); 3iqqügim mésSomém and Siqqüs Somem
(9:27 cf. 11:31: 12:11). In these references
the term s6mém could refer to the god, occa-
sionally with a maledicant epithet bearing
on the -Zeus Ouranios of Antiochos IV;
but all these allusions are debated and far
from being evident.
IV. Bibliography
J. BREMMER, Marginalia Manichaica, ZPE
39 (1980) 29-30; H. J. W. Druvers, Baal
Shamem, de heer van de hemel (Assen
1971); R. Du Mesnit Du Buisson, MUS/
38 (1962) 143-160; O. EIssFELDT, Ba’al-
samem und Jahwe, ZAW 57 (1939) 1-31 (=
KS 2 [1963] 171-198); G. Garsini, Gune
Bel Balsamen, Studi magrebini 12 (1980)
89-92; K. IsHKOL-KEROVPIAN, Barsamin,
WobMyth 4, 104-105; H. Nieur, JHWH in
die Rolle des BaalSamem, Ein Gott Allein
(eds. W. Dietrich & M. A. Klopfenstein;
Freiburg/Góttingen 1994) 307-326; R. A.
ODEN, Ba'al Samem and El, CBQ 39 (1977)
457-473; E. OLavarri, Altar de Zeus -
Ba'alshamin, procedente de Amman, Memo-
rias de Historia Antigua 4 (Oviedo 1980)
197-210; H. SEYRIG, Le culte de Bêl et de
Ba’lshamem, Syria 14 (1933) 238-282; J.
STarcky, Le sanctuaire de Baal à Palmyre
d’après les inscriptions, RArch (1974) 83-
90; J. TuBACH, /m Schatten des Sonnen-
gottes (Wiesbaden 1986) 43-45 [& lit] and
passim; F. VaTTIONI, Aspetti del culto del
Signore dei Cieli, Aug 12 (1972) 479-515;
13 (1973) 37-73.
W. RÓLLIG
BAAL-TAMAR ^n 553
I. A location north of Gibeah (Tell el-
Fül) where the Israelite troops stood firm
151
BAAL-ZAPHON
against the pursuing Benjaminites after dis-
tancing them from their home town (Judg
20:33). Eusebius states that in his day there
still existed a Beth-tamar near Gibeah, but
does not specify its location. Since the
second Israelite force which encamped west
of Geba (modern Jeba*) conquered Gibeah
through a surprise attack, it is clear that
Baal-tamar must be sought north of the
Geba road which starts near Ramah (modern
er-Ram). Its exact location remains un-
known.
II. The ‘date palm’ (tdmndr) is a common
element in biblical toponymy, particularly in
the Judean desert and the Arabah (c.g.
Tamar, Hazazon-tamar, and the descriptive
name ‘the city of palm trees’ for Jericho and
Tamar). In addition to Baal-tamar, a second
hill country toponym with the element
‘palm’ is known, i.e., ‘the palm (ömer) of
Deborah’ (Judg 4:5). It must be sought in
the vicinity of Bethel, in the hill country
of Ephraim. A prominent date palm must
have stood at both sites and, like similar
remarkable trees in ancient Palestine, was
regarded as sacred and attracted cult.
Whether Baal-tamar was sacred to -+Yahweh
or to —Baal cannot be established (see also
-*Baal toponyms).
III. Bibliography
M. Astour, Place Names, RSP II, 335; H.
ROSEL, Studien zur Topographie der Kriege
in den Büchern Josua und Richter, ZDPV 92
(1976) 31-46 (esp. 43-44); S. ELAN, Der
Heilige Baum - ein Hinweis auf das Bild
ursprünglicher Landschaft in Palästina,
MDOG 111 (1979) 89-98.
N. NA'AMAN
BAAL-ZAPHON [p2s 552
I. Baal-zaphon literally means the ‘lord
of (mount) -*Zaphon' and it is a designation
of the Ugaritic god Baal. Due to mount
Zaphon's image as the cosmic mountain par
excellence in Northwest-Semitic religions,
the name ‘Baal-zaphon’ was transferred to
further Baal-sanctuaries outside Ugarit. In
the OT Baal-zaphon is a place name in
northern Egypt where Israel rested during
the exodus (Exod 14:2, 9; Num 33:7).
II. In Ugarit the divine name Baal-
zaphon only occurs in ritual texts (KTU
1.39:10; 1.41:33 [rest.]; 1.46:12 [rest.].14;
1.47:5; 1.65:10; 1.87:36 [rest]: 1.109:5
[rest.].9.29.32-33; 1.112:22-23; 1.118:4;
1.130:22; 1.148:2 [rest.].10.27; RIH 78/4:5
[Syria 57 (1980) 353-354, 370]), in letters
(e.g. KTU 2.23:19; 2.44:10) and in Akkad-
ian texts from Ugarit (references in RÓLLIG
1972-75:242). On the other hand mythol-
ogical texts never speak of Baal-zaphon. By
using this divine name the lists of the gods
and offering texts make a distinction
between Baal-zaphon and several other gods
called Baal who were also entitled to receive
offerings (KTU 1.47:5-11; 1.118:4-10; 1.148:
2-4; cf. RS 20.24,4-10 (Ug S (1968) 44-45,
379). In several ritual texts Baal-zaphon
and Zaphon stand in parallelism to Baal of
Ugarit (e.g. KTU 1.41:33-35, 42; 1.65:10-
11; 1.87:36-38; 1.109:9-11; 1.112:22-23;
1.130:22-25), thus indicating distinct mani-
festations of the god Baal. The Akkadian
equivalent of Baal-zaphon is €i be-el
YUR.SAG Ha-zi (RS 2024:4 [e.g. Ug 5
(1968) 44-45, 379]), the Hurrian equivalent
is tb hlbà (e.g. KTU 1.42:10; cf. E. La-
ROCHE, Ug 5 (1968] 520).
The oldest representation of Baal-zaphon
in smiting posture and standing on two
mountains is preserved on an Syrian seal of
the 18th cent. BCE from Tell el-Daba‘a in
Egypt (BietaK 1990; Diskstra 1991). An
illustration of Baal-zaphon is given by a
votive stela found in the Baal-temple of
Ugarit (ANEP 485; Yon 1991:328 fig. 8a).
This stela is dedicated to Baal-zaphon by an
Egyptian officer, Mami, and it shows the
dedicator venerating Baal-zaphon. The god
is represented standing before a cult stand,
wearing a crown and holding a sceptre in
his left hand. An additional Egyptian
inscription identifies the donator and the
god. The stela was brought from Egypt to
Ugarit, perhaps as the fulfillment of a vow
made by an Egyptian officer, to the temple
of Baal-zaphon in Ugarit; because Baal-
zaphon was regarded as the protector of
navigation. Baal's protection of navigation
152
BAAL-ZAPHON
is also alluded to in Pap. Sallier IV vs 1,5-6
(ANET 249-250). This aspect of Baal-
zaphon is also indicated by some stone
anchors found in the precinct of the Baal-
temple as votive-offerings to Baal-zaphon.
An Egyptian stela from the time of Ramses
II and perhaps devoted to Baal-zaphon was
found in the Hauran (RSO 40 [1965] 197-
200). In a 14th century letter (KTU 2.23)
sent by the king of Ugarit to the Pharaoh,
Baal-zaphon figures as the tutelary deity of
the kingdom and king of Ugarit, whereas,
according to this letter, Amun fulfills this
role for Egypt.
Outside the Northwest-Semitic realm
Baal-zaphon was venerated under the name
~»Zeus Kasios. The second element of this
Greek divine name is derived from Hurrian
Mount Hazzi. Sanctuaries of Zeus Kasios
are attested in Egypt, Athens, Epidauros,
Delos, Corfu, Sicily and Spain. The last
mention of Zeus Kasios, on a Latin-Greek
bilingual text of the 3rd cent. CE found in
Germany, was perhaps written by a Syrian
soldier serving in the Roman army (CIL
XIII 2,1 no. 7330).
In the first millenium BCE, Baal-zaphon is
mentioned in three Assyrian texts. The
annals of Tiglathpilesar III (ARAB 1:274-
275) and of Sargon I] (ARAB 11:13) speak
of a mountain Baal-zaphon situated on the
mediterranean coast. In the treaty of Asar-
haddon with King Baal of Tyre, Baal-
zaphon ranks behind the gods -*Baal shamem
and Baal malage. These three gods have
power over the storm and the sea (SAA 2 no.
5 iv:IO").
The veneration of Baal-zaphon in Tyre is
also demonstrated by a Phoenician amulet
from the region of Tyre which invokes the
blessing of Baal-hamon and Baal-zaphon,
thus reflecting the Hurrian parallelism of
mount Amanus (?) and mount Zaphon
(BonpREUIL 1986). The offering tariff of
Marseille (KA/ 69) mentions in its first linc
the "temple of Baal-zaphon". As the text
stems from Carthage this is an indication
that there was a temple of Baal-zaphon in
Carthage. There is another reference to
Baal-zaphon in a 6th cent. BCE papyrus of
Tahpanes (KA/ 50:2-3), according to which
Baal-zaphon is the supreme god of the
Phoenician colony of Tahpanes. In papyrus
Amherst 8:3 and 13:15-16 Baal is men-
tioned together with mount Zaphon.
III. The appearance of the place name
Baal-zaphon in the context of the exodus
narratives (Exod 14:2, 9; Num 33:7) caused
EISSFELDT (1932) to argue that it was ori-
ginally Baal-zaphon who had saved Israel
from Egypt. Only secondarily was this vic-
tory ascribed to Yahweh. This argument
however has nearly always been rejected
because Baal-zaphon in Exod 14:2, 9 and
Num 33:7 is only a topographical indication
without religio-historical relevance. lt is
only found in the Priestly Code where it is
to be judged as part of a learned construc-
tion of the exodus itinerary.
IV. Bibliography
A. ADLER, Kasios 2, PW 10 (1919) 2265-
2267; W. F. ALBRIGHT, Baal-Zephon, FS A.
Bertholet (Tübingen 1950) 1-14; M. BIETAK,
Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Agypten
und Levante 1 (1990) 9-16; *C. BONNET,
Typhon et Baal Saphon, Studia Phoenicia 5
(OLA 22; Leuven 1987) 101-143: BONNET,
Baal Saphon Dictionnaire de la Civilisation
Phénicienne et Punique (Tumhout 1992) 60-
61; P. BoRDREUIL, Attestations inédites de
Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon à Tyr,
Studia Phoenicia 4 (Namur 1986) 77-86; P.
CHUvIN & J. Yovorre, Documents relatifs
au culte pélusien de Zeus Casios, RArch
(1986) 41-63; A. B. Cook, Zeus. A Study in
Ancient Religion 1/2 (Cambridge 1925) 981,
984-986; M. DuksTRA, The Weather-God
on Two Mountains, UF 23 (1991) 127-140;
J. EBACH, Kasion, LdA 3 (1980) 354; O.
EissrELDT, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und
der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs. Meer
(BRA 1; Halle 1932); EissrELDT, Ba'al
Saphon von Ugarit und Amon von Agypten,
FF 36 (1962) 338-340 = KS 4 (Tiibingen
1968) 53-57; W. FaurH, Das Kasion-Gc-
birge und Zeus Kasios, UF 22 (1990) 105-
118: H. GrsE, Die Religionen Altsyriens,
RAAM (Stuttgart 1970) 119-133; M. Goro,
Baal-Zefon, NBL | (1991) 225-226; *R.
HILLMANN, Wasser und Berg (diss. Halle
153
BAAL ZEBUB
1965) 22-35, 76-87; A. KAPELRUD, Baal in
the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen 1952)
57-58; T. KLAUSER, Baal-Kasios, RAC 1
(1950) 1076-1077; K. Kocu, Hazzi-Saf6n-
Kasion. Die Geschichte eines Berges und
sciner Gottheiten, Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nord-
syrien und dem Alten Testament (ed. B.
Janowski, K. Koch & G. Wilhelm; OBO
129; Fribourg-Göttingen 1993) 171-223; K.
Kocn. Ba‘al Sapon, Ba‘al Samem and the
Critique of Israels’s Prophets, Ugarit and
the Bible (eds. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Cur-
tis & J. F. Healey; UBL 11; Münster 1994)
159-174; E. Lipitsxi, [28 sipén TWAT 6
(1987-89) 1093-1102; LipiNski, Dieux et
Déesses de l'univers phénicien et punique,
Studia Phoenicia 14 (OLA 64; Leuven
1995) 244-251; S. I. L. Norin, Er spaltete
das Meer (ConB 9; Lund 1977) 21-40, 46-
51; M. H. Pore, Baal Sapan, WbMyth 1/1
(19832) 257-258; W. ROLLIG, Hazzi, RLA 4
(1972-75) 241-242; A. Sarac, Zets
Kaotog, BCH 46 (1922) 160-189; R.
STADELMANN, Syrisch-paldstinensische Gott-
heiten in Ägypten (Leiden 1967) 27-47;
STADELMANN Baal, LdA 1 (1975) 590-591;
P. vaN ZuL, Baal (AOAT 10; Kevelaer-
Neukirchen Vluyn 1972) 332-336; M. YON,
Stéles en pierre, Arts et industries de la pierre
(ed. M. Yon; RSOu 6; Paris 1991) 284-288.
H. NIEHR
BAAL ZEBUB 2123 792
I. The name Baal Zebub occurs only
four times in the OT (2 Kgs 1:2.3.6.16). In 2
Kgs l an accident of Ahaziah, the king of
Israel, and his consulting the oracle of the
god Baal Zebub of Ekron is described. For
etymological reasons, Baal Zebub must be
considered a Semitic god; he is taken over
by the Philistine Ekronites and incorporated
into their local cult. Zebub is the collective
noun for ‘flies’, also attested in Ugaritic (W.
H. vAN Soipt, UF 21 [1989] 369-373:
dbb). Akkadian (zubbu), post-biblical
Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic (8223°%), Syriac
(debbaba) and in other Semitic languages.
II. On the basis zebub, ‘flies’, the name
of the god was interpreted as ‘Lord of the
flies’; it was assumed that he was a god who
could cause or cure diseases. F. BAETHGEN
(Beiträge | zur semitischen Religionsge-
schichte [1888] 25) expressed the view that
the flies related to. Baal were seen as a
symbol of the solar heat; they were sacred
animals. In carly Israel, flies were con-
sidered a source of nuisance (Isa 7:18; Qoh
10:1). TANGBERG (1992) interpreted the
name Baal-zebub as “Baal (statue) with the
flies (ornamented)" analogous to the Mes-
opotamian 'Nintu with the flies’. This can
be compared with the fact that the Greeks
called --Zeus as healer andpurog (Clemens
Alexandrinus, Protrepticus 11,38,4; Paus-
anias, Graeciae Descriptio V 14,1) and that
they knew a ïñpœs pviaypog (Pausanias, VI
26,7: mainly concerning the driving away of
the flies with sacrifices).
The LXX implies by its rendering Baad
puta (Baal the fly) the same wording as the
MT (cf. Josephus, Antiquitates 1X,2,1:
. Axxápov 6ceóg Muta. Vg: Beelzebub). In
contradistinction the translation of Sym-
machus as well as the NT manuscripts have
the forms BeeGepouA respectively Beel-
GeBovA (Matt 10:25; 12:24.27; Mark 3:22:
Luke 11:15.18-19). This rendering of the
divine name might rely on a different text-
form or be based on oral tradition. Besides,
Matt 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15 use the
apposition apywv tav Saipoviwv ‘head of
the demons’. The epithet Zabulus (Ass.
Mos. 10:1) has no connection with Beed-
GeBovA. Greck d1a- is frequently replaced
by Latin za-, therefore Zabulus can be inter-
preted as a rendition of AtaBoAog. Where
one meets in the NT versions the wording
Beelzebub, undoubtedly a later correction
according to the canonical text of the OT
(LXX) exists (so already BaupissiN 1897;
further L. Gaston, 7hZ 18 [1962] 251).
The view that Bee2.GepouA is the original
form of the name of the deity in 2 Kgs 1 is
further suggested by the titles zb! b'| and
more frequently zb! b'] "arg appearing in
Ugaritic texts. Even before the excavations .
at Ras Shamra, Movers (1841:260) and
GuvaRD (1878) guessed Baal Zebul to be
154
BAAL ZEBUB
the name’s original form. They explained
the notion zébiil, however, after its occur-
rence in the OT (Deut 26:15; Isa 63:15; Ps
68:6) or otherwise by referring to the Akk
*zabal, ‘residence’ or ‘lofty house’ (though,
in fact, there is no such word in Akkadian).
CHEYNE (1899) asserted that the name Baal-
zebub most likely was "...a contemptuous
uneuphonic Jewish modification of the true
name, which was probably Baal-zebul, *lord
of the high house' [cf. 1 Kgs 8:13]". Simi-
larly GASTON (7ThZ 18 (1962] 251) under-
stood the notion as referring to [heavenly
and earthly} residence.
Reviving another explication, FENSHAM
(1967:361-364) tried to interpret the Hebrew
noun 2i2i as derived from Ugaritic dbb
which he understood as 'flame' (cf. Heb
fábib). He rendered 2121. 222 by 'Baal the
~Flame’ adducing the fire motif in the
Elijah tales as corroborating evidence. Yet
his explanation fails to convince; the Ugar-
itic noun dbb is not clearly explained, and it
is questionable whether there are religio-his-
torical parallels. The NT. moreover, shows
that thc root is zb/, not zbb. Equally uncon-
vincing is Mulder's proposal to explain 7127
on the basis of Ug zbl ‘illness’ (Ba‘al in het
Oude Testament [1962] 142-144); the Ugar-
itic word for illness is zbln. Above all it
reckons, despite the statement in the NT,
with the consonantal stock zbb. The same
doubts are to be raised against MULDER's
explanation of b‘/ zbl by referring to Ug zbl,
‘illness’ particularly because this noun runs
zbin.
Relatively soon after the findings at Ras
Shamra, ALBRIGHT (1936) construed Ug zbl
as passive participle zabül. He derived the
form from the verbal root zBL—known in
Akkadian and Arabic—and surmised the
nominal meaning ‘prince’ or ‘the clevated
one’. The meaning fits with the frequent
occurrence of zbl as a title for gods. This
interpretation is widely accepted (‘prince’,
‘princely state’ or ‘princeship’) and it was
included in HALAT (250).
Modifications and new readings have
been proposed since. J. C. DE Moor (UF 1
[1969] 188) rejected ALBRIGHT's explana-
tion (1936) of the verbal form as passive
participle *zabulu and read *ziblu, "his
Highness'. W. vox SopEN (UF 4 [1972]
159) vocalized the noun zubül[um] referring
to zubultum which is perhaps the title of the
Ugaritic ‘princess’ as witnessed in two
Akkadian documents from Mari. DIETRICH
& Loretz (1980) proved that the epithet zb/
b‘l ars has the meaning ‘prince. lord of the
underworld’. They confirmed ba'al zébüb to
be an intentional misspelling of b'/ zbl *Baal
the prince’, a chthonic god able to help in
cases of illness. It may be added that this
fact confinns Ugaritic incantations in which
Baal is invoked to drive away the demon of
disease (RIH 1.16, 1-3: cf. TUAT 2 [1986-
89] 335 and ARTU 183; perhaps also KTU
1.82:38; cf. TUAT 2, 339 [Di£gTRICH & Lo-
RETZ 1980]) The NT obviously preserved
the correct form of the name (DIETRICH &
Loretz 1980:392). Likewise A. S. KAPEL-
RUD (Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts [1952]
60); E. JENNI (BHH 1 [1962] 175-178.) and
H. Gese (RAAM 122) recognize in b'l zbb
an intentional deformation of the original b'l
zbl. L K. HANDY (UF 20 [1988] 59) finally
proposes to translate the noun as ‘ruler’,
because zb/ designates a person who is gov-
eming or ruling.
Consequently Masoretic b'| zbwb of 2
Kgs 1:2-3.6.16 is to be emended to b‘l zbwi
which is to be rendered ‘Baal the Prince’.
Most probably, the meaning of this god in
the Syrian-Palestine area did not essentially
differ from what can be deduced from the
Ras Shamra texts though for a more accu-
rate conception the data do not suffice.
HI. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Zabûl Yam and Thâpit
Nahar in the Combat between Baal and the
Sea, JPOS 16 (1936) 17-20; W. W. Graf
BAUDISSIN, Beelzebub (Beelzebul), RE 2
(1897) 514-516; T. K. CHEYNE, Baalzebub,
EncBibl | (1899) 407-408.; M. DiETRICH &
O. Loretz, Die Ba‘al-Titel bY ars und aliy
qrdm, UF 12 (1980) 391-393; F. C. Frn-
SHAM, A possible Explanation of the Name
Baal-Zebub of Ekron, ZAW 79 (1967) 36I-
364; S. GuvARD, Remarques sur le mot
assyrien zabal et sur l'expression biblique
155
BACCHUS
bet zeboul, JA 7éme Série (1878) 220-225;
F. C. Movers, Die Phónizier 1 (Bonn
1841); A. TANGBERG, A Note on Bacal-
Zébub in 2 Kgs 1,2,3,6.16, SJOT 6 (1992)
293-296.
W. HERRMANN
BACCHUS Baxyos
I. Bacchus is the form the Greek -*Dio-
nysus took in Rome. The name derives from
the Greek epithet Baxyog which denoted
both the ecstatic Dionysus and his follower
(fem. Baxyn). The epiclesis denoted a fun-
damental cultic aspect of the Greek god
which had become prominent in Roman cult
also, as had been the case in other neigh-
bouring cultures: the Etruscans assimilated it
as an epiclesis of their god Fufluns, the in-
digenous equivalent to Dionysus (Fufluns
Paxies) (CRISTOFANI & MARTELLI 1978),
the Lydians, like the Romans, transformed it
into the name of the god (Bakis) (GRAF
1985:285-291). In the Bible Bacchus occurs
only as a theophoric element in the personal
name Bacchides (20 times in 1 Macc).
II. Roman religion had its own god
Liber (paired with a goddess Libera) with
whom Greek Dionysus was identified at an
early age. The nature of Liber before the
assimilation is difficult to grasp, besides the
assumption of a general similarity in form
and function; to judge from Italic rituals, the
cult of Liber had sexual, even obscene
features (DUMEZIL 1977:382-383). At the
time of our documentation, Liber and
Bacchus are fully identified and understood
as the Roman equivalents of Dionysus.
Two properties characterised Roman
Bacchus, wine and ecstasy. Greek Dionysus
was connected with wine and viticulture in
the larger contexts of ecstasy and anti-
structure; with Roman Bacchus (Liber), the
connection with wine and viticulture had
much more emphasis and paralleled the
importance of cereals and agriculture of
Roman Ceres. Cult and literature, however,
are distinct in this sphere: Bacchus is the
god of wine mainly in literature, while the
cult kept to the traditional Latin name Liber.
Much more prominent is Bacchus in
ecstatic and mystery rituals. The ecstatic cult
was introduced in late 3d or early 2nd cent.
BCE as a private cult, brought to Rome from
Etruria by an itinerant priest and strictly
confined to women. Somewhat later, a
priestess from Campania opened the cult
group to both genders; it quickly developed
into a conspicuous though still private cult
association whose ritual, the Bacchanalia,
was well known to contemporaries (see
Plautus, Aulularia 408, Casina 979-980).
Roman political authorities were always
wary of too independent private cults, and
when, in 186 BCE, a citizen accused the
officials of the Bacchanalia of sexual assault
and ritual murder, the senate quickly inter-
vened and reduced the cult to very small
ritual congregations—without being able or
willing to forbid it altogether (sce Livy
39,8-18; Dessau, Inscriptiones | Latinae
Selectae 18; PAILLER 1988). Private Bacch-
analia continued to be celebrated in Rome
and gained ground again during the first
century BCE; by the time of the emperor
Claudius, Messalina’s licentiousness con-
nected the cult with another scandal (Taci-
tus, Annals 11,31; HENRICHS 1978). Never-
theless, at the beginning of the imperial age
Bacchic mysteries were an affair also of the
upper classes, as is shown by the archac-
ological and epigraphical documents, esp.
the relicfs from the Roman Villa Farnesina
(dated early in the reign of Augustus), the
imposing fresco in the Pompeian Villa dei
Misteri (Marz 1963), and the Bacchic
inscription from Torre Nova (mid-second
cent. CE SCHEID 1986). These monuments
show that the Roman mysteries of Bacchus
formed part of the mainstream Dionysiac
movement in the late Hellenistic and Im-
perial periods; at the same time, they give a
precious insight into particular aspects of the
initiatory ritual and the structure and idcol-
ogy of a larger cultic association (Dionysus).
In Latin literature, Bacchus is the god
who provides poetic ecstasy and inspiration
(Horace, Cann. 2,19 and 3,25; Properce 3,7;
Ovid, Trist. 5,3). This is a Roman inno-
vation: although already Democritus and
156
BAETYL
Plato had developed a theory of ecstatic
poetical inspiration, the inspirator remained
Apollo. From Roman literature, the concept
was taken over into later European poet-
ology (MAHE 1988).
III. Bibliography
A. BRUHL, Liber Pater. Origine et expan-
sion du culte dionysiaque à Rome et dans le
monde romain (Paris 1953); M. CRISTOFANI
& M. MamRrELLI, Fufluns Pachies. Sugli
aspetti del culto di Bacco in Etruria, Studi
Etruschi 46 (1978) 119-133; G. DuMÉ2ZIL,
La religion romaine archaique, suivi d'un
appendice sur la religion des Étrusques, 2nd
edition (Paris 1974); F. GRaF, Nordionische
Culte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigra-
phische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von
Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokai
(Bibliotheca Helvetia Romana 21; Rome
1985); A. HENRICHS, Greek Menadism from
Olympias to Messalina, HSCP 82 (1978)
121-160; N. Mané, Le mythe de Bacchus
dans la poesie lyrique de 1549 à 1600
(Frankfurt, Bem etc. 1988); F. MATZ,
Atovuoiaxn Tedem. Archiiologische Unter-
suchungen zum Dionysoskult in. hellenis-
tischer und römischer Zeit (Abh. Mainz
1963:15; Wiesbaden 1963); J.-M. PAILLER,
Bacchanalia. La répression de 186 av. J.-C.
à Rome et en ltalie. Vestiges, images, tradi-
tions (Rome and Paris 1988); J. ScukiD, Le
thiase du Metropolitan Museum (IGUR
1,160), Les associations dionysiaques dans
les sociétés anciennes (ed. O. de Cazanove;
Rome 1986) 275-290.
F. GRAF
BAETYL BaíituXog
I. According to the classical texts, Bai-
tylos (Greek v for € see EISSFELDT
1962:228 n. 1; HEMMERDINGER 1970:60) is
a 'Stone-god'. According to Semitic etymol-
ogy the divine name could be interpreted as
‘House of God/El’, -*Bethel. Some scholars
therefore identify Baitylos with the deity
Bethel. The divine name Bethel is known
from Gen 31:13, 35:7, Amos 5:5 and else-
where; it may be intended in Jer 48:13; as a
theophoric element in a Babylonian personal
name it occurs in Zech 7:2. The issue of the
origin of the divine name Baitylos, of its
occurrence in the OT, and of its possible
Semitic roots are unsolved questions. There
are three aspects of the problem: the cult of
a god Baitylos/Bethel. the presence of many
deities compounded with this name, and the
baetyls as cultic objects.
II. In the Phoenician theogony of Philo
Byblius (quoted by Eusebius, P. E. I 10, 16)
the god Baitylos is a son of Ouranos (‘Sky’)
and his wife-sister Gé (-*Earth), with the
brothers -*El/Kronos, -Dagon and Atlas.
This divine name scems unrelated to the
baetyls (Gk baitylia), the ‘stones endowed
with life’ invented by Ouranos, which Philo
mentions a few lines further (Eusebius, P. E.
1 10, 23), but the names are similar and the
possibilities for confusion numerous. In the
ancient Near East, the earliest certain occur-
rence of this god is from the 7th century
BCE. In the treaty between Esarhaddon, king
of Assyria, and Baal, king of Tyre, 4ba-a-a-
1i-DINGIR.MES(i/i) = Bayt-el, is coupled with
da-na-ti-ba-a-[a-ti-DINGI]R.MES(ili) — Anat-
Bayt-el (ANET, 534; SAA 2, 5 iv:6"). The
same pair occurs in the list of divine wit-
nesses invoked in the Succession Treaty of
Esarhaddon (VTE 467 [reconstruction]; VAN
DER ToonN 1992:83, 99 n. 18). In the 6th
century BCE, the name of the god begins to
occur as theophoric element in several
West-Semitic personal names from Mes-
opotamia (Hyatr 1939:82-84). Then, in the
5th century, his cult appears among the
Egyptian-Jewish community at Elephantine.
The Aramaic papyri from this colony attest
the deity in composite names; the name of
the deity is related to. Eshem (mbyrl,
'Name of Baitylos'), perhaps with. Herem
(hrmbyrl, *Sacredness{?] of Baitylos’; pace
VAN DER TOORN 1986) and certainly with
—Anat (‘ntbyrl, ‘Providence, Sign, or Ac-
tive Presence of Baitylos’). These composite
names are to be explained as referring to
separate deities, or as hypostatized aspects
of the same god, Bethel. Finally, in the 3rd
century CE, this deity is attested in three
Greek inscriptions from Syria: at Doura
Europos Zeus Betylos is mentioned as ‘(god)
157
BAETYL
of the dwellers along the Orontes’ (SEYRIG
1933:78); IGLS 376, from Kafr Nabo (near
Aleppo), contains a dedication to the
‘paternal gods’ Seimios, Symbetylos (‘Name
of Betylos’, see Eshem-Bayt-el at Elephan-
tine) and to the Lion; /GLS 383 from Qal'at
Kálóta (the same region) attests the name of
[Zeus B]aitylos.
Thus the question of the god's origin and
of his functions remains enigmatic. The
deity does not occur at Ugarit or in any
other text from the second millennium BCE.
VAN DER TOORN observes that the cult of
this deity seems to be confined to North
Syria, brought into Egypt in the 5th century
by Northern Syrian Aramaeans (1992:85).
He argues that Bethel and Anat-Bethel are a
pair of late Aramaean deities. Note, how-
ever, the opposing views of J. P. Hyatt, M.
L. Barré and J. T. Milik. The first suggests
that Bethel became a deity as deification of
the temple of El (or god), inhabitant of the
sanctuary (HvATT 1939). The second scholar
regards Bethel as a "hypostasis or circum-
locution of El’ and argues that he was one
of the supreme gods of the Tyrian pantheon
(BARRE 1983:46-49). MiLix, finally, thinks
of one ‘Betyl’ above all, morphologically
distinguished from other baitylia, and judges
Bethel and Anat-Bethel a pair of ‘trans-
fluvial’ deities, not necessary Tyrians; in his
view the cult of Bethel is of Sidonian origin
(1967:570, 576). Nevertheless, as for the
name, in Akkadian documents there is no
doubt that it should be explained on the
basis of the Aramaic language rather than
Phoenician; about the names compounded
with Bayt-el, one may also bear in mind that
'binominal-gods' are known both in the
Ugaritic pantheon and in first millennium
BCE Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, e.g.
—Eshmun-Melqart, Sid-Tanit and Sid-
Melqart. As for the character, wc have
various and discordant pieces of informa-
tion: the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon
affirms that Bayt-cl and Anat-Bayt-el will
punish the treaty breaker by sending hungry
lions; Philo of Byblos, on the other hand,
limits his observations to the divine
(heavenly) genealogy of Baitylos and appar-
ently does not link this god with the stones
(baitylia) that Kronos endowed with vital
force. Yet this kind of relationship is at-
tested by several other documents. The
Greek substantive baitylos and its diminu-
tive baitylion occur only in late authors,
none of whom seems to be earlier than Philo
Byblius. Yet the worship of —stones as
symbols of various deities is well attested in
the Syrian religions, from the second millen-
nium BCE documents (as sikkanum "betyl';
Dietrich, Loretz & Mayer 1989; Hur-
TER 1993:88-91) up to Roman times (coins
of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos); the Punic popu-
lation of North Africa worshipped stones of
the same kind apparently (e.g. C/L VIII
23283: vow of a baetilum to Saturnus; see
RossiGNoL! 1992). More particularly, late
Greek and Latin commentators, mytho-
graphers and lexicographers establish a
special equivalence between what the
Grecks called Baitylos and the Semitic cult
of holy stones. It seems also possible that
for the ancient writers the baetyl (Gk
baitylion, Lat baetulus) denotes a particular
kind of sacred stone, generally small and
portable, of heavenly origin (real or sup-
posed) and having magic qualities. Thus the
bactyl was normally a meteoric stone en-
dowed with divining faculties (UGOLINI
1981); Damascius (Vita Isid. 94 and 203, ed.
Zintzen, 138 and 274-278) calls the stones
that had fallen from heaven in the area of
Mount —Lebanon baityla or baitylia; they
were used for private oracles. In mythol-
ogical records the baetyl occurs as well; the
stone that Kronos swallowed, taking it for
->Zeus, is called a baetyl. Hesiod tells
(Theog. 485-490) that the goddess Rhea,
who was delivered of Zeus, wrapped a stone
in swaddling-clothes and gave it to Kronos
to devour, which he did without noticing the
substitution. As an adult, Zeus made Kronos
vomit up all the children he had devoured.
This stone/Baitylos, in some sources, has
also the name Abaddir, a word attested epi-
graphically as theonym in Roman North-
Africa (RIBICHINI 1985). Like the baetyls of
Philo Byblius and of Damascius, Abaddir
was an animated stone, which, vomited up
158
BAGA
by Kronos, ‘had the shape of a human and
was animated’ (c.g. Myth. Vat. MI 15, ed.
Bode). Abaddir, moreover, is known both as
a divine name and as a divine appellative
(Augustine, Ep. XVII 2). These sources
show, in the fusion of classical and Punic
traditions, how an onginally Semitic cult
object came to be endowed with a personal-
ity and was credited with the ability to per-
form prodigies, to get excited and to give
responses (see Josepp. Christ., Libell. mem.
in Vet. et Nov. Test. 143, PG 106, 161 D).
IIl. According to Jer 48:13, the house of
Israel put its trust in Bethel, as Moab did in
-—'Chemosh. The parallelism with Chemosh
makes it plausible that Bethel refers here to
the god of that name, rather than to a topo-
graphical element. This fact is surprising,
because the Northern Syrian deity is other-
wisc unconnected with Israel. Yet it must bc
assumed that some time before 600 BCE the
cult of Bethel was introduced into Israel; it
is hardly likely that the god Bethel is related
to the biblical town Bethel (VAN DER TOORN
1992:90-91,99 n. 26; pace EissFELDT 1930
= 1962).
It has been suggested that the god Bethel
is mentioned in other biblical passages, e.g.
Gen 31 and 35, Amos 3:14, 5:5. On the
other hand, one may also postulate that the
stone of Gen 28:10-22 (a massébd) on
which Jacob slept and which he had
anointed, must be connected to the cult of
baetyls, as ‘houses of God" and related with
his vision, though the word baetylia does
not appear in Greek OT.
IV. Bibliography
M. L. BARRÉ, The God-List in the Treaty
between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon-
fa: A Study in Light of the Ancient Near
Eastern Treaty Tradition (Baltimore 1983);
A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History
of Philo of Byblos. A Commentary (EPRO
89; Leiden 1981) 190, 202-203; E. R.
DaLGuisH, Bethel (Deity), ABD 1 (1992)
706-710; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz & W.
Mayer, Sikkanum ‘Betyle’, UF 21 (1989)
133-139: O. ElssFELDT, Der Gott Bethel,
ARW 28 (1930) 1-30 = KS 1 (Tübingen
1962) 206-233; B. HEMMERDINGER, De la
méconnaissance de quelques étymologies,
Glotta 48 (1970) 59-60; M. HUTTER, Kult-
stelen und Baityloi, Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nord-
syrien und dem Alten Testament (eds. B.
Janowski, K. Koch & G. Wilhelm eds.;
OBO 129; Freiburg & Göttingen 1993) 87-
108; J. P. Hvarr, The Deity Bethel in the
Old Testament, JAOS 59 (1939) 81-98; T.
N. D. METIINGER. No Graven Image? Isra-
elite Aniconism in its Near Eastern Context
(Stockholm 1995) esp. 69-75, 110-112, 129-
132; J. T. MiLiK, Les papyrus araméens
d'Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens
(2. Dieu Béthel), Bib 48 (1967) 565-577; J.
C. pe Moor, Standing Stones and Ancestor
Worship, UF 27 (1995) 1-20; S. RIBICHINI,
Poenus Advena. Gli dei fenici e l'interpreta-
zione classica (Roma 1985) 113-125; C.
ROSSIGNOLI, Persistenza del culto betilico
nell'Africa romana: un'iscrizione da Thala
(Tunisia), L'Africa romana. Atti del IX Con-
vegno di studio, Nuoro, 13-15 dicembre
1991, | (ed. A. Mastino; Sassari 1992) 73-
96; H. SEvRIG, Altar Dedicated to Zeus
Betylos, Excavations at Dura-Europos, Pre-
liminary Reports of Fourth Season, (eds. P.
V. C. Baur, M. l. Rostovtzeff & A. R. Bel-
linger; New Haven 1933) 68-71; M. H. SiL-
VERMAN. Religious Values in the Jewish
Proper Names at Elephantine (AOAT 217;
Neukirchen- Vluyn 1985) 221-229; M. Uco-
LINI, Il dio (di) pietra, Sandalion 4 (1981) 7-
29; K. vaN DER ToonN, Herem-Bethel and
Elephantine Oath Procedure, ZAW 98 (1986)
282-285; vAN DER TooRN, Anat-Yahu, Some
Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine,
Numen 39 (1992) 80-101; vAN DER TOORN,
Worshipping Stones: On the Deification of
Cult Symbols, JNSL 23/1 (1997) 1-14; E.
WiLL, Adonis chez les Grecs avant Alexa-
ndre, Transeuphraténe 12 (1996) 65-72; G.
Zuntz, Baitylos and Bethel, Classica et
Medievalia 8 (1946) 169-219.
S. RIBICHINI
BAGA
I. The personal name Bagoas to be
found in Judith 12:11 is undoubtedly an
159
BARAD
Iranian name, although quite difficult to
interpret. The second term oas cannot be
explained with any certainty, as was ac-
knowledged by EiLERS (1954-56) after a
strictly formal attempt and, more recently,
by HuvsE with even stronger scepticism
(1990). The first term baga raises problems
of another kind. It is a common dialectal
singularity of Iranian languages that they
gave the old Indo-European word *deiud
(Sanskrit deva, Lat deus) a negative value
and substituted baga- for the former mean-
ing of *daiua-, which had come to mean
‘evil spirit? (BURROW 1973; KELLENS 1976;
SIMS-WILLIAMS 1989; according to the
second author, yazata-, common in the
Avesta, is not a general term concurring
with baga-, but a specific title only for the
deities close to -*Mithra). Another occuren-
ce of baga in the Hebrew Bible may be
found in the personal name Bigtha (Est
1:10), if the latter is analyzed as baga+da,
‘the gift of Baga’ (cf. GEHMAN 1924:323).
II. The whole question is to know
whether baga is always the divine title par
excellence or whether it may be the personal
name of a Mazdaean god. It has been
thought, albeit inconclusively, that the word
might refer to Mithra (since MARQUART
1896) or be the Iranian name for Indian
Varuna (Boyce 1981). HENNING (1965),
relying on the Sogdian word for wedding,
byny-p§-kP kw, and GiGNoux (1977; 1979),
referring to onomastic data from epigraphic
Middle-Persian, believe there is an Iranian
god Baga corresponding to the minor Vedic
deity Bhaga, who is the allegory of sharing
or the agent par excellence of divine bounty.
The inconclusiveness of their arguments was
easily demonstrated by Dietz (1978) for the
former and by ZIMMER (1984) for the latter.
SIMS-WILLIAMS (1989) advocates an inter-
mediary position which sounds fairly
reasonable: “It is probable that baga- ‘god’
sometimes designates a specific deity as ‘the
god’ par excellence (...) but no basis has
ever been stated for the assumption that
baga- ‘the god’ (...) must refer to the same
divinity at all periods and in all parts of the
Iranian world".
III. Bibliography
M. Boyce, Varuna the Baga, Monumentum
Georg Morgenstierne, Vol 1 (Tehran-Liège
1981) 59-73; T. Burrow, The Proto-Indo-
Aryans, JRAS (1973) 130; A. Dierz, Baga
and Mitra in Sogdiana, Etudes Mithriaques
(Tehran-Ligge 1978) 111-114; W. Evers,
Neue aramiische Urkunden aus Agypten,
AfO 17 (1954-56) 327-328 n. 19; H. S.
GEHMAN, Notes on the Persian Words in
the Book of Esther, JBL 43 (1924) 321-328;
P. GiGNoux, Le dieu Baga en Iran, Acta
Antiqua Hungarica 25 (1977 [1980]) 119-
127; GicNoux, Les noms propres en
moyen-perse épigraphique, Pad nam-i
yazdán (Paris 1979 [1980]) 88-90; W. B.
HENNING, A Sogdian God, BSOAS 28
(1965) 242-254; P. Huyse, Bagoas, Irani-
sches Personennamenbuch, Vol V 6a (Wien
1990) 39-40; J. KELLENS, Trois réflexions
sur la religion des Achéménides, Studien zur
Indologie und Iranistik 2 (1976) 121-126; J.
Marquart [Markwart], Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte von Iran | (Gottingen 1896)
63-65; N. Sims-WILLIAMS, Baga, Encyclo-
paedia Iranica, Vol 3 (London-New York
1989) 403-405; S. ZIMMER, Iran. baga - ein
Gottesnamc?, — Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 43 (1984) 187-215.
J. KELLENS
BARAD 72
I. As used in two passages of the OT,
Heb 772, vocalized as báràád, has been
interpreted as the name of an ancient deity
of the Canaanite pantheon. In some texts
from Tell Mardikh-Ebla of the third millen-
nium sce 9Baradu (madu) occurs as a di-
vine name. Etymologically, both biblical
barad and Eblaitic Baradu (madu) are to be
related to the Semitic root *BRD and to be
explained as "(big) Chill".
II. The Eblaitic god Baradu madu has
been explained by G. PETTINATO as a divin-
ized form of the -*Euphrates (Ebla: un
impero inciso nell' argilla [Milan 1979]
268). Since the name of this river occurs in
the texts from Ebla under its 'classical'
name Purattu (TM.75.G.2192 IV 1-2 =
160
BARAQ — BASHAN
ARET 5 [1984], no. 3 iv 2-3: A bit-la-na-tim
= *mawi Puran(a)tum), Pettinato’s interpre-
tation cannot be upheld. It is very likely that
Baradu is a personification of the hail (cf.
ARET 5 [1984] no. 4 v 4-5 NA, ba-ra-du,
“hail-stones”, cf. Aram [’bny b]rd in Sefire 1
A 25), a minor deity of the Iocal pantheon
or a specific manifestation of the Storm-God
Adda (Hadad). The Eblaitic texts attest
that Baradu received some sacrificial offer-
ings like precious metals and sheep
(TM.75.G.1376 = MEE 2 no. 48 r. vi 4
[Sba-ra-du ma-ad]; TM.75.G.1541 = ARET
2 no. 8 ix 4; TM.75.G.2075 iv 29 = OrAnt
18 [1979] 149). The same god occurs per-
haps as a theophoric element in the Ugaritic
personal name brdd (*Haddu is Hail'[?)).
I!I. In the OT Bárád occurs in Ps 78:48,
in a passage which concerns the seventh
plague of Egypt, where Barad occurs in
parallel with ‘the Reshephs’ (pl.): wayyasgér
labbarad bé&irdm ímiqnéhem | lárésápim,
“He (= Yahweh) gave up their cattle to
Barad, and their herds to the Reshefs." In
Isa 28:2 Barad is paralleled with a demon in
the service of Yahweh, ->Qeteb ('Destruc-
tion’). We have a very interesting antithesis
between the chill and the stifling heat caused
by the hot wind: hinneh hazaq wé’ammis
la'dónày kézerem bdardd Ssa‘ar qateb,
“Behold, the Lord has a mighty and strong
one, like a tempest of Barad, like a storm of
Qeteb.”
III. Bibliography
A. Caguot, Sur quelques démons de
l'Ancien Testament, Sem 6 (1956) 53-68; P.
XELLA, ‘Le Grand Froid’: Le dieu Baradu
madu à Ebla, UF 18 (1986) 437-444.
P. XELLA
BARAQ > LIGHTNING
BASHAN jd2
I. Hebrew basdn I ‘fertile, stoneless
piece of ground’ (HALAT, 158), should be
distinguished from Heb bafdn II ‘serpent’,
which is etymologically cognate with Ug
btn ‘serpent’ (Akk bašmu, Ar batan, DAY
1985:113-119: see also Heb peten: cf.
HALAT 930). A relation between båšān |
and II was proposed by Albright (BASOR
110 [1948] 17, n. 53; HUCA 23 [1950-1951]
27-28; cf. FENSHAM, JNES 19 [1960] 292-
293; Dauoop 1981:145-146). He inter-
preted Bashan, 'Serpent', as a nickname of
the Canaanite god Yammu, the chaotic
serpentine monster, given its apparent paral-
Ielism with yd in Ps 68:23, usually under-
stood as a merism (KRAUS 1966:465; CaR-
NITI 1985:95; TATE 1990; but cf. De Moor
1990:122). bāšān I occurs: a) As a gcographi-
cal name, with arnicle habbāšān, mainly in
the dtr tradition (Deut 3:1-14; Josh 12:4-5;
and approximately 40 times more) and in
some historical hymns (Pss 135:11; 136:20),
of a region of northern Transjordan con-
quered by the Israelites, formerly inhabited
by the -*Rephaim, whose king was the
mythical Og, and where afterwards a part
of the tribe of Manasseh established itself
(e.g. Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 21:6). This
region also served as a delimiting point of
the Israelite boundaries (e.g. Josh 12:5;
13:11, 30; 2 Kgs 10:33). b) As a literary and
metaphorical reference, without article gen-
crally basan, given its proverbial fertility; in
this connexion some prophetic traditions
refer to its ‘cows’, ‘bulls’, ‘rams’, ‘fatlings’
and ‘lions’ (Amos 4:1; Mic 7:14; Ezek 39:
18; Ps 22:13; Deut 32;14), while others
quote its ‘oaks’, as famous as -*Lebanon’s
cedars (Isa 2:13; Jer 22:20; Ezek 27:6; Zech
11:1-2), and praise in general its fertility,
comparing it with the —Carmel because of
its rich pastures and proposing both of them
as the recovered eschatological resting
place. now destroyed and desolate (Jer
$0:19; Mic 7:14; Isa 33:9; Nah 1:4). The
geographical indication Bashan functions as
the depiction of the divine abode in Ps
68:16 and Deut 33:22, also without article,
related possibly to Canaanite mythology
which places here the heavenly/infernal
dwelling place of its deified dead kings.
echoed in the Biblical geographical tradition
mentioned in básán 1 a) and probably in b).
II. Biblical geographical tradition agrees
with the mythological and cultic data of the
Ugaritic texts. According to KTU 1.108:1-3,
161
BASHAN
the abode of the milk ‘im, the dead and
deified king (DEL OLMo LETE 1987:49-53),
and his place of enthronement as rpu was in
‘Strt-hdr’y, in amazing correspondence with
the Biblical tradition about the seat of king
Og of Bashan, “one of the survivors of the
Rephaim, who lived in Ashtarot and Edrei”
(Josh 12:4 [NEB]). This place ‘Str7 is also
treated in KTU 1.100:41; 1.107:17: and RS
86.2235:17 as the abode of the god milk, the
eponym of the mlkm, the dcificd kings,
synonym of the rpuwm. For the ‘Canaanites’
of Ugarit, the Bashan region, or a part of it,
clearly represented ‘Hell’, the celestial and
infernal abode of their deified dead kings,
—Olympus and ~Hades at the same time. It
is possible that this localization of the
Canaanite Hell is linked to the ancient tradi-
tion of the place as the ancestral home of
their dynasty, the rpum. The Biblical text
also recalls that “all Bashan used to be
called the land/earth of the Rephaim" (Deut
3:13 [NEB]), an ambiguous wording that
could equally be translated as “the ‘hell’ of
the Rephaim". In any case, the link between
Bashan and the rpum/Rephaim in both tradi-
tions speaks in favour of a very old use of
the two meanings of this last denomination:
ancient dwellers of Northern Transjordan /
inhabitants of ‘Hell’.
HI. Precisely this double semantic level
referring to the dwellers also appears in con-
nexion with the place, Bashan, namely, an
empirical and mytho-theological denomina-
tion in the Biblical tradition as well. This
mytho-theological resonance can be appreci-
ated mainly in Ps 68:16 where it is plainly
asserted that Bashan is a har ’éléhim, the
same expression used in the Bible to
designate — Yahweh's abode. But it is clear
that such a denomination docs not belong to
the Israelite tradition about the dwelling
place of their national God. According to
the same Ps 68:9, 19 Yahweh has his orig-
inal abode in Sinai whence He will move to
‘the mount of his election’. Mount Bashan is
rather set against Sinai in a conflict of
Olympi, aiming to defend its preeminence.
This is to say, such a designation reproduces
the Canaanite tradition that located the di-
vine abode in the region of Bashan-Salmon
(Curtis 1986:89-95; 1987, 39-47). Accord-
ing to DE Moor (1990:124-127) it is
Yahweh-El who takes posession of this divi-
ne mountain as his own ancient abode. It is
curious, nevertheless, that in connexion with
this conflict the corresponding Canaanite
deity who opposes Yahweh is not men-
tioned. In his place the malké séba’6r (v 13),
the mélakim (v 15; cf v 30), usually inter-
preted as chiefs of either the enemy's or
Israel's armies, are adduced; namely, the
opponents of Yahweh are precisely, accord-
ing to Ps 68, the same divine dwellers of
Bashan whom the Ugaritic tradition records:
the mikm/mélakim (rpum/Rephaim). The
syntagma har/Rárim gabnunnim, most com-
monly construed as a metaphor for ‘high
mountains’, could also be considered a
parallel designation of these deitics (DEL
Orwo Lere 1988:54-55), taking into
account the parallelism har ’élohim har
basan har gabnunnim har basdan (v. 16) and
the tauromorphic appearance of -*Baal and
other deities in Canaan (ATU 1.12 I 30-33).
In any case we are not dealing here simply
with ordinary animals; the expression has
mythological overtones that Jacosps (JBL
104 [1985] 109-110) also assumes in Amos
4:1; “cows of Bashan” as a title of Samar-
ia's women in their role of ‘Baal’s wives’ in
the cult of the fertility god shaped as a bull.
Furthermore, Bashan, the divine moun-
tain, is simultaneously the 'infernal' sphere
from which the God of Israel promises to
make his faithful return (v 23). This coinci-
dence of the ‘celestial’ and ‘infernal’ levels
is congruent with the Canaanite mythology
that locates here the abode of its deified
dead kings, the mik(myrpu(m) that dwell(s)
in *3tr/hdr'v. Again the parallelism clarifies
the issue, making plain the infernal character
of Bashan through its being cquated with
mésuldt yam, these two lexemes being
designations of Hell in the Hebrew Bible
(TRoMP 1969:56-64), not to be understood
either as a simple literary merism indicating
the cosmic sphere of Yahweh's activity or
as a mythological designation of the god
Yam. Perhaps this is a similar case to that
162
BASHTU
offered by the Mesopotamian town of
Kutha, center of the cult to —Nergal. that
afterwards became a name for ‘hell’ (HUTTER
1985:55-56), as was also the case with the
Hebrew toponym gêl?) hinnóm, 'Gchenna'.
According to this interpretation, midway
between a purely metaphorical sense
(Kraus, TATE, CARNITI) and an overall
mythological reading (ALBRIGHT, FENSHAM,
DaHooD, TROMP, DE Moor), the Hebrew
Bible conflates Canaanite traditions that
located their Heaven-Hell in the region of
Bashan within a wider framework of myth-
ical geography that included at least Mount
-Hermon as —El's abode and the Hule
marsh as the scene of Baal's hunting and
death. The Hebrew Bible integrated these
traditions when giving form to its epics of
the Conquest of Canaan and the exaltation
of its God as vanquisher and liberator from
its ‘demons’.
IV. Bibliography
L. R. BatLey, The Gehenna: the Topo-
graphy of Hell, BA 49 (1986) 187-191; C.
Carnim1, Il salmo 68. Studio letterario
(Rome 1985); J. B. Curtis, Har-bašan, ‘the
Mountain of God' (Ps. 68: 16 [15]), Pro-
ceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and
Midwest Biblical Societies 6 (1986) 85-95;
Curtis, The Celebrated Victory at Zalmon
(Ps 68:14-15). Proceedings of the Eastern
Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies
7 (1987) 39-47; M. DaHoop, Psalms H. 51-
100 (AB 17; Garden City 19813) 130-152;
J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and
the Sea (Cambridge 1985) 113-119; G. DEL
OLMO Lerte, Basán o el ‘infierno’ cananeo,
SEL 5 (1988) 51-60; DeL OLMO LETE, Los
nombres divinos de los reyes de Ugarit,
AulOr 5 (1987) 39-66, esp. 50; B. MARGA-
LIT, The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT.
Text-Translation-Commentary (BZAW 182;
Berlin 1989) 473-475; J. C. ne Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990)
118-128: pe Moor, East of Eden, ZAW 100
(1988) 105-111; bE Moor, Ugarit and Israe-
lite Origins, Congress Volume: Paris 1992
(VTSup 61; ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden 1995)
205-238: M. Dietrich & O. Loretz,
Rápi'u und Milku aus Ugarit. Neuere histo-
risch-geographische Thesen zu rpu mik ‘lm
(KTU 1.108:1) und mt rpi (KTU 1.17 1 1).
UF 21 (1989) 124-130, esp. 123-127; H.-J.
Kraus, Psalmen I. Teilband (BKAT, XV/1;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 19663) 464; M. HUTTER,
Altorientalische Vorstellungen von der
Unterwelt (OBO 63; Fribourg/Göttingen
1985); M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100 (WBC
20; Dallas 1990) 159-186; N. J. TRONP,
Primitive Conceptions of Death and the
Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome
1969); G. WANKE, Die Ziontheologie der
Korachiten (BZAW 97; Berlin 1966).
G. DEL OLMO LETE
BASHTU n3i2
I. Akk baštu (in later texts baltu., Sum
téš) “dignity, pride, decorum” is sometimes
characterized as a protective spirit in Mes-
opotamia. Heb bōšet occurs in personal
names in the OT (2 Sam 2:8 and 4:4) as a
substitute for the theophoric element. The
Akkadian noun derived from the verb
ba'à$u "to come to shame", which is of
common Semitic origin (e.g. Ug bt, Aram
beliet, Heb bos). VON SODEN (1964) tried to
show that baštu had an original meaning
"sexual power" and that it was part of a
more complex concept for "life force",
expressed by four words: lamassu “effi-
ciency power”, Sedu "vital power", baSstu
and diitu “generative power". This interpre-
tation is rejected in the CAD. As a positive
quality baštu is used to describe deities,
humans, cities and buildings (for evidence
see CAD B 142-144 and AHW 112). Some-
times it is associated with garments or
adomments. From Old Babylonian hymns to
— Ishtar we know that the Babylonians
regarded bastu as a divine gift.
Il. In rituals and prayers from first mil-
lennium Mesopotamia, baštu is mentioned
several times in connection with the protec-
tive spirits Shedu and Lamassu (for refer-
ences see CAD B, 142-143 sub | a and 2 a),
and in a late lexical list (MSL 14 [1979]
367:310 and 389:306) it is preceded by the
divine determinative, again between Shedu
and Lamassu. Therefore it is possible that
163
BASTET
like them baštu was regarded as a protective
spirit at least during the first millennium
BCE. In a late god-list (5 R 43: ii 38) dBaltu
is equated with dNabí ili balti "Nabü (as)
god of dignity" and there also is evidence
for a star named ™Baltu (5 R 46: 45).
From Old Akkadian times onwards baštu
occurs in personal names like /li-basti “My-
God-Is-My-Bashtu", /na-in-basti — "In-the-
Eye-of-Bashtu" or Libür-basti "My-Bashtu-
May-Endure" (see CAD B, 143 sub 2 b and
C). Although it is never written with the
divine determinative, it can be interpreted as
a theophoric element. In Mesopotamian
belief there often was no distinction between
a phenomenon and its personification as god
or demon.
III. In. the OT Hebrew béset denotes
"shame": shame because of sins (e.g. 2 Sam
20:30; Jer 2:26; Ezek 7:18), shame because
of violence (e.g. Obad 1:10) or after a defeat
(e.g. Mic 7:10; Ps 89:46). In the two person-
al names Ishbosheth (2 Sam 2:8) and
Mephibosheth (2 Sam 4:4 and 21:8) it is
used instead of a theophoric element. This
does not imply, however, that the reference
is to a Hebraized form of the AKk Bastu
(pace TSEVAT 1975). In these two variant
forms of the names of Saul's son and
grandson bó3et substitutes the original di-
vine name -*Baal (compare 1 Chr 8:33-34).
As it scems, the scribe wanted to avoid the
name of the rival Canaanite deity and
replaced it with an expression with obvious
pejorative connotations, The name Jerub-
besheth (2 Sam 11:21) is another attestation
of this phenomenon (compare Judg 6:32).
IV. Bibliography
E. EBELING, Baštum, RLA 1 (1928) 431; W.
VON SODEN, Die Schutzgottheiten Lamassu
und Schedu in der babylonisch-assyrischen
Literatur, BagM 3 (1964) 148-156; J.
STAMM, Die akkadische Namengebung
(Leipzig 1939) 126 n. 2, 159-160, 311, 355
and passim; M. TseEvaT, Ishbosheth and
Congeners: The Names and Their Study,
HUCA 34 (1975) 71-87.
H. D. GALTER
BASTET
I. The name of the Egyptian goddess
Bastet occurs in the Bible in Ezek 30:17 as
part of the name Pibeseth, (C2272) an
Egyptian town in the Delta near the modern
Zagazig. The place of the ancient town is
called nowadays Tell Basta. The Greek name
was Boubastis and the Hebrew rendering Pi-
beset. The ancient Egyptian name of the town
was pr-b3stt (lit. House of Bastet).
II. The Greek historian Herodotus
(2.138) who travelled in Egypt in the Sth
cent. BCE gives a description of the temple
of the goddess Bastet which he calls
Artemis and writes: "Other temples may be
larger or have cost more to build, but none
is a greater pleasure to look at". From his
description and from Egyptian texts it may
be deduced that the temple was surrounded
on three sides by water which formed a lake
or isheru like the lake which still surrounds
the temple of Mut in Karnak on three sides.
Egyptian temples surrounded on three of
the four sides by a so-called isheru were
devoted to leonine goddesses e.g. Tefnut,
-Hathor, ->Mut, Sakhmet and Bastet who
were called daughter of the Sun-god -*Re or
Eye of Re. These goddesses were considered
to be representations of the original, first
feminine being and to have a dual nature in
which fiery anarchic and destructive charac-
teristics coexisted with pacific and creative
elements. These goddesses had to be
pacified with specific rituals. According to a
mythical story the original furious and fiery
lioness changed into a peaceful cat and
settled down in her temple. The lake around
the temple was meant to cool off her burn-
ing wrath.
In older times since the third millennium
BCE, Bastet was represented as a lion or
lion-headed woman, but in the first mill. BCE
when the cat had been domesticated and had
reached the status of pet animal in Egypt,
she was more and more represented as a cat-
headed woman and became the typical cat-
goddess of Egypt. The many cat-bronzes
and cat-mummies were originally dedicatory
offerings of pilgrims, though now found in
Egyptian collections all over the world.
164
BEELZEBUL —
They may come for a considerable part from
the temple site of Tell Basta.
Herodotus (2.60) describes not only the
temple but also a festival of Bastet in
Bubastis: Men and women came by ship to
the city in great numbers, up to 700.000 per-
sons, singing, dancing and making music
with flutes and castanets. Elaborate
sacrifices were made and more wine was
consumed than during all the rest of the
year. This fits in with Egyptian sources
according to which leonine goddesses had to
be pacified with “the feast of drunkenness”.
Bastet was certainly a very popular and
beloved goddess. One could characterize an
Egyptian goddess by saying that she was
raging like Sakhmet (the lion-goddess) and
friendly like Bastet (the cat-goddess).
The writing and pronunciation of the
name of the goddess as Bastet is a generally
accepted convention in Egyptological litera-
ture, but is no more than a modern recon-
struction. The second ¢ in the word bistt
denotes the feminine ending and was usually
not pronounced. It seems that the aleph (3)
which is found in traditional Egyptian writ-
ing changed place and became a Vortonsilbe
bast(t) >ubesti (J. OsiNG, Die Nominal-
bildung des Ágyptischen [Mainz 1976] 855-
856 n. 1319 and 376 n. 55). An Aramaic
writing of the name of the goddess was ;bst
(Wb 1, 423). The Egyptian pronunciation of
the name of the goddess was more like
‘obast’ or ‘ubesti’ than ‘bastet’ in the Ist
millennium BCE. It remains remarkable,
however, that in the Hebrew rendering of
the place-name the ‘Vortonsilbe’ is not indi-
cated: Pibeset. The difference in the Hebrew
version with the Greek rendering Boubastis
might be the work of the Masoretes, so that
the pronunciation of the place-name might
have been ‘Bubast’ or 'Bubeset'. The mean-
ing of the name of the goddess is uncertain.
The older, problematic explanation was
"She of Bubastis" (Wb I, 423); a more
recent explanation is "She of the ointment-
jar” (S. QUIRKE, Ancient Egyptian Religion
[London 1992] 31). Her name was indeed
written with the hieroglyph ointment-jar
(b3s) and she was among other things god-
BEHEMOTH
dess of protective ointments. Bubastis or
Pibeset was still one of the most important
cities of Egypt in the time of Ezekiel. It had
even been capital of Egypt during dynasties
22 and 23 (945-730 BCE).
III. The mentioning of the placename pi-
beset in Ezek 30:17 has no religio-historical
implications. A deity Bastet was not vener-
ated by Ezekiel’s Israelite contemporaries.
IV. Bibliography
E. Orro, Bastet, LdÁ 1, 628-630; J. QUAE-
GEBEUR, Le culte de Boubastis - Bastet en
Egypte gréco-romaine, Les divins chats
d'Egypte (ed. L. Delvaux & E. Warmenbol;
Leuven 1991) 117-127.
H. TE VELDE
BEELZEBUL -* BAAL-ZEBUB
BEHEMOTH NND
I. Despite frequent claims that Behe-
moth refers to one or another animal of the
natural world, the Behemoth depicted in Job
40:15-24 (10-19) is best understood as a
mythological creature possessing supernatu-
ral characteristics. By form béhemót is the
intensive (feminine) plural of béhémá
(‘beast, ox’; collective: ‘beasts, cattle’; see
BoTTERWECK 1975:6-17); nevertheless, in
Job 40:15-24 the grammatical forms pertain-
ing to Behemoth are all masculine singular.
The figure suggested is a singular being of
awesome dimensions, a ‘super ox’ of mythic
proportions and possessing supernatural
characteristics, hence the ‘Beast’ par excel-
lence. Whether Behemoth is attested in the
Bible outside of Job 40:15-24 is disputed
since the Hebrew vocable béhémót by form
is ambiguous; in most instances it is the
simple feminine plural of běhēmâ, i.e.
‘cattle’ or 'beasts.' Other biblical passages
which may refer to Behemoth are Deut 32:
24; Isa 30:6; Job 12:7; Ps 73:22.
II. Although ancient Near Eastern pre-
cedents for biblical Behemoth have been
suggested, there are no certain extrabiblical
references to this figure apart from later
Jewish and Christian literature and these are
clearly derivative from the biblical tradition.
165
BEHEMOTH
The only biblical reference to Behemoth
is Job 40:15 (10), with its attendant descrip-
tion in vv 15-24 (10-19). But even in this
case there is no consensus about the nature
or even the existence of this being. Behe-
moth is clearly no ordinary beast: an awe-
some ox-like being that eats grass but is
equally at home in the water as on land,
with bones of metal and a tail (or penis?)
comparable to a mighty cedar tree. This
‘first of the works of God’ fears neither
human nor beast; only the deity is capable
of capturing him. Behemoth is paired with
the mythic fire-breathing monster —>Levia-
than, whose description immediately follows
in Job 40:25-41:26(41:1-34). Both Behe-
moth and Leviathan function in the second
speech of -*Yahweh in Job 40-41 to demon-
strate the futility of Job in questioning the
ways of the Almighty.
The interpretation. of Behemoth is so
highly controverted that any discussion of
Behemoth must include a history of that
interpretation. From numerous references to
Behemoth in postbiblical Jewish and Chris-
tian literature it is clear that the earliest
understanding of Behemoth was as some
sort of unruly mythic creature akin to
Leviathan, which in the end only God can
subdue. Here only pseudepigraphic texts
will be mentioned. (For the further develop-
ment of the Behemoth tradition in posttan-
naitic midrashim, see GINZBERG V [1925,
1953] 41-46, esp. nn. 118, 127.) According
to 4 Enoch 60:7-9 Leviathan is a female
monster dwelling in the watery Abyss (com-
pare Mesopotamian -*Tiamat), while Behe-
moth is a male monster dwelling in a hidden
desert of Dundayin, east of Eden. 4 Esdr
6:49-52 says that Leviathan and Behemoth
were both created on the fifth day but then
separated, with Leviathan being given a
watery domain and Behemoth a home on
land, until such time as God uses them as
food for those designated. 2 Bar. 29:4 adds
the detail that it will be in the messianic age
that Leviathan and Behemoth come forth
from their respective places to serve as food
for the pious remnant. It is obvious that this
motif is in part derived from the account of
the end of -Gog of -Magog (Ezek 39:17-
20). Although Behemoth is not mentioned in
the NT, Rev 13 patently is informed by the
Leviathan-Behemoth tradition. In this peri-
cope two kindred beasts rise up in united
opposition to the righteous, the one beast
‘from the ->sea’ (13:1) and ‘another beast
which rose out of the -earth" (13:11).
In modern times some commentators
have attempted to reinforce the mythological
character of Behemoth, while others have
attributed to Behemoth a more naturalistic
origin. Broadly speaking, modern interpreta-
tions may be grouped into three categories:
(a) Behemoth is an animal of the natural
world; (b) there was no Behemoth; (c)
Behemoth is a distinct mythic being.
(a) Behemoth as a natural animal: Since
the seventeenth century the theory has been
advanced frequently that Behemoth repre-
sents the hippopotamus. This theory, first
proposed by S. BocHART (Hierozoicon 2
[1663] cols. 753-69) remains popular with
scholars. Proponents even proposed an ety-
mology for Behemoth as an Egyptian loan-
word: *p^-ih-hw, 'the ox of the water’. Al-
though it is now conceded that no such term
existed in Egyptian or Coptic. the identi-
fication of Behemoth with the hippopotamus
has persisted, though now often with a
mythic overlay. KEEL (1978) adduces
Egyptian iconographic evidence which por-
trays the Egyptian king as the incarnation of
the god -*Horus in the act of subjugating his
divine foe -*Seth, the latter depicted in the
form of the red hippopotamus. Strengths of
this theory are the amphibious nature of
both the hippopotamus and Behemoth, and
the analogous methods of capture in each
case (Job 40:24) RurnREcuT (1971) and
KuniNA (1979) also build upon this theory.
Occasionally an identification of Behe-
moth with an animal other than the hippopo-
tamus has been proposed. Bochart himself
had rejected an identification of Behemoth
as the elephant. G. R. Driver (1956)
claims that Behemoth is the crocodile (an
opinion reflected in the NEB translation of
Job 40). DRivER's theory necessitates the
creation of a hapax legomenon in Hebrew
166
BEHEMOTH
-ga
by emending MT ’äšer ‘āśîtî 'immák to
“imśāk, by analogy to supposed cognates in
other Semitic languages, Egyptian, Coptic,
and Greek: Driver further emends ‘he eats
grass like cattle’ to ‘he eats cattle like
grass’. CouRoYER (1975) proposed that
Behemoth was the water buffalo.
(b) There was no Behemoth: A second
group of scholars argue that there was no
such being as Behemoth, though their lines
of argument diverge radically. N. H. HABEL
(The Book of Job [OTL; Philadelphia 1985]
559) concludes that Behemoth is a creation
of the Joban poct, a symbol to Job that he
may constitute a threat to -God similar to
chaotic forces which God created at the
beginning and which need to be kept subju-
gated. WoLFers (1990) also understands
Behemoth as only a symbol, but of the
errant people of Judah reaching out to
Assyria in the cighth century sce. N. H.
Tur-Sinal (The Book of Job [rev. cd.,
Jerusalem 1967] 556-559) dismissed the
entire notion of Behemoth as nothing more
than a misreading of Job. He claims that the
whole of Job 40:15-41:26 is a description of
Leviathan, with certain verses perhaps out of
order. He treats béhemót in 40:15 as a
simple plural, as elsewhere in MT, and
translates: “Behold, here are the beasts
which I made with thee [Leviathan], (all)
that eateth grass as cattle". TUR-SINAI as-
sumes this to be a literary quotation from an
ancient creation story and addressed to
Leviathan as ‘the first of God’s ways’. The
implication is that all the animals, herbi-
vores, are food for Leviathan who thought
to displace God and to rule in God’s place.
KINNIER WILSON (1975) argues that the
Behemoth pericope is a parody on what
would happen if God were to follow Job's
advice on how to run the cosmos: "(So)
behold now ‘Behemoth’ which 1 have made
with thy help". Behemoth is an invented
name for the resulting incongruent, ridicu-
lous ‘ox-like’ creature, so afraid of being
ridiculed by the other creatures that it hides
in the undergrowth around the -*Jordan. The
same point is made with Leviathan; just as
Job cannot presume to play the creator, so
neither can he act the part of the Hero-god
who subdues the fire-breathing monster
Leviathan. The one idea is as ridiculous as
the other.
Another group of scholars understand the
whole of the Behemoth-Leviathan pericope
as referring to a single being. Building upon
the Seth-hippopotamus theory of KEEL
(1978), Ruprecut (1971) claims that the
Joban poet has built a threefold meaning
into to figure of Behemoth-Leviathan: the
naturalistic (hippopotamus); the mythic (pri-
meval evil in the form of the god Seth, the
enemy of the creator); and the historical
(political enemies, historical powers). The
poet uses the hippopotamus, termed first
Behemoth and then Leviathan, as his basic
symbol for historical forces whom Yahweh
controls and subdues, as elsewhere in the
Bible. FucHs (1993) posits that Job 40:15-
41 contains a bipartite description of the
well-known -chaos monster, named first as
Behemoth and then as Leviathan. Part One
of this description (Job 40:15-32) depicts a
powerful, hippopotamus-like, gigantic beast
with a passive, almost domestic character
akin to Mother Earth. The hippopotamus in
Egyptian tradition is symbolic of both the
mother goddess and the chaos beast and cor-
responds to the two poles of the mother
earth concept: the protective and the devour-
ing. Part Two (41:5-26), in a heightening of
imagery, is a deliberate distancing from any
known animal in favour of the -'dragon-
like, fire-belching chaos monster.
(c) Behemoth as a distinct mythic figure:
Given the obvious pairing of Behemoth with
Leviathan in the second speech of Yahweh,
a number of modern scholars see in Behe-
moth an independent mythic beast along the
lines of Leviathan, but distinct from the
latter—much like in early Jewish and Chris-
tian interpretations. At the end of the ninc-
teenth century the mythological interpreta-
tion received renewed impetus from the
studies of GUNKEL (1895) and others, who
demonstrated points in common between
biblical figures and ancient Near Eastern
mythology. Perhaps most influential of all
with regard to Behemoth specifically have
167
BEHEMOTH
been the studies of Pope, especially his AB
commentary on Job (1973:320-322). On the
basis’ of Ugaritic comparative evidence,
Pore posited the existence of a prototype of
Behemoth, as a companion to ltn (Lotan =
Leviathan) already in Canaanite mythology.
He called attention in the Ugaritic Baal
myth to the obscure bovine creature called
“gl il ‘tk, which he translated as ‘the furious
bullock of El’ but which more likely should
be translated as 'El's calf Atik'. Further,
Pore compared Behemoth to ‘the bull of
heaven’ slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu in
Mesopotamian myth (ANET 83-85). WAKE-
MAN (1972), too, posited a connection be-
tween Behemoth and ‘El’s calf Atik’, also
known as Arshu (ar§). She seems to exceed
the meagre biblical and Canaanite evidence,
however, in positing that this second chaos
monster was specifically an earth monster
(Ugaritic ars; Hebrew ’eres), which she
claims is named in texts such as Exod
15:12; Num 16:32; Ps 46:7; 114:7. J. Day
(1985:80-84) seems to be more on target. As
in Job 40-41 where the ox-like Behemoth is
paired with the sea-dragon Leviathan, so at
Ugarit El’s calf Atik/Arshu is paired with
seven-headed sea-dragon, both of whom
—Anat claims to have defeated: "Surely I
lifted up the dragon, I...(and) smote the
crooked serpent, the tyrant with the seven
heads. I smote Ar{shu] beloved of El, I put
an end to El's calf Atik" (KTU 1.3 iii:43-
44). Nevertheless, at Ugarit both of these
creatures seem to be more at home in the
sea than on land: "In the sea are Arshu and
the dragon, May Kothar-and-Hasis drive
(them) away, May Kothar-and-Hasis cut
(them) off" (KTU 1.6 vi:51-53). This differ-
ence should not be overemphasized, how-
ever, since the basic character of Ugaritic
Arshu seems to be bovine and Behemoth
seems as much at home in the water (Job
40:21-23) as on land (Job 40:15.20). Given
both such Ugaritic precedents and the
weight of the mythological interpretations of
Behemoth in early postbiblical Jewish and
Christian traditions, it seems impossible to
avoid the conclusion that Behemoth of Job
40 is a distinct mythic being possessing
supernatural characteristics. Behemoth’s char-
acter and function, however, remain obscure.
Whether Behemoth is attested elsewhere
in the Bible is unclear. The two best candi-
dates are Isa 30:6, “oracle against the Behe-
moth/Beast of the Negeb" (i.e. against Judah
courting Egypt); and Ps 73:22, "I have been
a Behemoth/Beast with you” (i.e. a depre-
cating self-characterization; see WOLFERS
1990:478-479). Other, less convincing pro-
posals include Deut 32:34 (R. Gorpis, The
Asseverative Kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew,
JAOS 63 [1943] 176-78: among the punish-
ments threatened by God is ‘the teeth of
Behemoth’ as parallel with -*Resheph and
other alleged demons); and Job 12:7 (so W.
L. MICHEL, Job in the Light of Northwest
Semitic, [BibOr 42; Rome 1987] 279-280).
IV. Bibliography
G. J. BOTTERWECK, ARID behêmåh;, ria
b*hémóth, TDOT 2 (1975) 6-20; B. Cov-
ROYER, Qui est Béhémoth?, RB 82 (1975)
418-443; J. Dav, God's Conflict with the
Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite
Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge
1985) 62-87; G. R. Driver, Mythical Mon-
sters in the Old Testament, Studi Oriental-
istici in onore de Giorgio Levi della Vida,
vol | (Rome 1956) 234-249; G. Fucus,
Mythos und Hiobdichtung: Aufnahme und
Umdeutung | altorientalischer Vorstellungen
(Stuttgart 1993) 225-264: L. GiNZBERG, The
Legends of the Jews | (Philadelphia 1909,
1937) 27-30; V (1925, 1953) 41-49, esp. nn.
118, 119, 127, 141; H. GUNKEL, Schöpfung
und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen
1895) 48-67; J. GuTTMANN, Leviathan,
Behemoth, and Ziz: Jewish Messianic Sym-
bols in Art, HUCA 39 (1968) 219-230; O.
KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung an ljob: Eine
Deutung von Ijob 38-41 vor dem Hinter-
grund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst
(FRLANT 121; Göttingen 1978); J. V. KıN-
NIER WILSON, A Return to the Problems of
Behemoth and Leviathan, VT 25 (1975) 1-
14; V. KuniNa, Die Gottesreden im Buche
Hiob (Freiburg 1979) 68-75; M. Pope, Job
(AB 15; 3rd ed.; Garden City 1973) 320-
329; E. RUPRECHT, Das Nilpferd im Hiob-
buch: Beobachtungen zu der sogenannten
168
BEL — BELIAL
zweiten Gottesrede, V7 21 (1971) 209-231;
M. K. WAKEMAN, God’s Battle with the
Monster (Leiden 1972) 106-117; D. Worr-
ERS, The Lord's Second Speech in the Book
of Job, VT 40 (1990) 474-499.
B. F. BATTO
BEL - MARDUK
BELIAL 5523 ‘wickedness’
I. In the manner of other ancient
peoples, the Hebrews regularly personified
physical forces and abstract concepts: some-
times describing them mythically as divin-
ities. This holds for some OT depictions of
21772. In 2 Sam 22:5 nahálé béliyya'al *tor-
rents of Belial' in the sense of 'treacherous
waters’, are parallel to misbéré mawet
‘Breakers of Death’: i.e., ‘deadly waves’.
The personification of death (with môt cf.
Ugaritic -»Mot, god of death) indicates here
a similar personification of wickedness,
treachery, or the like, as Belial. In the
Psalms recension of the same text (Ps 18:5),
heblé máwet 'bonds of Death’, stands in
parallelism with nahdalé béliyya‘al ‘torrents
of Belial’. These same torrents are referred
to later in the poem (2 Sam 22:17 = Ps
18:17) as ‘mighty waters’ (nayyim rabbim):
a term with mythic associations (MAY
1955). The Hebrew tradition of personi-
fication is widened in the Vulgate, which
transliterates, rather than translates, Belial in
eight Hebrew passages (Deut 13:13; Judg
19:22; 1 Sam 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 2
Sam 16:7; Nah 1:15 (2:1). In 1 Kgs 21:13
Vulgate reads diabolus (GASTER 1962:377).
Il. In. most of its OT attestations,
béliyya‘al functions as an emotive term to
describe individuals or groups who commit
the most heinous crimes against the Israclite
religious or social order, as well as their acts
(Maag 1965; ROSENBERG 1982:35-40).
Such crimes include: inciting one’s fellows
to worship foreign gods (Deut 13:14); per-
jury (1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Prov 19:28); breach
of hospitality (Judg 19:22; 1 Sam 25:17);
lese-majesty (1 Sam 10:27); usurpation (2
Sam 16:7-8; 20:1); abuse of -*Yahweh's
sanctuary by female drunkenness (1 Sam
1:13-17); and the cultic misappropriation
and sexual harassment of women by priests
(1 Sam 2:12-22). Refusal to lend money on
the eve of the Sabbatical year (Deut 15:9)
falls into the category of heinous deeds
because it indicates lack of faith in the di-
vine ability to provide.
Grammatically, the term reveals some
though not all features of personification.
On the one hand, in its twenty-seven occur-
rences, (none in the tetrateuch) béliyya‘al,
like the proper names of individuals, is
never attested in the plural. On the other
hand, unlike true proper names of persons,
the vocable takes the definite article in the
construct chains 7i§ habbéliyya‘al ‘scoun-
drel, worthless individual’, (1 Sam 25:25; 2
Sam 16:7) and its plural 'an3é habbéliyya‘al
'scoundrels' (1 Kgs 21:13).
Recent studies on Belial (HALAT 128;
LEwis 1992:654-656) show that there is no
unanimity with regard to its etymology. The
rabbis of late antiquity explained béné
béliyya'al punningly as béné béli ‘él ‘child-
ren without the yoke’; that is: those who had
thrown off the yoke of heaven (b. Sanh.
111b). The medieval Jewish poet and phil-
osopher Judah Halevi explained the term
etymologically as a compound of the nega-
tion bélf and the third-person imperfect jus-
sive of *LH 'ascend'; and semantically as a
wish or prayer that malevolence should not
prosper (WEISER 1976:258). Modern scholar-
ship has added several other suggestions.
One suggestion is a modification of Halevi's
thesis: i.e. the wicked are those who do not
ascend from the underworld (Cross &
FREEDMAN 1953:22) This explanation is
effectively refuted by EMERTON (1987: 214-
217) who cautions that in OT conceptions
even the righteous do not ascend from the
underworld. (Ps 30:4 does not refer to actual
death, but to recovery from illness. The
same holds for Ps 107:18, cf. v 21). Another
interpretation connects the term with the
verb BL‘ ‘swallow’, followed by afformative
lamed (MANDELKERN 1896:202). Although
this. suggestion has the merit of calling
attention to the fact that the wicked are
169
BELIAL
sometimes depicted as 'swallowers' of the
righteous (Isa 49:19; Hab 1:13; Prov 1:12;
Lam 2:16; Cf. Ps 124:3), it must be recalled
that God is likewise depicted as a ‘swal-
lower’ (Ps 55:10; Job 2:3).
It has also been claimed that the term
actually consists of two homonyms with dif-
ferent etymologies: běliyyaʻal I ‘under-
world’, composed (as above) of bl and ‘lh,
that is, the place from which none ascend;
béliyya‘al I] ‘wickedness’: composed of the
negation followed by a cognate of Arabic
wa‘ala ‘honour’, ‘lineage’ (TuR-SINAI 1954:
134.) This ingenious solution does not carry
conviction because there is no need to iso-
late ‘death’ semantically from ‘malevo-
lence’. Note the pairing of hammawet and
hàrá', death and evil, in Deut 30:15. Also,
the fact that none of the Arabic speaking
medieval Jewish commentators such as
Qimhi, ibn Ezra or Saadia suggested a con-
nection with wa‘ala (which is not the com-
mon Arabic word for ‘honour’) counsels
caution. Alternatively the word has been
linked with Arabic balaga ‘denounce’,
followed by afformative lamed (DRIVER
1934:52-53). This last suggestion is most
unlikely (LEwis 1992:655).
The most likely explanation of the term
derives it from the negation bé/f followed by
a noun *ya'al, related to thc root v'1 ‘to be
worthy, to be of value’ (see e.g. PEDERSEN
1926:413; GASTER 1973). It will be recalled
that Biblical Hebrew and Ugantic provide
structural parallels in words in which the
first element is a negation and the second a
noun. Note for example, Ugaritic blmt
‘immortality’, literally, ‘without death’, or
bilimá ‘nothingness’ (GasTER 1973; cf.
analogously, ’al-mdwet ‘deathlessness’. [Prov
12:28]). The objection sometimes raised
(Tur-SINAt 1954; ROSENBERG 198:235) that
‘useless, worthless’, is not a strong enough
term to characterize béné béliyya‘al is con-
tradicted by internal biblical evidence. Thus
bal-vófilü, *they are ineffectual’, is applied
to idols (Isa 44:9; cf. lébilti hó'il in 44:10
ibid). In addition, forms of the verb v*L prc-
ceded by the negation /6’ synonymous with
bal, are used regularly to characterize
foreign gods (1 Sam 12:21; Isa 44:9; Jer
2:8.11; 16:19) as well as idol manufacturers
(Isa 44:10. cf. Hab 2:18) and false prophets
(Jer 23:32) The same construction is
applied to -*'lies' (Jer 7:8); and to ineffec-
tual military allies (Isa 30:5-6). Thus béné
béliyya‘al are ‘worthless men’ and a bat
béliyya‘al (1 Sam 1:16) is a ‘worthless
woman’. These worthless characters are
apparently not different from béné-‘awld
‘the wicked’ (2 Sam 7:10; 3:34; 1 Chr 17:9).
In fact, the Peshitta often translates béliyya-
‘al by ‘wi? ‘wickedness’ (Judg 19:22; 20:13;
| Sam 30:22; 2 Sam 16:7; 22:5; 23:6; Pss
18:5; 30:22: 41:9; 101:3).
Further confirmation of this philological
analysis may be adduced from Palestinian
Jewish Aramaic in which worthy individuals
are termed bawy dhnyyh, that is ‘beneficient
ones’, ‘useful people’, while their opposite
numbers are NIVIITD PP, an Aramaic loan-
word from Greek xaxonpáyuoveg ‘evil
doers’ (LIEBERMANN & ROSENTHAL 1983:
xxxiv).
III. In pseudepigraphic literature, Belial
is especially well-attested (LEwis 1992:655)
as the proper name of the -*Devil, the
powerful opponent of God, who accuses
people and causes them to sin. This dualism
is rooted in Zoroastrianism, the religion of
the succesive Iranian empires within whose
borders vast numbers of Jews lived for a
millennium, in which Drug ‘falsehood’,
‘wickedness’, (personified already in the
inscriptions of Darius the Great [522-486
BCE]) is opposed to Asa ‘righteousness’,
‘justice’, likewise personified, one of the
bounteous immortals (GAsTER 1973:429;
Boyce 1982:120). The regular form in the
Pseudepigrapha, Beliar, and once, (Testa-
ment of Levi 18:4) Belior, may be a punning
explanation of the Devil's name as ‘light-
ness’ (béli ?ór) because, in opposition to
God's way, Belial's is the way of darkness
(T. Levi 19:1). It may be observed that,
according the Zoroastrian creation account,
the Bundahishn, Ohrmezd (Ahura Mazda)
dwells in endless light (asar rošnīh) while
Ahreman (Angra Mainyu) dwells in endless
darkness (asar tdrigih).
170
BELTU
Belial is very well attested in Hebrew
texts from Qumran: especially in the War
Scroll (1QM) and the Thankgiving Scroll
(IQH). They describe an ongoing struggle
between good and evil. On the human plane,
the Teacher of Righteousness represents the
forces of -light and the good; while his
opponent, the wicked priest, represents the
forces of darkness and evil. This same
struggle is depicted mythically as a battle on
high between the angel -*Michacl and Belial
(SCHIFFMAN 1989:50). The present age is
the time of Belial's rule (mmmslt bly'l). He is
the leader of ‘people of the lot of Belial’
*nSy gwrl bly‘l) who are opposed to ’nšy
gwrl ?! *the people of the lot of God’ (1QS
1:16-2:8). In this literature too, Belial leads
the forces of darkness and malevolence
(Lewis 1992:655). According to one Qum-
ran text (CD 4:12-15), the coming of Belial
would not be permanent. After a momentous
struggle, God would eventually bring about
the permanent annihilation (Al: “wlmym) of
Belial and all of the forces of evil, both
human and angelic (IQM 1:4-5, 13-16).
The association of Belial with darkness is
found in Belial’s single attestation in the
New Testament (2 Cor 6:14-15): “What
partnership can righteousness have with
wickedness? Can light associate with dark-
ness? What harmony (symphonésis) has
—Christ with Beliar or a believer with an
unbeliever?"
In Sybilline Oracles 3:63-64, a text
roughly comtemporary with 2 Corinthians, it
is prophesied that Beliar will come ek
Sebasténón. Inasmuch as Latin ‘Augustus’
was rendered in Greek by 'Sebastos', the
verse has been construed as reference to the
diabolical character of Nero, descendent of
Augustus (CoLLINS 1983:360, 363).
IV. Bibliography
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism 1-2
(Leiden 1975, 1982); J. J. CoLiins in J. H.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigraphy | (Garden City 1983); F.
M. Cross & D. N. FREEDMAN, A Royal
Psalm of Thanksgiving: If Samuel 22 =
Psalm 18, JBL 72 (1953) 15-34; G. R.
Driver, Hebrew Notes, ZAW 52 (1934) 51-
66; J. A. EMERTON, Sheol and the Sons of
Belial, EncJud 4 (Jerusalem 1973) 428-429;
H. KosMatLa, The Three Nets of Belial,
ASTI 4 (1965) 91-113; T. Lewis, Belial,
ABD | (1992) 654-656; S. LIEBERMAN & E.
S. ROSENTHAL, Yerushalmi Nezigin (Jerusa-
lem 1983); V. Maac, Belija‘al im Alten
Testament, 7Z 21 (1965) 287-299; S.
MANDELKERN, Hekal Haqqodesh (Leipzig
1896); H. May, Some Cosmic Connotations
of Mayim Rabbim, ‘Many Waters’, JBL 74
(1955) 9-21; J. PEDERSEN, /srael, its Life
and Culture (London 1926); R. ROSEN-
BERG, The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial’, Pro-
ceedings of the Eight World Congress of
Jewish Studies | (Jerusalem 1982) 35-40; L.
SCHIFFMAN, The Eschatological Community
of Qumran (Atlanta 1989); N. H. Tur-
Sina, 97752, EncMiqr 2 (Jerusalem 1954)
132-133; A. WEISER, /bn Ezra Perushe
Hattorah le-Rabbenu Avraham ibn Ezra 3
(Jerusalem 1976).
S. D. SPERLING
BELTU *772
I. The name of the Babylonian goddess
Beltu (var. Belit, Belti) is the feminine form
of Bel (‘Lord’), and means ‘Lady’. She is
identified either with -Ishtar or Sarpanitu.
Her mention in the Hebrew Bible is conjec-
tural; P. DE LAGARDE (Symmicta [Góttingen
1877] 105) was the first to emendate bilri in
Isa 10:4 into bélti, *my Lady’. The proposal
cannot be seen in isolation from the
emendation, in the same verse, of "assír
(‘prisoner’) into ?osír (Osiris).
Hi. Since the name Beltu is not really a
name but an epithet (‘Lady’), the identi-
fication with a specific deity is beset with
problems. Used in genetival constructions
such as Belet-Akkadi or Belet-ekallim, the
term “Lady” is an element in the name (or
epithet) of numerous Babylonian and Assyr-
ian (then Bela) goddesses (CAD B 189-
190). The goddess to have been designated
most frequently by this epithet, both in
Sumerian (nin, Emesal gašan) and Akkad-
ian (bēltu), is no doubt Ishtar (WILCKE 1976-
80; cf. AkkGE 333-334). Many formerly in-
171
BELTU
dependent goddesses, such as Bélet-ili and
Bélet-mati, were later increasingly identified
with Ishtar as well (WILCKE 1976-80:77a).
Since ‘Bel’ came to acquire the status of
a second name of -*Marduk, it could bc
argued that the absolute use of Beltu should
be taken to refer to Marduk’s consort, i.e.
Sarpanitu (‘the silver-shining one’). In
various texts, indeed, since the time of the
Sargonids and notably in some younger
New Year rituals, Sarpanitu is referred to
simply as Bélti, ‘My Lady’ (ZIMMERN
1926). Yet though Sarpanitu is at times
referred to as Beltu (or as Bélet-Babili,
‘Lady of Babylon’, AKAGE 452), the identi-
fication is not universally valid. If Beltu
were indeed mentioned in the Hebrew Bible,
the current Western Mesopotamian associa-
tion with Ishtar would be more natural. In
Palmyra, the goddess Belti seems indeed to
have been associated primarily with -Tam-
muz; in later times too, then, she was identi-
fied with Ishtar—presumably also when
associated with Bel (HOFTIZZER 1968:46 n.
134; J. TEIXIDOR, The Pantheon of Palmyra
[EPRO 79; Leiden 1979) 88).
The West-Semitic form of Beltu is
>Baalat (blt), grammatically the feminine
counterpart of -*Baal. At Palmyra, she was
worshipped under the name Baaltak (b‘Itk,
“Your Ladyship’) and identified as ’S1r’, ‘the
goddess’, literally ‘the Ishtar’. She is indeed
the equivalent of the Mesopotamian Ishtar,
the female deity of heaven (TEIXIDOR, The
Pantheon of Palmyra, 60-61). At Emar, the
population knew a goddess dNIN-KUR(-RA),
pronounced Ba‘alta-matim (AEM 1/1 no.
256:16), an Amorite deity regarded as the
consort of Dagan (J.-M. DURAND, La cité-
état d'Imár à l'époque des rois de Mari,
MARI 6 [1990] 39-92, esp. 89-90). It should
be noted, moreover, especially in view of
the—conjectural—conjunction of Belti and
Osiris in Isa 10:4, that Baalat as well as
Baalat-Gebal, ‘Lady-of-Byblos’, were both
identified with the Egyptian goddess
-*Hathor (PuEcH 1986-87; J. G. GRIFFITHS,
Apuleius of Madauros. The Isis-Book
[EPRO 39; Leiden 1975] 38).
III. According to the emendation by DE
LAGARDE (Symmicta [Gottingen 1877] 105),
accepted by way of a proposal in the appar-
atus criticus of the BHS, Isa 10:4 should be
rendered “Belti is writhing, Osiris is in
panic" (Belti kóra'at hat "Ósir. DE LAGARDE
translated “Belthis is sinking, Osiris has
been broken”). Though none of the versions
supports the emendation, it is not impossible
orthographically. Yet it does not fit the con-
text (see K. BUDDE, Zu Jesaja 1-5, ZAW 50
[1932] 38-72, esp. 69-70). Assuming that v
4 takes up the rhetorical question of v 3
("To whom will you flee for help, and
where will you leave your wealth?"), Belti
and Osiris either arc or stand for the powers
from which help is expected. Since the pair-
ing of these deities is unusual, also if Belti
should stand for Hathor, a literal interpreta-
tion of the emendated verse is not very pos-
sible. To say that the hypothetical Belti
stands here for —Isis is at odds with the
identifications current at the time (pace e.g.
K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja [Tübingen
1900] 100; B. DuHM, Das Buch Jesaja
[Góttingen 1968, 5th ed.] 97). Nor is there a
trace of the cult of these deities elsewhere in
the Hebrew Bible. A symbolical interpreta-
tion cannot be ruled out, however: Belti
could stand for Assyria, and Osiris for
Egypt. Yet this interpretation also, though
possible, is unlikely: the customary symbols
for Assyria and Egypt would be -*Assur and
—Rahab, respectively. The reading of the
MT as it stands makes better sense: “(they
have no option) but to crouch among the
prisoners of war, or fall among the slain”.
The parallel use of tahat is a serious argu-
ment not to separate the first i351 into ri en
ri. DE LAGARDE's proposal, then, is on the
whole more ingenious than convincing (for
a fuller discussion see H. WILDBERGER,
Jesaja, Vol. 1 [BKAT _X/1; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1972] 179-180).
IV. Bibliography
J. HorruzER, Religio aramaica (Leiden
1968) 46-47; E. PuECH, The Canaanite
Inscriptions of Lachish and their Religious
Background, Te/ Aviv 13-14 (1986-87) 13-
25; C. WILCKE, Inanna/Istar, RLA 5 (1976-
80) 74-87; H. ZIMMERN, Beli (Béltija,
172
BES — BETHEL
Béletja), eine, zunächst sprachliche, Studie
zur Vorgeschichte des — Madonnakults,
Oriental Studies dedicated to Paul Haupt
(ed. C. Adler & A. Embler; Baltimore/Leip-
zig 1926) 281-292.
K. VAN DER TOORN
BES
I. The name of the Egyptian god or
demon Bes (Copt BHC; Gk Bnoas) occurs
in the personal name bésáy in Ezra 2:49, cf.
Neh 7:52. In Egypt this divine name was
also often used as a personal name.
Il. The god or demon Bes was
represented as a bandy legged deformed
dwarf or more precisely as a lion-man
(RoMANO 1980). His ugly human face, his
animal hair or manes. ears and tail are in-
deed more likely those of a lion than of a
human dwarf. He dances, plays musical in-
struments such as harp, flute and tambour-
ine, or brandishes knife and sword to avert
evil and to protect the pregnant and birth-
giving mother. He sometimes shows an
enormous phallus and may make dirty jokes
(MALAISE 1990). Often a plurality of Bes-
gods is represented, figuring in an erotic
context. These erotic representations were
supposed to bring about pregnancy and
childbirth. L'amour pour l'amour, as well as
l'at pour l'art, was largely unknown or
unacceptable as a cultural expression in an
ancient culture such as Egypt, although
contraceptives were not unknown or for-
bidden (DERCHAIN 1981).
Several explanations of the name Bes
have been given (MALAISE 1990:691-692).
His name has been connected with verbs
Meaning “to initiate", "to emerge" and "to
protect". Very recently, arguments have
been brought forward that a Bes means a
prematurely born child or foctus, which was
enveloped in a lion's skin and kept in a
basket of reeds or rushes (MEEKS 1992;
BULTE 1991:102.108-109). So it seems
possible that the dancing, jesting and some-
times aggressive gnome or lion-man Bes
was a personification of a prematurely born
child or foetus, who protects mother and
child. It may be that the personal name Bes
was considered to be a fitting name for pre-
maturely born children.
IH. Except for the PN bésay, Bes is not
attested in the OT. In epigraphical Hebrew,
Bes occurs twice as a theophoric element in
a PN: q[.]b$ (Samaria Ostracon 1:5; Prob-
ably Egyptian 'Bes created', A. LEMAIRE,
Inscriptions Hébraiques 1 [LAPO 9; Paris
1977] 54); bsy (R. HEsTRIN & M. Dayaci-
MENDELS, /nscribed Seals (Jerusalem 1979]
No. 54). On Pithos A from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
two figurines occur which can be interpreted
as Bes-depictions probably a male with a bi-
sexual feminized variant (KEEL & UEHLIN-
GER 1992:244-248). Bes-amulets from the
Iron-Age have been excavated at e.g.
Lachish, Tell-Jemme and Gezer (KEEL &
UEHLINGER 1992:248-251). The archaeol-
ogical evidence suggests that Bes was
known in Palestine in the Iron Age as an
apotropaic demon esp. in times of pregnancy
and birth.
IV. Bibliography
J. Butte, Talismans égyptiens d'heureuse
maternité (Paris 1991); P. DERCHAIN,
Observations sur les erotica, The Sacred
Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara (ed. G.
T. Martin; London 1981) 166-170; O. KEEL
& C. UEHLINGER, Göttinnen, Götter und
Gottessymbole (Freibourg, Basel & Wien
1992) 244-255; M. MaLaisE, Bes et les
croyances solaires, Studies in Egyptology
Presented to M. Lichtheim (Jerusalem 1990)
I1. 690-729 [& lit]; D. MEEKS, Le nom du
dieu Bes et ses implications mythologiques,
The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt. Studies
Presented to L. Kdékosy = StAeg 14 (Buda-
pest 1992) 423-436; J. F. RoMaANo, The
Origin of the Bes-Image, Bulletin of the
Egyptological Seminar 2 (1980) 39-56.
H. TE VELDE
BETHEL VNTC)
I. The name of this deity must be
explained in accordance with Heb bét-'el,
i.c. ‘house/temple of god/El’ (^God, EI), cf.
also the name of the town Bethel in central
Palestine (former Liiz, see Judg 1:23). The
173
BETHEL
name Bethel is a shortened version of the
designation ‘(El of the) House of El’, a kind
of tautology or hypostasis not unfamiliar in
Semitic god-names. This name originally
did not point to the town of Bethel, but may
have referred to open cult-places, as the
aetiology of Bethel in the OT suggests (Gen
28:10-19). The god is known from the 7th
century BCE, mostly in an Aramaic con-
text—he replaces the ancient Semitic god El
who from this time onwards is absent in
personal names. Bethel is unknown in
Ugarit.
II. Together with Anat-Bethel, i.e. ‘Anat
(the consort) of Bethel’, Bethel is mentioned
for the first time in 675/4 BCE among the
oath-gods in the treaty between Baal I of
Tyre and the Assyrian king Esarhaddon:
dBa-a-a-ti-DINGIR"*S —— dA.na-ti-ba-a-[a-ti-
pDiNG]iR" 65 (SAA 2, 5 iv:6'. The ortho-
graphy of the text suggests an Aramaic
uncontracted name-form; the writing
DINGIR™S for "il/el follows normal Assyr-
ian scribal convention). Therefore there is
doubt that Bethel was a specific Phoenician
god, in spite of the fact that the name
É.DINGIR-a-di-ir was that of a Phoenician
(cf. R. ZADOK, BASOR 230 [1978] 61). The
list of the oath-gods in the treaty continues
with the "gods of Assyria and the gods of
Akkad", i.e. with the Mesopotamian deities,
but this does not mean that Bethel is of
Mesopotamian origin. Rather it may have
been a deity venerated by the Aramaeans.
Therefore it is not surprising that several
Aramaic personal names of the Neo-
Babylonian and Achaemenid period in
Babylonia and in Egypt are composed with
this name of a deity: ¢£.DINGIR-ZALAG)’,
‘Bethel is my light’ (BE 9, 75:5; cf. byr'l-
nwry, I. N. ViNNIKOV, Palestinskij Sbornik
67 [1959] 208); £.pINGIR™*.da-la-? PBS
2/1 222,11, cf. byr'ldiny, ‘Bethel saved me’
KAI 221 rA etc. (cf. R. Zapok, On West
Semites in Babylonia [Jerusalem 1978] 60-
61; M. D. CoocAN, West Semitic Personal
Namés [HSM 2; Missoula 1976] 48-49; M.
MARAQTEN, Die semitischen Personen-
namen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen
Inschriften [Hildesheim/ Zürich/ New York
1988] 137-139; W. KORNFELD, Onomastica
aramaica aus Agypten [Wien 1978] 43).
The Aramaeans in contact with the
Jewish community at Syenc/Elephantine in
Egypt worshipped this deity in a temple
which is mentioned in a letter (found at
Hermopolis) together with the temple of the
—Queen of Heaven (BRESCIANI & KAMIL
1966:no. 4; A. JagbDENI & B. PORTEN,
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from
Ancient Egypt | [Jerusalem 1986] A2.1,1).
The god Bethel is further on invoked as
—saviour in a lengthy prayer of an Aramaic
community in Egypt which is partly pre-
served on Papyrus Amherst 63 in Demotic
script but Aramaic language (J. W. Wes-
sELIUS & W. C. Detsman, TUAT II
[1986/91] 930-932 [& lit]). The god is fur-
ther to be found—worshipped besides
-Yahweh by the Jews of Elephantine—as
ESem-Bethel ‘Name of Bethel’ and Anat-
Bethel (A. CowLey, Aramaic Papyri of the
fifth Century B.C. [Oxford 1923] 22 VII
122-124), probably a kind of triad with
Anat-Bethel as the mother and ESem-Bethel
as the son. A judicial declaration (CowLy
[1923] 7: A. JARDENI & B. PORTEN, Text-
book of Aramaic Documents from Ancient
Egypt | [Jerusalem 1986] B7.2,7-8) refers to
a certain Herem-Bethel which may have
been another hypostasis of the Aramaic god.
But besides these references the god's name
is present as theophoric element in personal
names only (see B. PORTEN, Archives from
Elephantine [Los Angeles 1968] 328-331).
The theogony of Philo of Byblos, trans-
mitted to us by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. |
9,16 = FGH Ill C 2.790, F 2,16), acknowl-
edges four sons of Ouranos (-*Heaven;
—Varuna) and Ge: Elos (or Kronos),
Baitylos, Dagon (or Siton) and Atlas. The
second is Bethel, but nothing relevant is told
about him. But some paragraphs later (9,23
= FGH III C 2,790 F 2,23) it is reported that
Ouranos contrived baitylia, namely 'ani-
mated stones’. Here the author connects the
god Bethel with the well known bairyloi
(2Baetyl), the stone monuments broadly
used for cultic purposes in the Semitic
world. But this reference is no proof for a
174
BLOOD
connection between these monuments and
the god Bethel—Baitylos.
The latest reference to a “Zeus Betylos,
(god) of the dwellers along the Orontes" can
be found in a 3rd cent. CE inscription from
Dura Europos (H. SEYRIG, Excavations at
Dura-Europos IV [New Haven 1933] 68 no.
168) and it may refer, too, to a hypostasis of
Bethel in an inscription from Kafr Nabo in
the Antiochene named swmnbety! in a Greek
inscription (/GLS II 215-216 no. 376).
III. Whether the Israelites in their home-
land also worshipped the god Bethel is dis-
puted, but Jer 48:13 (in the prophecy against
Moab) “And Moab shall be betrayed by
Chemosh, as Israel was betrayed by Bethel,
a god in whom he trusted” points in this
direction. lt should be noted that the compa-
rison with the highest Moabite god Kamoš
(-*Chemosh) suggests that Bethel played a
prominent role in Israel. Further evidence
for this cult may be found in prophetic sayings
e.g. Amos 3:14; 5:5; Hos 4:15 (with the
nick-name Bet-Aven) and 10:15, although
here the place-name Bethel may be meant.
IV. Bibliography
M. L. Barre, The God-List in the Treaty
berween Hannibal and Philip V of Mace-
donia (Baltimore/London 1983) 43-50; R.
BORGER, Anat-Bethel, VT 7 (1957) 102-104;
Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible
(Tumhout 1987) 205 [& lit]; E. BRESCIANI
& M. Kamit, Le lettere aramaiche di
Hermopoli (Roma 1966); O. EIsSFELDT, Der
Gott Bethel, ARW 28 (1930) 1-30 (= KS |
{1963} 206-233) [& lit}; J. P. Hyatt, The
Deity Bethel in the Old Testament, JAOS 59
(1939) 81-98; J. T. MiLIK, Les papyrus
araméens d'Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-
phéniciens. 2. Dieu Béthel, Bib 48 (1967)
565-577; N. NA'AMAN, Beth-aven, Bethel
and early Israelite sanctuanes, ZDPV 103
(1987) 13-21; A. VINCENT, La réligion des
Judéo-araméens d'Eléphantine (Paris 1937)
562-677; S. P. VLEEMING & J. W. Wes-
SELIUS, Bethel the Saviour, JEOL 28
(1983/4) 110-140.
W. ROLLIG
BLOOD C5
I. Although nowhere deified, blood,
Hebr dam, is seen in the OT as a liquid
essential for animal and human life. In Uga-
ritic and Mesopotamian texts, mention is
made of divine blood. In personal names
from Ebla and Emar the theophoric element
Damu is attested. The name of this deity has
incorrectly been connected with the Semitic
noun dn, ‘blood’. The name of the deity,
however, is not etymologically related to the
noun mentioned, but should be construed as
related to the root D'M, ‘to support" (LiPiNs-
KI 1987:92-94).
H. In Ugaritic texts -*Anat threatens
>El that she will attack him, saying “I shall
make his grey hair run with blood” (KTU
1.3 v:1-3; v:23-25). This and comparable
expressions should be understood in the fra-
mework of the anthropomorphic depiction
of the divine. According to the Babylonian
story of the flood, humankind was made
from the flesh and blood of the slaughtered
god Wé-ila, mixed to clay by Nintu after
which the lgigi spat upon the clay. From
this clay seven couples of humans were
made (Atr. 1 208-260).
A deity Damu is known as theophoric
element in personal names from Ebla (KRE-
BERNIK 1988:80; DaHoop 1981; F. Pompo-
NIO, UF 15 [1983] 149, 156), Mari (Bi-in-
Da-mu, A. 3652 1:61, cf. ARM XVI 1) and
Emar (A. ArcHi, MARI 6 [1990] 24-25).
The name of this deity has been interpreted
as meaning ‘blood’ in the sense of
‘raciaV/family relationship’ (KREBERNIK
1988:80; BoNEcur 1997:480-481).
In Southern Mesopotamia, especially at
Isin and Girsu, a Sumerian deity da.mu has
been worshipped up to the Old Babylonian
period. da.mu is mainly a healing deity with
the capacity to drive away demons (BLACK
& GREEN 1992) but he sometimes has, like
-'Tammuz and -*Adonis, the character of a
vegetation-deity (T. JACOBSEN, Toward the
Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on
Mesopotamian History and Culture (Cam-
bridge 1970] 324-327). The North-Syrian
Damu and the Sumerian da.mu have been
treated as two different deities. LIPIŃSKI
175
BOAZ
(1987), however, has offered a rather con-
vincing theory according to which the two
are manifestations of one deity. The theop-
horic element Damu should not be interpre-
ted as meaning ‘blood’, but be construed as
a form of the verb D'M, 'to support; to
guide; to watch’, with a decayed fricative
laryngal. Lipifiski bases his theory on the
equation of the Mari name Bi-in-Da-mu
with the Ugaritic personal name bn.d‘m
(KTU 3.7) and on the observation that in
later Phoenician and pre-Islamic Arabic
onomastics the theophoric element d‘m is
attested. Moreover, he presents several ex-
amples where an original ‘ayin has decayed
in Eblaite writing. Although a noun damu,
‘blood’, is attested in Eblaite, the name of
the deity Damu has nothing in common with
‘blood’, since it should be construed as
meaning ‘Supporter; guider; watcher’ or the
like. Finally, he alleges that, the deity
Da(‘)mu being of Semitic origin, the Sumer-
ian da.mu could be interpreted as a Sumer-
ian form of a Semitic deity.
Na’AMAN (1990:248-250) has interpreted
the enigmatic name for a deity in EA 84:33
AN.DA.MU-ia as an epithet: DINGIR da-mu-ia,
‘my goddess; my vitality’, against the tradi-
tional view that this deity could be equated
with Tammuz (c.g. O. SCHROEDER, OLZ 18
[1915] 291-293). In view of Lipifski’s ana-
lysis the goddess could better be interpreted
as ‘my divine support/guidance’ or the like.
III. The noun dam occurs some 360
times in the Hebrew Bible referring to the
blood of human beings and animals. Divine
blood is never mentioned in the OT. Blood
is seen as a necessary element for life (see
e.g. B. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, TWAT 2, 248-
266; S. D. SPERLING, ABD 1, 761-763). A
relation with the deity Da(')mu is far from
likely. In the NT the blood shed by Christ
is sometimes interpreted as having reconci-
liatory force.
IV. Bibliography
J. BLack & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and
Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London
1992) 57; M. BoNEcHI, Lexique et idéolo-
gie royale à l'époque Proto-Syrienne, MARI
8 (1997) 477-535; M. J. Dauoop, Il dio
Damu nelle tavolette di Ebla, Sangue e
antropologia Biblica (Rome 1981) 97-104;
M. KREBERNIK, Die Personenamen der
Ebla-Texte: Ein Zwischenbilanz (BBVO 7;
Berlin 1988); E Lipinsxi, Le dieu Damu
dans l'onomastique d'Ébla: Les pharyngales
fricatives en fin de syllabe fermée, Ebla
1975-1985: Dieci anni di studi linguistici e
filologici (L. Cagni ed.; Napels 1987) 91-99;
N. NA'AMAN, On Gods and Scribal Tradi-
tions in the Amama Letters, UF 22 (1990)
247-255
B. BECKING
BOAZ 1223
I. Boaz is the name given to one of the
pillars flanking the entrance to the temple of
Solomon (1 Kgs 7:21). The name has been
interpreted as a corruption of the name
->Baal (H. GRESSMANN, Dolmen, Masseben
und Napflócher, ZAW 29 [1909] 122; for
other examples see Scott 1939:145-146) or,
alternatively, as an epithet of Baal (BRus-
TON 1924).
II. The only proposal that takes Boaz as
an independent surname or epithet of a deity
has been made by BRusrTON (1924). He
based himself on a Neo-Punic inscription
from Tunesia, in which he read a reference
to "Anat [FZN, sic] the daughter of Boaz”.
Bruston concluded that the epithet Boaz (‘In
him there is power’) belonged to Baal,
which deity he also found mentioned else-
where in the text. More recent editions of
the text (J.-G. FÉVRIER, Sem 4 [1951-52] 19-
24; KAI 160) have shown hat Bruston's
reading is erroneous. Instead of P2 PZN
("Anat daughter of") one has to read the
word HN (which means 'capital', ‘sum
of money’), whereas D2 is in fact the
beginning of the expression C'22 z bhym,
'at the (life-)ime of (see DONNER &
RóLLiG, KA/ Il, Literaturnachtrige und
Ergánzungen, pp. 340-341).
III. The various proposals to take the
name Boaz as a reference to a known deity
(usually Baal), either as a corruption of the
latter's name or as an epithet, are based on
the assumption that the name Boaz as it
176
BOSHET — BREASTS AND WOMB
stands makes poor sense. If such were the
case, however, the rule lectio difficilior
probabilior would advise against texual
emendation. Moreover, the name of the
other pillar, Jachin, does not favour the
hypothesis that Boaz is a divine name;
Jachin rather looks like the beginning of a
solemn wish (‘May he render firm ...*). In
the versions, there is no real support for a
correction of 122 into Y3. Also the more
fanciful variations on this solution (such as
the suggestion that Boaz is an abbreviation
of Ba‘al-‘az, ‘Baal is strong’ [MONTGOMERY
1951] or a corruption of Baal-zebul, or even
of -*>Tammuz [see Scorr 1939:145-146])
reflect a scepticism about the reliability of
the Masoretic text that seems unfounded—at
least, in this case.
Though the cultic nature of the pillars
Jachin and Boaz is beyond doubt, there is no
reason to believe that they represented dei-
ties. Their symbolic significance is generally
acknowledged (MEYERS 1992). The massive
stone stelae probably had phallic associa-
tions and were—pre-Solomonic?—symbols
of fertility and offspring. Originally, the
name Boaz may well have been vocalized
differently: bé‘6z NN, ‘By the strength (or
potency) of NN'. It could have been the
opening of a traditional formula pronounced
at the occasion of royal rituals performed at
the entrance of the temple (c.g. SCOTT
1939). As it stands now, the name means ‘In
him there is strength’ (MULDER 1986).
IV. Bibliography
E. BLocn-SmrrH, “Who is the King of
Glory?" Solomon's Temple and Its Symbo-
lism, Scripture and Other Artefacts: Essays
on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of
Philip J. King (ed. M. D. Coogan et al.;
Louisville 1994) 18-31; C. BRUSTON,
L’inscription des deux colonnes du temple
de Salomon, ZAW 42 (1924) 153-154; C.
MEYERS, Jachin and Boaz, ABD 3 (1992)
597-598; J. A. MONTGOMERY, The Books of
Kings (ICC; Edinburgh 1951) 170-171; M.
J. MuLDER, Die Bedeutung von Jachin und
Boaz in | Kón. 7:21 (2 Chr. 3:17). Tradition
and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early
Christian Literature. Essays in Honour of
Jürgen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten
et al.; Leiden 1986) 19-26; R. B. Y. Scorr,
The Pillars Jachin and Boaz, JBL 58 (1939)
143-149.
K. VAN DER TOORN
BOSHET -> BASHTU
BREASTS AND WOMB cnm OT
I. The expression Sddayim — wáràáliam,
‘Breasts and Womb’, (Gen 49:25) has been
interpreted as an epithet echoing Uganitic
titles of the goddesses ~>Anat and -*Asherah
(VawrER 1955; M. O° Connor, Hebrew
Verse Structure {Winona Lake 1980] 178;
SmitH 1990:17).
Il. In a para-mythological text from
Ugarit, it is said that the deities —>Shahar
and -*Shalim are to be seen as those ‘suck-
ing the nipple (ap; lit. ‘nose’) of the breast
(dd//zd) of Athiratu' (KTU 1.23:24.59.61).
In the epic of Keret, Ilu promises Keret that
his future son will ‘suck the breast (td) of
Virgin Anat’ (KTU 1.15 ii:27). In a compar-
able text, Anat is twice called the ‘Breast
(td) of the Nations’ (KTU 1.13:19-22); she
is cast in the role of a Dea Nutrix of deities
and nations. In the epic of Keret, Anat is
depicted as the ‘wet-nurse of the gods’,
mšnąt ilm, (KTU 1.15 ii:28). In different
texts, Anat is called rim, ‘Womb, Mamsel’,
(KTU 1.6 i:5,27; 1.15 ii:6; 1.23:13.16;
KonPEL 1990).
The imagery of the goddess as a wet-
nurse occurs also in Neo-Assyrian prophet-
ical texts. -*Ishtar of Arbela is presented
several times as the ‘good wet-nurse
(muséniqtu déqtu) of king Ashurbanipal’. In
the text K 1285:32-34 (J. A. Craic, Assyr-
tan and Babylonian Religious Texts | [Lcip-
zig 1895] No. 5) she is presented as having
four breasts to feed and still the king (WtiP-
PERT 1985:61-64). Here too, ‘breasts’ have
no erotic connotation but symbolize the
caring character of the goddess.
Archaeological findings from Iron Age I
in Israel have brought to light a great num-
ber of plaque figurines showing a nude female
figure with her arms sometimes pointing at
177
BROTHER
her breasts and sometimes at her womb (see
e.g. WINTER 1983:96-134). These figurines
should be interpreted as referring to a god-
dess worshipped by families on account of
her care for pregnant women and young
mothers (WINTER 1983:127-134; KEEL &
UENLINGER 1992:110-122; pace TADMOR
1982). It should be noted that in Iron Age
II, the monarchic period in Israel, these
figurines are almost absent, but that in the
8th century BCE comparable artefacts, the
so-called pillar-figurines occur quite fre-
quently.
III. In the ‘blessing of --Jacob’ four pairs
of divine epithets are present: (1) ‘Bull of
Jacob’—~— ‘Shepherd’; (2) -*'El'—-*'Shad-
day’; (3) -**Heaven above’—‘Deep crouch-
ing below’ and (4) ‘Breasts and Womb'—
‘Your Father’ (VAWTER 1955:16-17). "Your
~Father’, an epithet for El, stands in con-
junction -with an epithet for a female deity
identified by SwrrH (1990:18) as. Asherah,
the consort of El. Gen 49:25 would original-
ly reflect an early non-monotheistic phase in
the history of Israclite religion. In its present
context, the phrase uses mythological termi-
nology to refer to. -Yahweh's power of
benediction in the realm of birth and nutri-
tion. The deity ultimately lurking behind the
imagery of Gen 49:25 might be identical
with the caring and suckling goddess known
from Ugaritic texts and Israelite icono-
graphy.
A late relic of this imagery is present in
Luke 11:27. After Jesus drove out an un-
clean spirit, a woman in the crowd raised
her voice and said to him and about him:
"Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the
breasts that you sucked!" thereby identifying
Mary with the type of goddess discussed
above (J. A. FitzMYER, The Gospel accord-
ing to Luke (X-XXIV) [AB 28A; Garden City
1985] 927-928).
IV. Bibliography
O. Keer & C. UEHLINGER, Górtinnen, Gót-
ter und Gottessymbole (Freiburg/Basel/Wien
1992) 110-122,378-381; M. C. A. KonPEL,
A Rift in the Clouds (UBL 8; Münster 1990)
123-125; M. SwurrH, The Early History of
God (San Fransisco 1990) 16-19; M.
TaApMoR, Female Cult Figurines in Late
Canaan and Early Isracl, Studies in the
Period of David and Solomon and Other
Essays (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake 1982)
139-173; B. VAwTER, The Canaanite backg-
round of Genesis 49, CBQ 17 (1955) 12-17;
M. WEiPPERT, Dic Bildsprache der neuassy-
rischen Prophetie, Beiträge zur prophe-
tischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien
(ed. H. Weippert, K. Seybold & M. Weip-
pert; OBO 64; Freiburg/Göttingen 1985) 55-
93; U. WINTER, Frau und Göttin (OBO 53;
Freiburg/Göttingen 1983).
B. BECKING
BROTHER MN
I. Heb 'àh, 'brother', represents a
primitive Semitic noun, of unknown etymol-
ogy. The term refers to a biological brother
or half-brother, a male member of compar-
able standing in a kinship group, or a male
member of a larger community, such as
Israel. In the ancient Near East, ‘brother’
also occurs as a theophoric element in per-
sonal names (FOWLER 1988:46-48, 280-281,
301-302).
IJ. Although the terms -*'father' and
-"'mother' are common divine epithets in
the biblical world with reference to the
human community, the term ‘brother’ is not
so used in literary or religious texts (AKKGE)
nor, apparently, in private letters. With the
semi-divine Sumerian kings of the Ur-Ill
dynasty, there are exceptions. In addition to
the special case of the deified Gilgamesh, a
putative king of Uruk, cited by kings as 'his
beloved brother', or as 'his/my brother (and)
friend’, Shulgi also cites the ‘hero, Utu’, the
sun god, as ‘my brother (and) friend’, a rela-
tionship not established in the divine geneal-
ogies (A. FALKENSTEIN, ZA 50 [1952] 73-
77; KLEIN 1981:82, 112, 198). In Sumerian
personal names ‘brother’ is well-attested as
a divine epithet (for the personal god), much
more so than in Akkadian names (Di Vrro
1993:89-93, 254-256, 264-265). In ancient
Semitic personal names the epithet
"brother'—rarely 'sister'—may at times re-
fer to a deity (ZoBEL 1932:35-42; STAMM
1939:53-57, 209, 222, 241; AHW 18b), as is
especially clear in Akkadian names such as
178
BROTHER
Sin-ahi-wédi, ‘Sin is a Brother for the Only
Child’ (Stamm 1939:241; ~Sin). The names
reflect the important role that brothers play
within a patriarchal family system, especial-
ly—in the absence of the father—for sisters
and younger brothers. For example, if the
father is no longer living, brothers may have
an important role in a sister’s marriage. In
the Laws of Hammurabi, under certain cir-
cumstances the brothers must present an
unmarried sister with a dowry (§ 184, ANET
174), and in the Middle Assyrian laws the
potential marriage assignment (by a creditor)
of a debtor’s daughter (in debt service) pre-
supposes that her father consents or, if the
father is no longer living, that her brothers
decline the right of redemption (A§ 48,
ANET 184). The special role of elder brot-
hers and elder sisters is also illustrated in the
Shurpu incantations which mention oaths
“by the protecting deity of elder brother and
elder sister" (Surpu II 89), and oaths (of cur-
sing) or other negative action toward an
elder brother or elder sister (Surpu IV 58;
VIII 59; cf. 11 35-36; V-VI 46-47), in con-
texts with reference to persons or powers of
higher status. Striking also is the reference
in the 9th cent. BcE Northwest Semitic
inscription of Kilamuwa, from northwest
Syria, in which the king says, concerning
some subjects: "As for me, to some I was a
father, and to some I was a mother, and to
some I was a brother. ... They responded (to
me) as the fatherless toward (its) mother"
(KAI 24:10-11, 13). These important family
relationships provide a basis for the expres-
sion of family or popular piety in personal
names, unlike the conventions of ‘official’
religion (Di Vrro 1993:92-93).
III. In Hebrew theophoric personal names
known from the Bible and from inscriptions
(ZADOK 1988:178-187), the most common
elements, apart from ël, ‘god’ (>El,
~God), and variations of y/wh (-*Yahweh),
are ’ab, ‘father’ (more than 30), ’ah, ‘brother’
(more than 25), and ‘amm-, ‘paternal uncle/
kinsman’ (more than 12). Note names such
as Ahijah, ‘Yah(u) is My (divine) Brother’
(8 men, one woman?; Stamm 1980:111),
Ahinadab ‘My (divine) Brother is Generous’
(one man), and Ahisamach, ‘My (divine)
Brother Has Helped’ (one man), as well as
Ahinoam, ‘My (divine?) Brother is Gra-
cious’ (one man [Samaria ostraca], two
women; STAMM 1980:113). Probable substi-
tution names, such as Ahitub, ‘My Brother
is Goodness’ (two men), also occur (STAMM
1939:279, 295; 1980:67, 69). In societies
that rely heavily on the extended patriarchal
family, as illustrated especially by the Books
of Genesis and Ruth in the case of Israel, a
brother or an uncle is commonly a primary
authority figure, one whose protection is
essential. (Though the precise relationship
between Ruth and Boaz is not indicated, he
is a male relative second in line; Ruth 4:3-
6.) With reference to brothers, note the role
of —Laban in the marriage of his sister,
Rebecca (Gen 24:50-51), the role of Absa-
lom in defence of his sister, Tamar (2 Sam
13), and the role of a brother, uncle (dód.
-*Dod). or uncle's son (ben dód) in redemp-
tion from debt slavery (Lev 25:48-49). As
such the epithet ‘brother’ can be used of a
deity. even if only in the popular or family
piety reflected in personal names (ALBERTZ
1978).
IV. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Persönliche Frömmigkeit und
offizielle Religion (Stuttgart 1978); R. A. Di
Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian
and Akkadian Personal Names. The Desig-
nation and Conception of the Personal God
(StPsm 16; Rome 1993); J. D. FOWLER,
Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient
Hebrew: A Comparative Study (JSOTSup
49; Sheffield 1988); J. KLEIN, Three Sulgi
Hymns (Ramat-Gan 1981); H. RINGGREN,
MS ?ach, MTS *Achéth, TDOT | (1977) 188-
193; J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namen-
gebung (MVAAG 44; Leipzig 1939);
STAMM, Beitrüge zur hebrüischen wnd alt-
orientalischen Namenkunde (OBO 30: Frei-
burg 1980); R. ZADOK, The Pre-hellenistic
Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography
(Louvain 1988); J. ZosrL, Das bildliche
Gebrauch der | Verwandtschaftsnamen im
Hebräischen mit Berücksichtigung der
übrigen semitischen Sprachen (Halle 1932).
H. B. HUFFMON
179
CAIN jp
I. in Gen 4:1 the name of the first son
of Adam and Eve, Cain, is related in a
popular etymology to the Hebrew verb QNH
‘to acquire’. More probably the name should
be related to either the Ugaritic gn ‘reed;
shaft’ and Heb qayin ‘javelin’ or to Syrian
and Semitic words for ‘smith’; e.g. Syr
qajnàjà '(gold)smith'; Thamudic gjn; gn and
qnt, ‘smith’ (HALAT 1025; Hess 1993). His
name might be related to a Thamudic deity
qayn. Besides, the story on Cain and -*Abel
has been interpreted mythologically, Cain
representing the deified sun (GOLDZIHER
1876:129-139).
H. In Thamudic inscriptions the personal
name ‘abd-qayn is attested once (VAN DEN
BRANDEN 1950:10). Qayn has been inter-
preted by Van den Branden as a Sabaean
lunar deity. HOFNER (WbMyth 1/1, 461-462;
RAAM, 277) doubted the divine status of
Qayn in view of the well attested Thamudic
personal name Qayn and the noun qayn
‘smith’. The construction ‘abd-NN leaves
open the possibility that Qayn was a
Thamudic deity or a deified ancestor, how-
ever. In view of the etymology of the name,
Qayn may well have been a patron deity for
the metal-workers. A_ relation with the
South-Arabian deity Qaynàn (-*Kenan) is
uncertain.
HI. A tale about the rivalry of two
brothers at the dawn of civilization has more
than one religio-historical parallel: —Osiris
and —>Seth, Romulus and Remus, Eteokles
and Polyneikes are just the more familiar
ones (WESTERMANN 1974:428-430). In such
stories the ‘two brothers’ can be seen as
heroic figures. GOLDZIHER (1876:129-139)
goes one step further in interpreting these
tales as survivals of myths in which the
ancestors of a culture are presented as divine
beings. Cain is supposed to represent, orig-
inally, the solar deity in combat with the
transient powers of darkness: Abel. In the
current version of Gen 4 no traces of such a
mythology are visible, however.
In the OT Cain occurs only in the story
of Gen 4 where he is the cultural and moral
opposite of Abel. Cain represents the realm
of settled agricultural life. In the Epistle to
the Hebrews, Cain is mentioned as the
opposite of his brother Abel (Heb 11:4):
“By faith Abel offered unto God a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain”. The author of
this letter refers to the unanswerable ques-
tion why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and
Abel’s accepted. This problem is discussed
in some Hellenistic Jewish and Rabbinic
sources too (-*Abel). In the Letter of Jude,
Cain is presented as the model for the evil-
doers from Sodom and Gomorrah who
“went in the way of Cain” (Jude 11).
IV. Bibliography
A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les Inscriptions
Thamoudéennes (Louvain 1950): I. Gorp-
ZIHER, Der Mythus bei den Hebrüern und
seine geschichtliche Entwicklung (Leipzig
1876); R. S. Hess, Studies in the Personal
Names of Genesis 1-1] (AQAT 234; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1993) 24-27,37-39; M. Hór-
NER, WbMyth 1/1, 461-462; C. WESTER-
MANN, Genesis 1-1] (BKAT I/I;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974).
B. BECKING
CALF 230
I. Hebrew ‘égel, Ugaritic ‘el, Aramaic
‘igla’, the common word for ‘calf’ (sc. a
young bull), is used of images worshipped
by the Israelites in texts written from the
deuteronomistic perspective.
Il. The bull as a symbol of physical
strength and sexual potency, together with
all the economic benefits arising from herd-
180
CALF
ing, has an ancient pedigree in the religions
of the Ancient Near East. From at least the
time of Neolithic Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia,
images have been prominent in glyptic art,
sculpture and reliefs, and the animal has
been prominent in iconography and theol-
ogy. The use of cattle as sacrificial animals
is common throughout the region. Bull-gods
are widely evident. In Egypt the Mnevis bull
of Heliopolis was regarded as a therio-
morphic incarnation of —Re, while the
Buchis bull of Hermonthis was one of Mont,
and the —Apis bull of Memphis was one of
—Ptah, later in the dyadic form ~Osiris-
Ptah. In Mesopotamia, Gugalanna, the
‘Great Bull of Heaven’, the husband of
Ereshkigal, goddess of the underworld, was
identified or associated with An, and was
slain by Gilgamesh (tablet VI). The Sedu,
Lamassu or Karibu colossi were the guard-
ians of temples (cf. the Cherub in Gen
3:24). In Ugaritic religion, >El was known
as "the Bull EI' (tr il) This usage may
belong in part to the convention of giving
animal names as terms of rank to military
personnel, as evidenced in KTU 1.15 iv 6-7:
"Call my seventy bulls, my eighty gazelles",
and suggests at least a popular etymological
link between ir (Hebrew 3ór. Akkadian
šaru), ‘bul? and Hebrew sar, Akkadian
Sarru, ‘ruler’, ‘king’. (There is no formal
link.) Near Eastern weather-gods are con-
ventionally shown standing on a bull as
vehicle, while -Baal is described in KTU
1.5 v 18-22 as copulating with a heifer,
which suggests that he too could be re-
garded as a bull. Cult-images of bulls have
been recovered from such sites as Ugarit,
Tyre and Hazor.
III. A number of terms for cattle are used
in the Bible as epithets of divine power. The
title Sér él (‘Bull El’) has been discerned
(Tur-Sinai_ 1950) in the impossible *ki
miyyisrá'el (‘for from Israel’) of MT in Hos
8:6: read rather ki mi Sdér ’él (‘for who is
Bull EI?), which fits well in the context.
With this may be compared —Jacob's title
in Deut 33:17 as békór $ór (MT sóró), "the
first-born of the Bull’. In Gen 49:24; Ps
132:2, 5; Isa 49:26; 60:16 ’dbir ya‘aqob
probably has the sense of ‘Bull of Jacob’
(cf. Ugaritic ibr), while the divine title ’abir
yisra’él of Isa 1:24 is comparable. The term
r@’ém (Akkadian rému) is generally thought
to denote the aurochs (its semantic range is
established by Deut 33:17 // šôr, and Ps
29:6 // *egel), and appears as an epithet of
El (sc. --Yahweh, though perhaps originally
independent) in Num 23:22 = 24:8. This is
important evidence for the tradition that El
as a bull-god was the deliverer in the exodus
tradition (sce below).
The episodes of the Golden Calf and the
Calves of Jeroboam, respectively in Exod 32
and | Kgs 12:26-33, appear to be un-
connected. But their literary relationship is
close, as established by ABERBACH &
SMOLAR (1967). It may be argued that, his-
torically speaking, the event under Jeroboam
is the historical source of the Golden Calf
episode as a midrash on the theme of apos-
tasy and its punishment by exile. It is
scarcely credible that a historical episode as
described in Exod 32 actually predated the
settlement in Palestine, as it presupposes a
monotheism which could hardly predate
Josiah at the carliest. A comparison of the
wording of 1 Kgs 12:28, Exod 32:4.8 and of
Neh 9:18 (Wvarr 1992:78-79) allows us to
conclude that the formula in 1 Kgs 12:28 is
primary, and that the others have both de-
veloped from it, and transformed a soteriol-
ogical statement (as surely intended by Jero-
boam) into a declaration of apostasy.
Contrary to the evident meaning of Exod
32:4, 8, which apparently attempts to con-
struct two or more gods out of one calf(!), it
is clear from the narrative in Kgs that one
god was understood by the 'calf' image, and
that Jeroboam's ‘calves’ were different im-
ages of the same god.
As to the identity of the god, suggestions
have ranged from Yahweh (PATON 1894,
OBBnINK 1929 et al.), through Baal (OstnorN
1955. Dus 1968), ‘polytheism’ (MonrT-
GOMERY, Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951]
255) -—Hathor (OEsrERLv, 77e legacy of
Egypt [1942!] 239) -^Moses (SASSON
1968), and Sin (LEwv 1945-1946) to El
(SCHAEFFER 1966, Wyatt 1992).
181
CARMEL
The present writer has proposed (WvATT
1992:79) that the MT at Exod 32:4.8 has
preserved an older strand of tradition, still
formally dependant on Jeroboam's formula,
but preserving the old notion (which was
presumably the intention. of Jeroboam's
words) that one deity was to be identified by
the formula, which read originally "'eé/
'élóhekà — yisra?'él "á$er he'elkà | mé'ereg
migrayim, expressing the kerygma "El is
your god, Israel, who brought you up out of
the land of Egypt!" This has been deliber-
ately perverted in transmission into "These
are your gods..." by the simple expedient of
adding matres lectionis which require a
plural interpretation. of the demonstrative,
'élóhéká, and the verb. The old consonantal
text is capable of singular or plural interpre-
tation.
A kerygma of El as the saviour from
Egypt has left traces elsewhere, notably at
Num 23:22; 24:8 noted above, Ps 106:19-
22. Hos 7:16, where /a'gàm (sic), ‘their
derision’, is either to be corrected to ‘aglam,
‘their calf’, or more probably recognised as
a vicious lampoon on a reference which is
already a parody, by ridiculing the bull-god
as a mere calf. This is congruent with the
attack on bull-worship in Hos 8:1-6. The use
of 'el/Pélóhé 'ábi in Exod 15:2 may also be
significant in view of the Vorlage of the
latter formula (Wvarr, ZAW 90 [1978] 101-
104). This has important implications for the
exegesis of Exod 3 (Wyatt, ZAW 91 [1979]
437-442).
IV. Bibliography
M. ABERBACH & L. SMOLAR, Aaron, Jero-
boam and the Golden Calves, JBL 86 (1967)
129-140; L. R. BaiLey, The Golden Calf,
HUCA 42 (1971) 97-115; M. Bic, Bevel - le
sanctuaire du roi, ArOr 17 (1949) 49-63; H.
C. BRicHTO, The Worship of the Golden
Calf: a literary analysis of a fable on idol-
atry, HUCA 54 (1983) 1-44; E. DANIELUS,
The sins of Jeroboam ben-Nebat, JOR 58
(1967) 95-114, 204-233; J. Derus, Die
Sünde Jeroboams (FRLANT 93; Göttingen
1967); H. DONNER, ‘Hier sind deine Gótter,
Israel", Wort und Geschichte (ed. H. Gese
& H. P. Riiger, AOAT 18; Neukirchen-
Viuyn 1973) 45-50; T. B. DOZEMAN,
Moses: Divine Servant and Israelite Hero,
HAR 8 (1984) 45-61; J. Dus, Die Stierbilder
von Bethel und Dan und das Problem der
*Moseschar’, AJON 18 (1968) 105-137: O.
EISSFELDT, Lade und Stierbild. ZAW 58
(1940-1) 190-215; J. Lewy, The Late
Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and Its
Culmination in the Time of Nabonidus,
HUCA 19 (1945-46) 405-489; H. MOTZKI,
Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Stierkultes in
der Religionsgeschichte Israels, VT 25
(1975) 470-485; W. OBBiNKk, Jahwebilder,
ZAW 47 (1929) 264-274; G. ÓsBonRN,
Yahweh and Baal, LUÁ 51.6 (1955); L. B.
PATON, Did Amos Approve the Calf-Wor-
ship at Bethel?, JBL 13 (1894) 80-90; J. M.
Sasson, The Bovine Symbolism in Exodus,
VT 18 (1968) 380-387; J. M. Sasson, The
Worship of the Golden Calf, Orient and
Occident (ed. H. A. Hoffner. AOAT 22;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971) 151-159; C-F. A.
SCHAEFFER, Nouveaux témoignages du culte
de El et de Baal à Ras Shamra ct ailleurs en
Syrie-Palestine, Syria 43 (1966) 16; H. Tun-
Sınai, VES Ws, EncMigr 1 (Jerusalem
1950) cols. 31-33; R. pe Vaux, Le schisme
religieux de Jeroboam, Angelicum 20 (1943)
77-91; J. VERMEYLEN, L'affaire du veau
d'or (Ex. 32-34), ZAW 97 (1985) 1-23; M.
WEIPPERT, Gott und Stier, ZDPV 77 (1961)
93-117; N. Wyatr, Of Calves and Kings:
the Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of
Isracl, SJOT 6 (1992) 68-91.
N. WYATT
CARMEL “mm
I. Carmel (Jebel Kurmul) is a promon-
tory on the Mediterranean Coast of Isracl
near Haifa which since ancient times was
considered as ‘holy’. A deity was wor-
shipped there whose name occurs outside
the Bible as “god of the Carmel”. In the OT
Mount Carmel is known especially as scene
of a trial of strength between the prophets of
—Baal and -*Elijah, or rather, between Baal
and > Yahweh (1 Kgs 18).
H. The ‘holiness’ of the Carmel may
already have been mentioned in the listing
182
CARMEL
of countries and cities of the conquering
Pharaoh Thutmoses III in the second millen-
nium (about 1490-1436 BCE) by the name
'Rash-Qadesh' (*Holy Head', ANET 243),
although this identification is still uncertain.
According to the Annals of Shalmaneser III,
Mount Carmel appears as "the mountain of
Ba‘li-ra’5i", where the Assyrian king re-
ceived tribute from Jehu of Israel (AsToUR
1962). Based on this evidence Astour is of
the opinion that this “testifies to the sacral
character of Mount Carmel”. In the fifth or
fourth century BCE Pseudo-Scylax described
Mount Carmel as “the holy mountain of
—Zeus” (Gpog tepov Aros; Periplus 104).
Tacitus (Hist. I1, 78) mentions the deity and
the mountain Carmelus on account of the
favourable promises to Vespasian in 69 CE:
“Between ludea and Syria lies the Carmel.
Thus they called the mountain and the
divinity. The god has no image or temple—
according to the ancestral tradition—, but
only an altar and a cult”. Also Suetonius
records about the same Vespasian (De vita
Vesp VIIL6): "When he (i.e. Vespasian) was
consulting the oracle of the god of Carmel
in ludaea, the lots were very encouraging.
promising that whatever he planned or
wished, however great it might be, would
come to pass ...". In 1952 Avi-YONAH
published a late second- or early third-cen-
tury CE inscription on a big marble votive
foot, found in the monastery of Elijah (on
the north-west side of mount Carmel). with
a dedication to the "Heliopolitan Zeus of the
Carmel": All HAIOIIOAEITH KAPMHAQ.
The statements of Tacitus and Suetonius,
and also of this inscription, that Carmel(us)
can be the name of the god may have been
derived from the translation of the North-
west-Semitic 2372. 222. lamblichus informs
us at the beginning of the fourth century CE
about the sojourn of a meditating Pythagoras
on Mount Carmel (De vita Pythagorica III,
15) after he was brought by Egyptian sailors
to this mountain to be alone in this holy
place. In this connection he spoke about
“the highest peak of the Carmel, which
they considered as the holiest and for
many people not to be trodden mountain”.
Iamblichus does not mention a deity, he
speaks only about "a holy place". It is
possible that this is the same place which
Orosius calls an "oracle" (Historia adv.
paganos VII. 9).
From these extra-biblical data one can
infer (1) that the mountain was considered
*holy' since ancient times; ( 2) that there has
probably never been a temple on Mount
Carmel; (3) that the deity of the Carmel had
a more than local meaning; and (4) that,
especially in later times, there was a connec-
tion between Zeus Heliopolitanus and the
deity of the Carmel.
The Heliopolis here mentioned is a town
in Libanon/Syna in the Beqa' near the
source of the Orontes, now called Baalbek.
Its Greek name since the Seleucid period
was "city of the sun" (Helio-polis), possibly
because Baal was identified with ‘the god of
the sun’. The most ancient temple of
Baalbek was originally dedicated to the
Semitic stormgod -*Hadad, and since Hel-
lenistic times to Jupiter/Zeus. The sky-god
-*Baalshamem also merged with Jupiter. By
the beginning of the Christian Era, the cult
of the god of Heliopolis had even found its
way as far as the Italian coast. A Latin
inscription has been found in Puteoli (near
Naples) which mentions cultores Jovis
Heliopolitani (worshippers of the Helio-
politan Jupiter). In the time of Emperor
Septimius Severus, Baalbek became an inde-
pendent colony with an Italian legal system
and games in honour of Heliopolitanus.
Mount Carmel belonged to Acco/Ptolemais,
where coins were found representing Jupiter
Heliopolitanus flanked by bulls. A coin was
also found with a picture of a -giant's foot.
Above this picture can be seen the lightning
of Zeus, beside it the caduceus (i.e. herald's
staff), and under it an axe. The similarity of
the picture on this coin with the marble vo-
tive foot, mentioned above, is most striking.
The great deity of Heliopolis/Baalbek
could only be compared with the centuries
older ‘god of the Carmel’, if one could find
in this god something of the nature of Zeus.
Zeus Heliopolitanus is perhaps a fusion of a
Semitic weather, sky and fertility-god like
183
CARMEL
Hadad or Baalshamem, and the sun-god
—Helios (EtsSFELDT 1953; Day 1992). He
is a comparatively young member in a long
list of Semitic gods of this type.
But who was the (Canaanite) god whose
‘contest’ with Yahweh on Mount Carmel in
the time of Ahab is told in 1 Kgs 18? In the
course of time many different answers have
been given to this question. There are
scholars who sce in this Baal a local numen,
others are of the opinion that he was the
Baal par excellence or Baalshamem, the
sky-god. Most scholars, however, see in this
deity the Tyrian Baal who was identified
with Melqart (Greek —Heracles). A com-
parison of some data in | Kgs 18 with data
known from the worship of the Tyrian
Melqart seems to support this conjecture.
Yet no consensus has been reached. ALT
asserted that Yahweh on Mount Carmel did
not have a contest with a Tyrian god, but
with the old deity of mount Carmel itself.
EISSFELDT was of the opinion that the Baal
of mount Carmel was the same as the uni-
versal Baalshamem. DussAuD took the
name of this Baal to be Hadad. Indeed, there
is no need whatsoever to replace the name
*Melqart' for the Baal of this tale. Besides,
it must be said that ‘Melqart’ is not a proper
name but rather a ttle (BRONNER 1968;
BONNET 1986); moreover, the Tyrian god
was equated with Heracles rather than with
Zeus.
One's view regarding the historicity of
the tales of 1 Kgs 18 is essential for the
solution of the problem of the ‘real name’ of
the deity. Those who regard the stories on
Mount Carmel as historically true are in-
clined to see in Baal the ‘Tyrian Melqart
(thus e.g. DE VAUX 1941); those who regard
these stories as novellas of a later time,
which function as haggadoth, are inclined to
see in the Baal of Mount Carmel only an
indication of the old Baal par excellence
(thus e.g. MULDER 1979), It is very difficult
to demonstrate that | Kgs 18:26-29, an old
reproduction of a—local?—Baal cult, could
only fit a Tyrian sacrificial ceremony. Many
details could have been found in other Baal
ceremonies too, judging by what we know
about the Ugaritic religion. Moreover, it is
not until a second century BCE inscription
from Malta that we find Melqart referred to
as “Baal of Tyre” (KA/ 47:1; Day 1992:
548). One should always realize that the
author of 1 Kgs 18, just like the other
authors of the OT, did not intend to give
some valuable information about a god who
in his eyes was merely an idol (interpretatio
israelitica). The identity, character and role
of the deity of Mount Carmel—as described
in 1 Kings 18—are those of a fertility and
vegetation god. This fits precisely with the
image of Baal obtained from the Ugaritic
and other extra-biblical texts.
III. The nature of the biblical Baal of the
Carmel and his worship emerges in 1 Kgs
18:26-28, where it is told that the ‘prophets’
of Baal offered a bull and invoked Baal by
name, crying: “Baal, answer us”. Meanwhile
the prophets danced wildly beside the altar
they had set up. After Elijah mocked them
with the words: “Call louder for he is a
-god, perhaps he is deep in thought. or
otherwise engaged, or on a journey, or has
gone to sleep and must be woken up”, they
cried louder still and gashed themselves, as
was their custom, with swords and spears
until blood ran.
This characterization of Baal is not pecu-
liar to Melqart. In the Ugaritic texts we find
a cult-cry: "Where is mightiest Baal, where
is the prince lord of earth" (KTU 1.6 iv:4-5.;
CML 78). The ecstacy of these prophets is
reminiscent of the prophetic ecstasy reported
in the tale of Wen-Amon (ANET 25-29);
there are other extra-biblical parallels, too
(GASTER 1969:504-510). Of the self-mutila-
tion of the ecstatic Baal-worshippers, “as
was their custom”, we also have parallels in
the Uganitic texts: “he harrowed his collar-
bone, he ploughed his chest like a garden,
he harrowed his waist like a valley” (KTU
1.5 vi:20-22; CML 73). The somewhat enig-
matic words of the mocking Elijah: “he is
deep in thought, or he is otherwise en-
gaged”, do not reveal anything specific
about Baal. The absence, the journey, the
sleeping and awakening of Baal are all in
line with the idea of Baal as god of vegeta-
184
CASTOR —
tion and fertility. This god is precisely the
god who in later times was called “the god
of the Carmel” or “the god Carmel”.
It should be noted that it is told that
Elijah “repaired the altar of Yahweh which
had been torn down" (18:30). This confirms
the older statement that there was already an
altar on Mount Carme! before the time of
the ‘contest’ of the gods, but not a temple.
From 2 Kgs 2:25 and 4:23-25, we may infer
that Mount Carmel was a place of pilgrim-
age for Israclite and Canaanite people, and a
spiritual retreat for Elisha and other charis-
matic prophets too (THOMPSON 1992). The
special circumstances for these festivals
were new moon festivals and sabbaths. The
authors of the biblical stories nevertheless
deny any form of identification of Yahweh
and "the god of the Carmel".
IV. Bibliography
A. ALT, Das Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel,
FS. G. Beer (1935) 1-18 = KS 2, 135-149;
M. C. Astour, Carmel, Mount, /BDS
(1962) 141; M. Avi-Yonan, Mount Carmel
and the God of Baalbek, /EJ 2 (1952) 118-
124; C. Bonnet, Le culte de Melqart a
Carthage. Un cas de conservatisme reli-
gicux, Studia Phoenicia IV (C. Bonnet, E.
Lipiński & P. Marchetti eds.; Namur 1986);
L. BRONNER, The stories of Elijah and
Elisha (Leiden 1968); J. Day, Baal, ABD 1
(1992) 545-549; R. DussAUD, Les décou-
vertes de Ras Shamra et l'Ancient Testament
(Paris 19412); O. EissrELDT, Der Gott
Karmel (SDAW 1: 1953); K. GALLING, Der
Gott Karmel und die Ächtung der fremden
Götter, Geschichte und Altes Testament, FS
A. Alt (1953) 105-125; T. H. GASTER, Myth,
Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament
(New York/Evanston 1969) 504-511; M. J.
MULDER, Baal in het Oude Testament (The
Hague 1962) 30-44; MULDER, De naam van
de afwezige god op de Karmel. Onderzoek
naar de naam van de Baäl van de Karmel in
I Koningen 18 (Leiden 1979); MULDER,
WD, TWAT 4 (1984) 340-351; H. D.
PREUSS, Verspottung fremder Religionen im
Alten Testament (StuttgarUBerlin 1971) 80-
100: H. O. TuoMPSON, Carmel, Mount,
ABD | (1992) 874-875; S. Timm, Die
CHAOS
Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert
vor Christus (FRLANT 124; Göttingen
1982) 87-101: R. pe Vaux, Les prophètes
de Baal sur le Mont Carmel, Bulletin du
Musée de Beyrouth 5 (1941) 7-20 = Bible et
Orient (Paris 1967) 485-497; E. WÜRTH-
wEIN, Die Erzählung vom Gottesurteil auf
dem Karmel, ZTK 59 (1962) 131-144.
M. J. MULDER
CASTOR -* DIOSKOUROI
CHAOS Xáog
I. The Greek word ydosg (related to
yaoKw or yaivw, ‘gape, yawn’) literally
means ‘chasm’ or ‘yawning space’. There
were various conceptions of it in Greco-
Roman antiquity, because in various mythi-
cal cosmogonies Chaos played very differ-
ent roles. The word occurs only twice in the
Greek Bible, in Mic 1:6 and Zech 14:4, each
time as a translation of the Hebrew gy’, ‘val-
ley’; and 2 times in the Greek fragments of
I Enoch (10:13) and Jubilees (2:2), where it
seems to be used for the abyss where the
evil angels have been incarcerated forever.
The modern sense of the word, i.c. 'dis-
order’, developed only slowly and is not
attested before the later Imperial Period.
II. Hesiod was the first to assign Chaos
a position at the head of a cosmological
genealogy. In Theog. 116-122 Chaos is
either the personified murky and gloomy
space below the -earth (thus West 1966:
192-3) or the vast gap between earth and
—sky (thus Kirk, RAVEN & SCHOFIELD
1983:34-41); its children are Erebos (the
realm of darkness associated with —Hades)
and Nyx (^ Night); cf. for this primary posi-
tion also Acusilaos ap. Philodemus, De
pietate 137,5 and Aristophanes, Aves 693. In
various post-Hesiodic cosmogonical sys-
tems, Chaos receives different positions: c.g.
in Orphic accounts it comes second, after
Chronos (FAUTH 1975:1129; Kirk, RAVEN
& SCHOFIELD 1983:26-28; further details in
SCHWABL 1962:1467-84). In later authors
Chaos develops the various notions of pri-
185
CHEMOSH
mordial matter (e.g. Ovid. Mer. I 5-20),
primordial water (e.g. Pherecydes 7Bla;
Zeno, SVF I 103 [etymological derivation
and tov xée08a1]}), primordial time (e.g.
PGM IV 2535f.), the air between heaven
and carth (e.g. Aristophanes, Aves 1218;
Bacchylides 5,27), and the (whole or part of
the) netherworld (e.g. Ps-Plato, Axiochus
371e: CuwoNT 1942:5|] and TERNUS 1954:
1032-1034 for further references). In various
Gnostic systems Chaos plays a negative role
in connection with the bad Demiurge
(Hippolytus, Refutatio V 10.2; 14,1) or as
the place of ‘outer darkness’, the ‘abyss’
(NHC 1 5, 89; II 1, 30) or as designation of
the cosmos (BG 8502, 118-121; see further
The Nag Hammadi Library in’English [San
Francisco-Leiden 1977} 480 s.v.; SIEGERT
1982:323).
III. Chaos as a cosmogonic factor or
principle does not occur in the Bible, al-
though the statement in Gen 1:2 that the
earth was tohu wabohu (LXX: adpatog Kai
axatacKevactos) and that darkness covered
the deep (-*tiamat, LXX àftvoooc) shows
some resemblance to the Hesiodic concept.
In this connection it is interesting that Philo
of Byblos, in his rendering of Sanchunia-
thon’s Phoenician cosmogonical lore, says
that “he posits as the apyq of the universe a
dark and windy air, or a stream of dark air,
and turbid (or watery), gloomy chaos (xáog
Borepov peses)”, ap. Eusebius, Praep.
Evang. I 10,1. However much this formula-
tion may be due to an interpretatio graeca,
it makes clear that the author apparently saw
a close analogy between these Greek and
Semitic protologics (BAUMGARTEN 1981:
106-108 ad loc. rightly refers to Gen 1:2).
In an apocalyptic context, Chaos sometimes
functions as an element in the eschatological
cosmic upheaval (GUNKEL 1895), as may be
seen e.g. in 4 Ezra 5:8, where it is said that
in the endtime in many places an abyss or
chasm (the Latin here retains the Greck
word chaos) will open up from which sub-
terrestrial fire will break out. This may
explain why the LXX translators twice
chose the word xaos to render passages with
an eschatological tone: in Mic 1:6 the Lorp
will destroy Samaria and hurl her stones into
the chaos, and in Zech 14:4 the feet of the
LonD will stand on the Mount of Olives and
the mount will be cleft in two by an im-
mense chaos stretching from east to west.
The eschatological chaos as a place of cter-
nal torment in / Enach 10:13 (see above) is
paralleled in 2 Pet 2:4, where it is said that
-»God did not spare the angels who sinned,
but consigned them to the dark pits of
Tartarus.
IV. Bibliography
A. Il. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History
of Philo of Byblos (Leiden 1981); L. A.
Corpo, XAOZ. Zur Ursprungsvorstellung
bei den Griechen (Idstein 1989); F.
CuMONT, Recherches sur le symbolisme
funéraire des Romains (New York 1975 =
Paris 1942); O. EissrELDT, Das Chaos in
der biblischen und in der phónizischen
Kosmogonie, KS II (Tübingen 1963) 258-
262; W. FAurH, Chaos, KP I (1975) 1129-
30; H. GUNKEL, Schépfung und Chaos in
Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen 1895); *G. S.
Kirk, J. E. RAVEN & M. SCHOFIELD, The
Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge
19832), index s.v; H. ScuwanL, Welt-
schópfung, PWSup 9 (1962) 1433-1582; F.
SigcERT, Nag-Hammadi-Register (Tübingen
1982); *J. TERNUS, Chaos. RAC 2 (1954)
1031-40; M. L. West, Hesiod. Theogony
(Oxford 1966).
P. W. VAN DER Horst
CHEMOSH C22
I. The divine name Chemosh has the
phonological forms *'kam(m)it and
*kam(m)ut' —the first one being attested in
Eblaitic 9Ka-mi/mi-ig, in the geographical
name KarkamiS ‘quay of Kamis’, and in
FND Jer 48:7 (MULLER 1980), the other
one in a couple of Semitic languages like
Neo-Assyrian, Moabite, and perhaps in
Ugaritic. The duplication of consonants
would neither be indicated in Eblaitic cunci-
form script nor in Ugaritic and Moabite.
Both forms, gattil (parris) as a substantival
participle of B-stem (GAG § 55:20all) and
gattul (parrus) as a verbal adjective of D-
186
CHEMOSH
stem, may mean ‘conqueror, subduer’ as
shown by Akkadian kandsu, kamas/su ‘
submit to an overlord, a deity’, D-stem: "to
bend down, to bow down’ (CAD K 144-148;
compare Old South-Arabic hkms ‘to hu-
miliate, crush’), The same is true in respect
to Hebrew *kamds < ‘kam(m)as*, a qattal-
formation, as it is very often used for
nomina agentis; in Ugarit, we find the per-
sonal name (bin-)ka-ma-si (GRÖNDAHL
1967), in Moab the royal name ™Ka-ma-a§-
hal-ta-a, both with ‘a’ in the second syllable
(WrEwPERT, RLA 5 [1976-1980] 328).
Masoretic kémds is voweled according to
b&’6§ ‘stench’ or the like and so deliberately
misleading, since the correct vocalization is
attested by yapos of the LXX and Chamos
of the Vg, where the duplicated middle con-
sonant is wanting for some reason or other.
There is no etymological connexion to
Middle Hebrew kāmaš ‘to wrinkle, wither’
nor to the rare Arabic kamasa ‘to be/get
harsh, sour, acid’. Nevertheless, a non-Semi-
tic origin of the name cannot be rejected
absolutely.
II. The great importance of the god
Kami$ in the private as well as in the
official religion of Ebla is to be seen from
the usc of this theonym as a theophoric el-
ement in personal names, from the bulk of
sheep offering presented to him (TM.75.
G.2075 obv. VII:6; rev. 1V:4; VI:3, 13, 18:
PETTINATO 1979; 147-159) and not least by
the fact that the name of the 12th month is
itu nidba, (MUSxKUR, or MUS.KURg)
dKa- m -iš ‘month of the festival for Kami’;
an é dKà-mi-i$ "temple of Kami§’ is equally
attested. (PETrINATO 1974-1977; 1976, but
also E. SoLLBERGER. StEb 1V/9-10 [1980]
136; MOLLER 1980: Pomponio 1983:145,
156).
In Ugarit, the veneration of a binomial
deity zz.w kmt or tz-w kit, though not in a
prominent place, can be deduced from the
occurence in KTU 1.100:36; 107:16; 123:5.
zz or fz means ‘mud, clay’ as a comparison
with Akkadian fitu and Hebrew (ít, both of
the same meaning, shows (XELLA 1981:219-
220) and may account for the chthonic char-
acter of kint, since the waw in zz.w kmt is
perhaps to be interpreted as a waw explica-
tionis in the sense of ‘namely’. As all three
attestations are in stereotyped contexts, the
role of z/tz.w kmt is casily exchangeable
with an equal role played by other binomial
deities. KTU 1.123 is virtually a god list.
According to the expression nLnw
kmt.hryth in. KTU 1.100:36, ane city Aryt(h),
identifiable as Hu-ur-ri-ya‘i in Northern
Me ponmi, (ARM VIII. 100:19), or as
(uu) #4y-ri-ja4 in the kingdom of Alalah (A/T
201:15; cf. ASTOUR 1968), if not—less
probably—as Ha-ri-e-ta near Qade& on the
Orontes (A. CAQUoOr, Syria 46 [1969] 246),
was the main cult place of zz.w Ant.
The Nco-Assyrian Chicago syllabary 136
ives the equations GUD = Ka-mu-us =
Ka-mu-us GUD (cf. SL 11/2,515 [no. 13e])
for which we remember that GUD can be
the word-sign for -*efemimnu ‘spirit of a dead
one’, perhaps another hint to the chthonic
character of Chemosh. For the same reason,
4Ka-am-mus is identified with Nergal in
CT 24, 36:66 (AKKGE 339; W. G. LAMBERT,
RLA 5 [1976-1980] 335).
As for the Moabite evidence, Chemosh is
attested both in native inscriptions on the
one hand and in royal names transmitted in
cuneiform texts on the other hand; in the
latter, however, Neo-Assyrian influence on
spelling and even unconscious interpretation
cannot be excluded. The well known Mesha
stone KA/ 181 names Chemosh 10 times,
and once more in the binomial form ‘Str.kin
in line 17, and as a theophoric element in
the king's father's name Kmns[jt] (line 1) that
we find again in a recently discovered
second Mesha inscription. Mesha's stela no.
I is a votive text erected on occasion of the
building of the bdmd, ‘sacred high-place’,
mentioned in line 3. Because lines 1-21 and
31-33 report battles against Israel won by
Mesha in honour of his god Chemosh and of
himself, we can suppose from lines 3-4 that
the bamd and the inscribed stela were con-
structed at the same time to celebrate these
victories as mighty acts of the god Chemosh
and king Mesha whose name means not
without reason ‘the Saviour’. Lines 21-31
glorify various efforts of Mesha as city
187
CHEMOSH
founder or restorer and are noteworthily free
from religious motifs. The main text (lines
1-21a, 31-33) refers to a holy war which
seems to be performed like a ritual and is
brought to an end by the ban (-*Taboo) i.e.
the execution of the subdued population, 'as
a spectacle (ryt) for Chemosh and for Moab’
(line 12); the technical term hiph‘il Arm ‘to
ban’ which is well known from the Old Tes-
tament is used in line 17. In a kind of func-
tional monolatry, Chemosh is the only sub-
duer of his enemies, just as Yahweh in
Israel, who is nevertheless overthrown in
this case, so that Yahweh's holy implements
(lines 17-18) as well as the "Pl, perhaps
‘altar’, of Israel's dwd (= Yahweh?) accord-
ing to lines 12-13 are brought ‘before
Chemosh’. Altogether, following holy war
ideology, Israel must have perished for ever
(line 7; cf. Judg 5:31), whereas formerly, in
his wrath, Chemosh had humbled Moab so
that Israel had come to be victorious (line 5-
6). The binomial signification “štr.kmš
identifies Chemosh with the male god
Ashtar who already plays a merely ridicu-
lous role as a defunct deity in the Ugaritic
Cycle of Baal (KTU 1.6 i:44-67), but may
have remained still more vigourous in mar-
ginal regions like Moab; on prism B of the
Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon an ‘Arabian’
god A-tar-sa-ma-a-a-in *At(t)ar of Heaven’
is mentioned (for this and some relevant
attestations cf. MULLER 1964:391-394).
Once, Ashtar could have been martial like
his female counterparts Ishtar and Astarte;
his epithet ‘rz ‘aweful’ KTU 1.6 1:54-56, 61,
63 is at the same time atavistic and ironical
(MOLLER, TWAT 6, 454-456). Therefore the
identification of Ashtar and Chemosh may
have served to secure the functional mono-
latry of the latter in war affairs. A second
Mesha inscription mentions the name of the
king's father [K]mijt 'Chemosh has given'
again, and a [b]t.kmé 'house (temple) of
Chemosh’ into the bargain (7SS/ 1, 83-84),
the latter occurring as br k[ms] in a third
stela fragment found in 1951 (MunmPuv
1952).
Moabite royal names in Neo-Assyrian
cuneiforms are !Ka-am/Kam-mu-su-nad-bi
*Chemosh is generous to me" (cf. kunijt);
(Sennacherib, TiMM 1989:346-359); IKa-mu-
$u-i-ln. *Chemosh is god'; 9Ka-mu-3ti-Sar-
u$ur '"Chemosh. protect the king’ (cf.
$wiirsr ‘Šamaš, protect the king’ on an
Aramaic seal; TiGAy 1987:183 n. 28. 168-
171) in which Babylonian influence is
obvious (VAN ZvL 1960:183) and the above
mentioned !Ka-am-aS-hal-ta-a_ of uncertain
meaning (Assurbanipal, RÓLLIG; WEIPPERT,
RLA S [1976-1980] 328, 335-336; Timm
1989:374-388). Kmš occurs as theophoric
element in personal names Ams (TiMM
1989:180-181); kmšyhy (idem 162-165);
kmšnťš (166-167), kmš‘m (bn) kmšl (168-
170); kmšşdą (171-173), kmšdn (178-179);
kmsntn (182-183) on scals.
Papyrus fragments from Egyptian Sakka-
ra contain personal names such as Ámsijhj
'Chemosh may live’, Kmssdq- "Chemosh is
righteous’ and kimgplt 'Chemosh has saved'
(AIME-GiIRON 1931; VAN ZyL 1960:40,
182). Whether a material figure between
torches represented on Moabite coins is
Chemosh is a moot point. In Hellenistic
time, Chemosh has been identified with
—Ares; therefore the name of the capital
Diban is now changed to ‘Areopolis’ (GESE
1970:181).
Without any historical value is the infor-
mation of the Suda, a Byzantine dictionary
from the 10th century CE, that Chemosh was
the god of Tyre and the Amorites.
Whether or not the figure on the left side
of the famous Balu‘ah monument (ANEP,
no. 488) is Chemosh cannot be decided on
the basis of the available evidence.
HI. Biblical evidence on Chemosh is
scarce and merely incidental. In announce-
ments of disaster, Moab is called ‘the people
of Chemosh’ in Num 21:29; Jer 48:46. The
connexion between a single god and an eth-
nic community which the god seems to have
chosen looks like a generalization of the
functional monolatry we found in the Mesha
inscription: the first millennium BCE is a
time of national kingdoms in Syria and
Palestine; the god of the nation represents its
solidarity. Judg 11:12.24 takes Chemosh to
be the god of the Ammonites, which con-
188
CHERUBIM
forms to the same scheme of thinking, but
makes the wrong. association.
That Solomon should have introduced,
east of Jerusalem, the cult of Chemosh,
—Astarte, and ->Milcom (read lémilkém 1
Kgs 11:7 instead of /émdélek according to
LXX LucRec and vv 5, 33 MT; cf. 2 Kgs
23:13 and emendations to 2 Sam 12:30; Jer
49:1.3; Zeph 1:5) for the convenience of his
distinguished foreign concubines is suspec-
ted to be a Deuteronomistic slander, in reali-
ty reflecting the idolatrous conditions of the
exilic time. In v 7, Chemosh is called Sigqfis
mó'db ‘the abomination of Moab’ which,
along with the formula 'az yibneh ‘then ..
built’, may reflect earlier terminology (M.
Notu, BKAT IX/1, 246). Verse 33 speaks
in clearly Deuteronomistic style about
kémós$ "élóhé mó'àb 'Chemosh the god of
Moab', and that in a pretended announce-
ment of disaster by Ahijah of Shilo.
Deuteronomistic, too, is the reference in 2
Kgs 23:13, according to which Josiah had
purified the mountains east of Jerusalem
from the bāmôt, ‘sacred high-places’, of
Astarte, Chemosh and Milcom. Here we find
an exact localization that is missing in 1
Kgs 11:5 LXX and has been secondarily
inserted in 1 Kgs 11:7. In my opinion, 2
Kgs 23:13 reflects an ideal of cultic
purification cherished in pious exilic circles
(MULLER, TWAT 6, 459-460).
Of particular interest is the remark in 2
Kgs 3:27 that Mesha, in a critical situation
of battle, offered his son on the wall of his
city, the consequence of which was that the
wrath of Chemosh began to destroy Israel
instantly; nowhere else is the mighty activity
of a foreign god conceded in such an unre-
strained manner. Unfortunately, we cannot
reconcile this particular record with the
largely ideological statements of the first
Mesha inscription.
Jer 48:7 announces the exile of the god
Chemosh (kmy§ !), together with his priests
and princes (Sdrim). According to v 13,
"Moab shall be ashamed of Beth-El, their
confidence'. The context of both passages
confirms the martial character of Chemosh,
which agrees with the first Mesha-inscrip-
tion and with 2 Kgs 3:27, thus confirming
its authenticity.
IV. Bibliography
M. N. AiMÉ-GIRON, Textes araméens de
l'Égypte (Cairo 1931) 13; M. C. ASTOUR,
Some New Divine Names from Ugarit,
JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284, esp. 277-278;
ASTOUR, Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms,
JNES 27 (1968) 13-36, esp. 20; H. GESE.
Die Religionen Altsyriens (RAAM Stuttgart
1970) 3-232, esp. 140-141; F. GRÓNDAHL,
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit
(Rome 1967) 150; H.-P. MÜLLER, Reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den
Texten von Ebla, ZDPV 96 (1980) 1-19,
esp. 10-11 [& lit; MOLLER, Die Inschrift
des Königs Mesa von Moab, TUAT 1/6 (ed.
O. Kaiser; Gütersloh 1985) 646-650; MÜL-
LER, Kónig Mé$a* von Moab und der Gott
der Geschichte, UF 26 (1994) 373-395; R.
E. Mun?Hy, A Fragment of an Early Moabi-
te Inscription from Dibon, BASOR 125
(1952) 20-23; G. PETTINATO, Il calendario di
Ebla al tempo del re Ibbi-Sipis sulla base di
TM.75.G.427, AfO 25 (1974-77) 28-36;
PETTINATO, CarchemiS - Kàr-Kamis. Le
prime attestazioni del III millennio, OrAnt
15 (1976) 11-15; PETTIINATO, Culto ufficiale
ad Ebla durante il regno di Ibbi-Sipi$, OrAnt
18 (1979) 85-215; F. Pomponio, I nomi
divini nei testi di Ebla, UF 15 (1983) 141-
156; W. RöLLIG, Kamoš, WbMyth l/l
(1965) 292; J. H. TiGay, Israelite Religion:
The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,
Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor
of F. M. Cross (ed. P. D. Miller jr. et alii;
Philadelphia 1987) 157-194; S. TIMM, Die
Dynastie Omri (FRLANT 124; Góttingen
1982) 158-180; TiMM, Moab zwischen den
Mächten (Wiesbaden 1989); P. XELLa, 1
testi rituali di Ugarit 1 (Rome 1981) 216-
250 (& lit]; A. H. vaN ZYL, The Moabites
(POS 3; Leiden 1960) esp. 180-183, 195-
198.
H.-P. MÜLLER
CHERUBIM C212
I. The term 'cherubim' occurs 91 times
in the Hebrew Bible. It denotes the Israelite
189
CHERUBIM
counterpart of the sphinx known from the
pictorial art of the ancient Near East. In the
Bible the cherubim occur essentially in two
functions: as guardians of a sacred tree or as
guardians and carriers of a throne.
There is no consensus on the etymology
of the term. While there are difficulties con-
nected with the various suggestions that
have been made (survey in FREEDMAN &
O'Connor 1983) the most probable is that
the Heb term is connected with Akk kdribu,
kuribu, both used with reference to genii in
Mesopotamian mythology and art (see
RINALD! 1967). But even so, this provides
little help in understanding the Israelite
cherubim.
II. The study of ancient Near Eastern
iconography has been instrumental in the
interpretation of the biblical cherubim and
here interest has focussed on the sphinx, i.e.
the winged lion with a human head
(ALBRIGHT 1938; thorough documentation
in DE VAUX 1967; METZGER 1985a: 259-83
and figs 1181-1222; GusEL 1987: 37-84).
The basic confirmation of this interpretation
is found in the fact that sphinxes and bibli-
cal cherubim occur in precisely the same
above-mentioned functions.
While the sphinx is known both in Mes-
opotamia and Egypt, the sphinx throne with
the sphinxes as an integral element of the
throne itself (thus not only flanking the
throne) is a Syrian innovation from the time
of the 19th Egyptian dynasty. While the
Egyptian lion-paws throne never cared a
~god, the Syrian sphinx throne was used
for both gods and kings.
The classical examples of the sphinx
throne are the ivory plaque from Megiddo
stratum VITA (Iron I), the small throne
model from the same site, and the relief on
the sarcophagus of Ahiram (late 2nd millen-
nium). SEYRIG called attention to a group of
small, mostly empty votive thrones from the
Syro-Lebanese coastal area, dating from the
7th century BCE to Hellenistic times
(METZGER 1985a: figs 1191-1199). Of these,
one had a steeply leaning seat incapable of
receiving an object (METZGER 1985a: fig.
1201), thus being empty from the beginning,
without a cultic image, one had a spherical,
aniconic object on the seat, and one had two
sculptured stelae leaning towards the back.
This may have implications for the under-
standing of the aniconism of the Solomonic
temple, which was built by Tyrian archi-
tects. Sphinx thrones bearing a deity are
known from Mediterranean scarabs from the
7th-6th centuries (METZGER 1985a: figs
1184-1188) and later Punic stelae and terra-
cottae (METZGER 198Sa: figs 1203-1217).
The deity on these thrones is cither a
male (Baal Hammon) or a female one
(-*Astarte). The lion-paws throne from
which the sphinx throne developed occurs as
the throne of —El on the Ugaritic E] stela
(ANEP no. 493). The male deity on the
sphinx throne, Baal Hammon (P. XELLA,
Baal Hammon [Rome 1991] 106-140), is
generally considered as something of an El
figure (XELLA: 100-105, 233).
III. While the biblical cherubim some-
times appear as guardians of the sacred tree
(1 Kgs 6:29-35; Ezek 41:18-25) or of the
garden of Eden (Gen 3:24; Ezek 28:14,16),
the most important function is that of
bearers of -*Yahweh's throne, cf. Ezek
10:20 and the divine epithet ydséb hak-
kériibim, “he who is enthroned on the cheru-
bim", applied to Yahweh already at Shilo (1
Sam 4:4; cf. 2 Sam 6:2; Ilsa 37:16 etc.). In
this function the cherubim express the royal
majesty of -Yahweh Zebaoth (METZGER
1985b), his holiness (cf. the cherubim as
guardians), and his presence (METTINGER
1982; JaNowski 1991). In the early mon-
archy, this theology, which may be termed
Zion-Zebaoth theology. focussed on the
presence of Yahweh Zebaoth. In Ezekicl and
P we encounter a Kabod theology of divine
presence (Glory); in the Deuteronomistic
-»Name theology the cherubim throne lost
its importance (METTINGER 1982).
In discussing the cherubim, the icono-
graphy of the Solomonic temple and that of
the Priestly tabernacle must be properly dis-
tinguished. The Solomonic cherubim are ten
cubits high (1 Kgs 6:23) and stand parallel
to cach other in the adyton, facing the nave
(2 Chron 3:13). Their inner wings meet cach
other and are conjoined (1 Kgs 6:27; 2
Chron 3:12) forming the throne seat of the
190
CHERUBIM
invisible deity (HARAN 1959:35-36; KEEL
1977:24; contrast DE Vaux 1967:233-234).
The ark is placed underneath the conjoined
inner wings as the footstool of the Lorn (1
Kgs 8:6-8; 1 Chr 28:2). The usual assump-
tion is that the cherubim stand on all four
legs, just as the sphinxes known from the
plastic arts. METZGER (1985a: 309-51) has
advanced a different interpretation: The
cherubim stand on their back legs and do
not form a throne. This interpretation is sup-
ported by a reference to the composition on
the facade of a Hittite sanctuary at Eflatun
Pinar (METZGER 1985a: fig. no. 1235).
Various difficulties are connected with this
interpretation (METTINGER 1986). It dis-
solves the connection between the cherubim
formula and the iconography of the temple
and it builds on more remote analogies than
the established interpretation. That there is
no explicit reference in 1-2 Kgs to the
throne of the LonD is due to the Deuter-
onomistic name theology from the exilic
period which relocated God from the temple
to heaven (METTINGER 1982:46-52).
Ezekiel chaps 1 and 8-11 represent a
visionary development of the iconography
of the first temple; while chap | is more
profoundly marked by Mesopotamian pictor-
ial tradition with four creatures as carriers of
heaven, chaps 8-11 still speak of cherubim
(thorough analysis in Keer 1977). In
Ezekiel the cherubim throne has developed
into the throne chariot. This is probably due
to the importance of the theophany tradition
in Ezekiel, since the theophany tradition has
the notion of the mobile, coming God (Ps
18:10-11). In this verse the verb rdkab
should not be translated as “to ride” but as
“dahinfahren” (HALAT 1149); Yahweh is
not depicted as “riding” on a cherub but
descending in his cherubim chariot (cf. Ps
77:19).
In the Priestly tabernacle the cherubim
have undergone a mutation. They no longer
stand parallel but face one another and are
considerably smaller than the Solomonic
cherubim since they stand on and are of one
piece with the lid of the ark, the kappóret
(Exod 25:19-20) which is only 2.5 by 1.5
cubits (Exod 25:17). Here the cherubim are
no longer throne bearers but serve as guard-
ians of the mercy seat from which the
Kabod, the divine Glory, speaks to Israel.
The iconography of P may thus have a dif-
ferent, Egyptian background (GónG 1977).
While there is now a fair amount of
agreement about the iconographical back-
ground of the cherubim, there is still dis-
agreement on the religio-historical implica-
tions. Since the cherubim serve both as
Yahweh's throne and as his vehicle, the
chariot (Ps 18:11; cf. Ps 104:3), it may be
that the El traditions of the enthroned deity
and the -Baal notions of the “Driver of the
Clouds” have merged (METTINGER 1982:
35-36). Whether or not one should then pre-
suppose an influence from the lion dragon of
the weather god (thus METZGER 1985a: 315-
323) is a different matter.
The empty cherubim throne in the
Solomonic temple is an expression of Israel-
ite aniconism. It is possible that Tyre and
Sidon already had such empty thrones as the
seat of an invisible deity. But even if this is
so, lsraclite aniconism is not as such a
Phoenician import; it antedates the Solomon-
ic temple by several centuries. It is original-
ly related to the worship of standing stones,
magsébót. Moreover, the ark also expresses
an aniconic theology of divine presence.
Thus, the combination of the empty throne
and the ark in the temple would seem to
combine two varieties of aniconism. It
should be noted that both the cherubim
iconography of Jerusalem and the bull ico-
nography of Bethel (with the invisible deity
standing on the back of the bull) are in
principle aniconic.
IV. The biblical notion of Yahweh's
throne chariot (Ezek !; 1 Chr 28:18) plays
an important part in Jewish Merkabah mys-
ticism (MaArER 1964; GRUENWALD 1980;
esp. HALPERIN 1988). Early Jewish refer-
ences to the (cherubim) chariot that are of
interest in this connection are found in Sir
49:8, LXX Ezek 43:3; Apoc. Mos. 33; Apoc.
Abr. 18:12; Eth. Enoch 61:10; 71:7. Also,
the Sabbath Songs from Qumran contain
noteworthy material (NEWSOM 1985:44-45).
Thus, 4Q405 20-21-22:8 understands the
throne as a heavenly secret: “The image of
191
CHRIST
the chariot throne do they bless..." Other
instances in these texts speak of the
cherubim as animate beings offering praise
to the godhead.
V. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, What Were the
Cherubim?, BA 1,1 (1938) 1-3; C. M.
CocHE-Zivie, Sphinx, LdA 5 (1984) 1139-
1147; A. DESSENNE, Le sphinx. Etude ico-
nographique (Bibliothèque des écoles
françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 186, Paris
1957); D.N. FREEDMAN & M. O'CONNOR,
WS kértib, TWAT 4 (1983) 322-334 [& lit];
M. Gónc, Keruben in Jerusalem, BN 4
(1977) 13-24; I. GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic
and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden
1980); E. Gupet, Phoenician Furniture
(Studia Phoenicia 7; Leuven 1987) 37-84;
B. HALPERIN, The Faces of the Chariot.
Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision
(TSAJ 18; Tübingen 1988); M. HARAN, The
Ark and the Cherubim, JEJ 9 (1959) 30-38,
89-94; W. HErLckK, Der liegende und ge-
flügelte weibliche Sphinx des Neuen Reiches,
MIO 3,1 (1955) 1-10; B. JaNowski, "Ich
will in eurer Mitte wohnen". Struktur und
Eigenart der exilischen Schekina-Thcologie,
Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 2 (1987)
165-193; JaNowskKi, Keruben und Zion,
Ernten was man sát. Festschrift für Klaus
Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. D. R.
Daniels et alii; Neukirchen 1991) 231-264;
*O. KEEL, Jaliwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst
(SBS 84-85; Stuttgart 1977); J. MAIER, Vom
Kultus zur Gnosis. Bundeslade, Gottesthron
und Märkābāh (Kairos. Religionswissen-
schaftliche Studien 1; Salzburg 1964); T.
MzrrINGER, 7he Dethronement of Sabaoth.
Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies
(ConB OTS 18, Lund 1982); METTINGER,
Review of M. Metzger 1985a, Svensk Teo-
logisk Kvartalskrift 62 (1986) 174-177; *M.
METZGER, Kónigsthron und Gottesthron
(AOAT 15:1-2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985) =
1985a; METZGER, Der Thron als Manifesta-
tion der Herrschermacht in der Ikonographie
des Vorderen Orients und im Alten Testa-
ment, Charisma und Institution (ed. T.
Rendtorff; Tübingen 1985) - 1985b; C.
NEWSOM, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A
Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985); G.
RiNALDI, Nota, BeO 9 (1967) 211-212; H.
SEYRIG, Divinités de Sidon, Syria 36 (1959)
48-56 [Antiquités syriennes no. 70]; *R. DE
Vaux, Les chérubins et l'arche d'alliance,
les sphinx gardiens ct les trénes divins dans
l'ancient Orient, Bible et Orient (Paris 1967)
231-259 [originally publ. in MUSJ 37
(1960-61) 91-124].
T. N. D. METTINGER
CHRIST »piotóg
I. The masculine form of the adjective
xpıotóç is only found in the LXX, in a few
early Jewish documents and in the writings
of the NT. In the LXX the term is used in
connection with kings, priests and prophets
(the Hebrew equivalent is másíali), in Pss.
Sol. 17:32; 18 superscr., 18:5.7 particularly
in connection with the expected ideal king
of the future. In the writings of the NT
christos is used of the coming anointed one
of Jewish expectation, or of -*Jesus, be-
lieved to be this ‘Messiah’—see John 1:41
“We have found the Messiah (transliterated
in Greck messian) which is translated Christ
(christos)"; cf. John 4:25.
The word occurs 531 times in the NT. It
is Often found in the combinations ‘Jesus
Christ’ and ‘Christ Jesus’ and (as is usual in
the case of nomina sacra) there is a great
deal of variety in the manuscript tradition.
In many cases, the word christos seems to
function as a second name and cannot be
demonstrated to carry the meaning
‘Messiah’. Of the 531 instances just
mentioned, 270 are found in the Letters of
Paul, and another 113 in the Deutero-
Paulines. It occurs 35 times in the Synoptics
(but only 7 times in Mark, and never in Q,
the common source of Matthew and Luke,
as far as we can see) and 26 times in Acts,
as well as 30 times in the Gospel and Let-
ters of John. It is relatively frequent in 1
Peter (22x). The very high frequency of the
word in Christian sources, and its function
as central designation for Jesus, require an
explanation.
IH. The corresponding Greek verb chri-
192
CHRIST
ein means ‘to rub, anoint with scented
unguents or -*oil' or 'to wash with colour,
to coat'. Anointing had its place in bodily
hygiene, in athletic contests, at joyous and
festive occasions, in medicine (and magic)
and in burial rites; also in a cultic setting
(anointing of statues of gods, of offerings
and also of partakers in ceremonies). In the
LXX we find it used of Saul’s shield (2 Sam
1:21), and in connection with feminine
make-up (Ezek 16:9; Jdt 10:3), and with
preparations for a feast (Amos 6:6: Isa 25:6)
as well as in a cultic setting. We hear of the
anointing of the tabernacle, the ark of the
covenant, the altar and other cultic objects
(Exod 30:22-29; Lev 8:10; Num 7:1) and a
few times the word is used in connection
with unleavened cakes which are offered
(Exod 29:2; Num 6:15). In Dan 9:24 Theod.
‘to anoint a most holy place’ refers to the
(re)dedication of the temple (see also
KARRER 1991:172-209). The neuter term
christon occurs, however, very seldom; in
Aeschylus, Prometheus vinctus 480, Euri-
pides, Hippolytus 516, Ps.-Galenus, De
remediis parabilibus 14,548,11 (cf. Theo-
critus 11,2) it is used of a medicine that ‘has
to be rubbed on’. In Josephus Ant. Jud. 8
$137 it means ‘painted’. Interestingly
Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 1,12, connects
christon with a ship (‘caulked’), a tower and
a house (‘whitewashed’), and the verb chri-
ein with athletes and ornaments—to end
with Christians who are ‘anointed with the
oil of God’. In Lev 21:10.12 LXX to elaion
to christon (‘anointing oil") is used during
the consecration of the high priest; in Dan
9:26 LXX that speaks of the future destruc-
tion of the city and the holy place meta tou
christou, the latter may mean ‘with what
was anointed’ rather than ‘with the anointed
one’ (Theod. ‘with the coming leader’). As
was already remarked, it is only in the Bible
and in early Jewish and Christian sources
that the adjective christos is used in connec-
tion with persons. In order to understand the
use of christos for Jesus in the writings of
the NT we shall, therefore, have to examine
the instances in the OT (LXX) and the
occurrences of the Greek word, and its
counterparts in other languages, in carly
Jewish sources.
In the OT category ‘anointed ones’ may
be priests, kings and prophets.The expres-
sion ‘the anointed priest’ is found in Lev
4:3.5.16 (LXX christos) and in 6:15 (LXX
participle kechrismenos). The high priest is
meant, just as in Lev 21:10.12 ‘the priest...
on whose head the anointing oil has been
poured...” (cf. Num 35:25). At God's com-
mand, Moses anoints Aaron together with
his sons (Exod 29; 40:12-15; Lev 8:12-13,
also Sir 45:15, cf. Exod 28:41; 30:30; Lev
6:13). Num 3:3 speaks of 'the anointed
priests" in the plural (LXX éleimmenoi), cf.
2 Macc 1:10 which mentions a certain
Aristobulus ‘who is of the family of the
anointed priests’ (LXX christön). Anointing
in this context means appointment and con-
secration, as is indicated by the parallel
expressions used here. In fact it is the LORD
himself who may be said to have anointed
the priests (Lev 7:36). The priesthood of
Aaron and his successors is meant to be
eternal (Exod 40:15; Lev 6:15; 16:32-34,
also Sir 45:7.15).
As to prophets: In Ps 105:5 (1 Chr 16:22)
‘my anointed ones’ occurs parallel with ‘my
prophets’ in a context that speaks of the
patriarchs. In 1 Kgs 16:16 (cf. Sir 48:8)
Elijah is told (among other things) to
anoint Elisha to be his successor. In 1 Kgs
19:19-21, however, which describes Elisha's
call, no anointing takes place: Elijah casts
his mantle upon him. In 2 Kgs 2:1-14, at
Elijah's departure to heaven, his successor is
said to receive a double share of Elijah's
spirit and to take up his mantle. We may
compare Isa 61:1 where the prophetic author
declares that the Spirit of God is upon him
because the Lorp has anointed him. In the
case of prophets, the emphasis is clearly not
on the rite of anointing, but on the gift of
the Spirit of God.
Numerous instances refer to the anointing
of kings. The emphasis on divine initiative
in these cases is reflected in the popularity
of the expression ‘the LorD’s anointed’
(LXX christos kuriou) and the correspond-
ing expression ‘my. your, his anointed’. It is
193
CHRIST
used in connection with Saul (1 Sam 12:3.5;
21:7.11; 26:9.11.16.23; 2 Sam 1:14.16, cf.
Sir 46:19) and David (1 Sam 16:6; 2 Sam
19:22; cf. 2 Sam 23:3). In the case of these
two kings, Samuel is God's agent (1 Sam
10:1-8; 16:1-13; cf. 2 Sam 12:7, and also Sir
46:13; Ps 151:4 LXX); in both cases there is
an emphasis on thc gift of the Spirit (1 Sam
10:6; 16:13, cf. 1 Sam 16:14, 2 Sam 23:2).
The (Davidic) king is called 'anointed of the
Lorp’ several times in the Book of Psalms
(2:2; 18:51 [2 Sam 22:51); 20:7; 28:8;
84:10; 89:39.52; 132:10 (2 Chr 6:42].17 (cf.
1 Sam 2:10.35]; compare also Hab 3:13,
Lam 4:20. In these texts, the LORD's anoint-
ing denotes an exclusive relationship
between the God of Israel and the king who
reigns in his name and is, therefore, assisted
and protected by him. Quite exceptional is
the application of the term to the Persian
king Cyrus in Isa 45:1 “Thus says the Lorp
to his anointed, to Cyrus” (cf. Hazael in |
Kgs 19:15-17). This gentile king, who does
not know or acknowledge the God of Israel,
receives a commission and the power to
secure peace and freedom for God's chosen
people (Isa 45:1-7). He is God's shepherd
(44:28) where Davidic kings have failed.
In the Royal Psalms (besides Pss 2; 18;
20; 89; 132 also 21; 45; 72; 101; 110; 144),
the psalmists, referring to God's promises
and instructions to David and his dynasty,
make far-reaching assertions about the
Davidic king and his family. They do not
yet envisage a future ideal son of David. In
later times, however, elements in these
psalms have played a role in the expecta-
tions regarding a future Davidic anointed of
the Lorp. Strikingly, none of the passages
in the Prophets announcing a decisive and
lasting change in the plight of Israel, in
which a descendant of David figures as an
ideal king in the name of the Lorp, uses the
designation ‘anointed of the Lonp' (Isa 9:1-
6; 11:1-9; Mic 5:1-3; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-16;
Ezek 17:22-24; 34:23-24; 37:24-25). These
passages, too, have influenced later expecta-
tions.
After
Babylon,
the return from the exile in
Zerubbabel, a descendant of
David, is hailed by Haggai; but, in Zech-
ariah, we note a juxtaposition of him and the
high priest Joshua (Zech 3:8; 6:9-14 and
especially 4:14 “they are the two ‘sons of
oil’ who stand by the Lord of the whole
earth”). A similar juxtaposition of the house
of David and the levitical priests, said to last
for ever, is found in Jer 33:17-26 (cf. 1 Sam
2:35; 1 Chr 29:22). Sir 49:11-12 praises
Zerubbabel and Joshua jointly for rebuilding
the temple. In a Hebrew addition to Sir
51:12 we find the house of David and the
priests (called ‘the sons of Zadok’) again
mentioned side by side. On the whole,
however, Sirach's ‘Praise of the Fathers’
(chaps. 44-50) pays more attention to God’s
covenant with the priests—sce the culogy of
Aaron (45:6-22), of Phinchas (45:23-26) and
of Sinon (ch. 50) over against the praise of
David (47:1-11) and the long section on his
descendants who reccive praise and blame
(47:12-49:4). The book's attention centres
here around the temple and the priesthood.
This is also the case in Dan 9:24-27 where
in v. 25 ‘until the time of an anointed one, a
prince’ and in v. 26 ‘an anointed one will be
cut off refer to high priests, Joshua and
Onias (in the time before Antiochus's cap-
ture of Jerusalem) respectively. One should
note that here the word mdSiah is used twice
absolutely, but without an article).
In early Jewish documents, the expecta-
tion of a ‘messiah’, i.e. a person said to be
‘anointed’, functioning as God's agent in his
definitive intervention in the world's affairs
in the (near) future, does not occur very
often. The hope of divine intervention is
important and even central in many
writings; but God need not engage human
(or angelic) agents of deliverance and these
need not be called ‘messiah’.
In a number of sources, the juxtaposition
of kings and priest(s) receives attention. In
Jubilees, Isaac's blessing of Levi and Judah
is recorded in 31:13-17 and 31:18-20
respectively, but the emphasis is on the
functions to be exercised by the two sons of
Jacob and their descendants—although in v
18 we read "a prince shall you be, you and
one of your sons" (David? a future Davidic
194
CHRIST
king?). Also in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs Levi and Judah occupy an im-
portant place; but the interpretation of this
document is difficult because of an intensive
Christian redaction (if not more), particular-
ly noticeable in the eschatological passages.
This is the case in 7. Levi 18 which deals
with the advent of a new priest and T. Judah
24 describing the coming of an ideal king.
and the passages announcing a future
~saviour/salvation connected with (one of)
these tribes (T. Sim. 7:1-2; T. Napht. 8:2-3;
T. Gad 8:1; T. Jos. 19:6(11), cf. T. Levi
2:11: T. Judah 22:2; T. Dan 5:10). Twice, in
T. Levi 17:2-3, the participle chriomenos is
used for persons anointed for the priesthood.
The word christos is found in T. Reub. 6:8
that limits Levi's priestly activities to the
period ‘until the consummation of times (the
times) of the anointed high priest, of whom
the Lord spoke’. In view of T. Levi 4:4; 5:2
and chaps 10; 14-15 and 16 this passage
must be regarded as Christian.
The Dead Sea Scrolls mention anointing
in connection with high priests, kings and
prophets. The interpretation of this Qumran
material is difficult because of the fragmen-
tary nature of much of the evidence. Part of
it may have originated after the group was
formed under the leadership of the ‘Teacher
of righteousness’; part of it may date from
an earlier period.
In a number of cases the prophets of the
OT are called ‘anointed’—see CD 5:21-6:1,
1 QM 11:7-8 and esp. CD 2:12 ‘the
anointed ones of his -Holy Spirit’ (cf. now
4Q287 fr. 10 and 4Q377 fr.2 ii, 5. ‘through
the mouth of Moses, his anointed’). In
11QMelch ii, 18 the term ‘the anointed of
the Spirit’ is used for the ‘one who brings
good tidings’ of Isa 52:7 (cf. Isa 61:1!). He
announces God's intervention through
~Melchizedek, conceived as an angelic
figure. It may be that the same prophetic
figure is meant in 4Q521 fr. 2 ii+4, begin-
ning with "...the heavens and earth will lis-
ten to his anointed one" and describing what
the Lord will accomplish for his righteous
and pious servants at the end of times (here,
however, the plural ‘his anointed ones’ is
also possible).
Another future prophet is mentioned in 1
QS 9:11 "... until there shall come the
prophet and the anointed ones of Aaron and
Israel" (perhaps referring to Deut. 18:18-19,
a text mentioned in 4QTestim alongside
Num 24:15-17 and Deut 33:8-11). The term
‘anointed one of Israel’ retums in 1QSa
2:14.20, a description of an eschatological
banquet where he and the high priest and
their subordinates are present (whether in
2:11-12 ‘the anointed one’ (ammdSiah) is
used absolutely, and then for the royal
figure, is disputed). It is clear that the high
priest is the leading figure: as in 1QM where
he gives the directives for the eschatological
war (1QM 2:1; 15:4; 16:13; 18:5; 19:11)
and the ‘prince of the congregation’ is
mentioned only in passing (1QM 5:1). Also
in other texts where a royal and a (high)
priestly figure(s) are mentioned together the
latter is/are clearly the most important, as
interpreter(s) of the Law (CD 7:18-21;
4QFlor iii, 11; 11QTemple 56:20-21; 57:11-
15; 58:18-21; 4Q161 fr. 8-10, 18-25). In
4Q376 fr. 1 i, 1 we meet the expression ‘the
anointed priest’, clearly to be identified with
‘the anointed priest, upon whose head has
been poured the oil of anointing’ in 4Q375
fr. 1 19 (cf. Lev 21:10.12 and 1QM 9:8).
The royal figure expected for the future is
mostly called 'the prince of (all) the congre-
gation’ or ‘Branch of David’; but, in 4Q 252
fr. 1 v, 3. we find the expression ‘the righte-
ous anointed one' (lit. 'the anointed one of
righteousness') and in 4Q458 fr.2 ii, 5 the
term ‘anointed with the oil of the kingship’
occurs.
The meaning of the expression ‘anointed
one of Aaron and Israel' in CD 12:23-13:1;
14:19: 19:10-11 (cf. 20:1) is still disputed.
The term 'anointed' is found here in the
singular, but many have argued that the
expression nevertheless admits of a plural
interpretation. It is also possible that at some
stage the prerogatives of the ‘anointed one
of Isracl’ were absorbed into the concept of
the anointed Aaronic priest.
The texts preserved at Qumran show a
great variety in images and concepts, as well
195
CHRIST
as applications of texts from the Scriptures.
One looks forward to the time when the
Law will be fully understood and when the
will of God will be obeyed completely.
Then a duly appointed high priest and a
Davidic prince—whose anointed status is
sometimes mentioned—will discharge their
functions in a proper way.
In the Psalms of Solomon, a group of
pious Jews look out for God’s deliverance in
the time of the last Hasmoneans and
Pompey. In Pss. Sol. 17 and 18 God is
expected to act through a Davidic king who
will rule as a representative of God who
himself is king of Israel for ever (17:1.46).
In 17:21-45 the king’s rule is described at
great length, with many references to the
OT psalms and prophecies mentioned above.
The king will free Israel from its enemies
and he will serve the Lord as an ideal right-
cous and wise man in the midst of a God-
fearing people. In 17:32 and 18:5.7 (plus the
superscription of that psalm) the king is
called ‘anointed’. In view of ‘his anointed
one’ (18:5), the christou kyriou in 18:7 and
18 superscr. is to be translated ‘of the
anointed of the Lord’. This suggests that the
expression christos kyrios (‘an anointed
lord* or ‘anointed, a lord’) found in 17:32 is
the result of careless or deliberate alteration
from the genitive to a nominative by a later
Christian scribe. The most likely translation
of the verse is, therefore: "And he (will be)
a righteous King over them, instructed by
God, and there is no unrighteousness among
them in his days, for all are holy and their
king an anointed of the Lord”. In 17:32 the
expression is still used as a qualification of
the expected son of David; in Psalm 18 it
has become a title.
In the Parables of Enoch, chaps 37-71 of
the composite document known as / Enoch,
we find two instances of the term ‘his
anointed’ (48:4; 52:4). The dating of this
part of / Enoch is still disputed; but most
scholars assume a final redaction some time
during the first century CE. The term is one
of the designations of a heavenly redeemer
figure who is thought to have been with God
from the beginning (48:3.6) and who
remains in God’s presence as a champion of
the righteous. He is often called ‘that (the)
—Son of man’ (cf. Dan 7:9-14 referred to in
1 Enoch 46:1-3), the Chosen One (cf. Isa
42:1, see e.g. 1 Enoch 39:6; 40:5, cf. 46:3)
or the Righteous One (38:2, cf. 46:3). 48:8-
10 speaks about the defeat of the kings of
the earth by God's elect because 'they have
denied the Lord of Spirits and his anointed'.
The reference to Ps 2:2 is obvious: it may
have led to the use of ‘his anointed’ in this
passage. In chap 52, the visionary sces
mountains of various metals and is told by
an accompanying -*angel that “these will
serve the dominion of his anointed that he
may be potent and mighty on the earth"
(52:4). In v 6 this is explained as their melt-
ing as wax before the fire in the presence of
the Chosen one.
The next apocalypses to be discussed, the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Ezra,
reflect on the destruction of the temple in 70
CE and must therefore be dated some time
after that event. In 2 Apoc. Bar. 39:7; 40:1;
72:2 we find the expression ‘my anointed’,
in 70:9 ‘my servant, the anointed one’ and
twice, in 29:3; 30:1, the absolute ‘the
anointed’. In all cases a royal figure is envi-
saged. He reigns for a limited period intro-
ducing a time of bliss and incorruptibility
(see 30:2; 70:3 and esp. 40:3 “His kingdom
will stand for ever, until this world of cor-
ruption comes to an end and the times
appointed are fulfilled"). The anointed
one/messiah judges and destroys Israel's
final enemies (39:7-40:2; 70:9) and brings a
period of peace and abundance (29:2-30:1;
40:2-3; 71:1). He is said ‘to be revealed’
(29:3; 39:7; cf. 73:1) and is clearly thought
to have been with God before his appear-
ance on earth. In 30:1 he is predicted to
return in glory (cf. again 73:1) and a general
resurrection follows.
In 4 Ezra a future redeemer is mentioned
in 7:26-29; 11:37-12:3 and 12:31-34; 13:3-
13 and 25-52) and (in passing) in 14:9.
There are considerable differences between
these passages. In two instances the term
‘anointed one’ occurs. The first is 7:26-29
which describes how ‘my anointed one’ (or:
196
CHRIST
"my son/servant, the anointed one’, see vv
28-29) will be revealed with his companions
at the time the still invisible city and the still
concealed land will become visible. The
redeemer docs not seem to have a function
in realizing this turn in events. He is said to
bring four hundred years of happiness to all
who remain, After that period, everyone,
including the anointed one, will die (v. 29).
For seven days the world will return to pri-
meval silence; after which a new age of
incorruptibility will begin, bringing resurrec-
tion and judgment (vv 30-44). In the inter-
pretation of the vision of the Eagle and the
Lion (11:1-12:3), the lion is identified as
‘the anointed one whom the Most High has
kept until the end of days, who will arise
from the seed of David’ (12:32, cf. Gen.
49:9). The absolute form of the term is used
(Lat. unctus) and the Davidic descent of the
redeemer receives emphasis. In the vision
(11:36-46) as well as in the interpretation
(12:31-34) he charges his counterpart (the
Roman empire) with his crimes. He will
convict and destroy him, and give joy to the
survivors in the land until the day of judg-
ment comes. It should be noted that the
messiah is already with God before he ap-
pears (cf. 7:28, and 2 Apoc. Bar. and ]
Enoch).
The term ‘anointed one’ is not found in
any of the other early Jewish documents. It
is never used by Flavius Josephus in his
descriptions of royal and prophetic figures
who were active as leaders of groups of
people during the century before the fall of
Jerusalem. A number of early Christian wri-
tings collected in the NT, however, pay con-
siderable attention to expectations concer-
ning the messiah in contemporary
Judaism—even more than the Jewish sour-
ces at our disposal would lead us to expect.
This has to be explained by the conviction
of the followers of Jesus that he was the
long-expected messiah, and by discussions
between them and other Jews precisely
about this belief. In Acts c.g. Paul is port-
rayed as trying to convince members of dia-
spora synagogues that Jesus is the Mes-
siah/Christ (9:22; 17:3; 18:5, cf. 18:28 of
Apollos). In Mark 12:35, Jesus questions
the—clearly common—conception of the
scribes that ‘the Christ is the son of David’:
and, in Mark 15:32, the chief priests and
scribes speak of ‘the Christ, the king of Isra-
cl'7-in the context it is made clear that
Jesus’ mission has no political overtones.
Mark 13:21-22 speaks about false messiahs
and false prophets: clearly addressing the
situation in the period before, during and
after the Jewish war against Rome
(--Roma). Also in the discussions between
Jesus and ‘the Jews’ in the Fourth Gospel
(although intended to bring out the essential
points of Johannine Christology) we find a
number of Jewish tenets concerning the
messiah. For instance, it is said that the
messiah will be a descendant of David and a
native of Bethlehem (John 7:42). In 12:34
the Christ is expected ‘to remain for ever’
(cf. Ps 89:36-37). In 7:27 the statement
*when the Christ appears no one will know
where he comes from’ may be connected
with the concept of the revealing of the
messiah found in Jewish apocalyptic texts.
In all these cases, the term ‘the
messiah’/‘the Christ’ is used without any
further addition.
III. In the oldest Christian writings, the
letters of Paul, the term christos occurs 270
times (out of a total of 531 for the entire
NT!). It was clearly the central designation
for Jesus in early Christian circles; but it
received its content not through a previous-
ly-fixed concept of messiahship, but rather
from the person and the work of Jesus—
with special reference to his death and resur-
rection, the salvation effected by him and
the intimate bond between him and his
followers. In many instances the word func-
tions as a (second) name, although Paul, of
course, knew that it carried a special mean-
ing, and his readers, in so far as they werc
familiar with the OT and Jewish tradition,
must have realized this too. In a list of
God's privileges for Israel Paul writes “of
their race, according to the flesh, is ho
christos" (Rom 9:5). The titular use of the
term may also be, at least partly, intended in
a number of other passages (Rom 15:7; 1
197
CHRIST
Cor 1:23; 10:4; 15:22-28; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:2-
3; Gal 3:16; Phil 1:15.17; 3:7). But Paul
clearly speaks about the one Christ, Jesus, and
even in Rom 9:4 his point is equally valid
for those readers who do not realize that he
is using a ‘technical’ term. In 2 Cor 1:21
there is a play on words between ‘Christ’
and ‘anointing’ but the verb is not used for
Jesus but for those united with him in bap-
tism. In 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11 and Gal 3:13
Paul argues that a crucified messiah was
unacceptable for his fellow-Jews (this may
have biographical overtones). Yet he regards
it as unnecessary to argue that Jesus is the
messiah expected by Israel, because both he
and his readers are convinced that he is.
This is also evident in earlier formulae
used in Paul’s letters and clearly familiar to
his readers: e.g. ‘Christ died for us/you’
found (with variations) in Rom 5:6.8; 14:15;
| Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Thess 5:9-10.
'Christ is also used in formulae speaking
about death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-5;
2 Cor 5:15; Rom 8:34; 14:9). The term
occurs repeatedly in connection with faith
(e.g. Gal 2:16), preaching (e.g. 1 Cor 15:11-
14) and especially with ‘gospel’ (Gal 1:7; 1
Thess 3:2). Next, Paul uses it where he
stresses the close link between Christ and
his followers: as in the expressions 'of
Christ’ (e.g. ! Cor 1:12; 3:23; 15:23) and ‘in
Christ’ (Rom 8:1; 12:5). This corporate lan-
guage presupposes baptism (cf. Gal 3:26-28
{‘baptized into Christ’], Rom 6:3-11).
At the time the oldest gospel, that of
Mark, was written, it was clearly necessary
to remind readers how the confession ‘Jesus
is the Christ’ had to be understood. Out-
siders regard Jesus, the herald of the king-
dom of God (Mark 1:14), as a John the Bap-
tist redivivus, or —Elijah, or one of the
prophets (8:28, cf. 6:14-16). Peter, on behalf
of the disciples, confesses: "You are the
Messiah/Christ" (8:29). Jesus, however, tells
his disciples to keep silent about him (8:30)
and announces his suffering, death and
resurrection (8:31, cf. 9:31: 10:32-34). In
Mark 12:35-37, the scribes are portrayed as
saying that ‘the Christ is the son of David’
(cf. 15:32 ‘the Christ, the king of Israel’).
Jesus, twice addressed as ‘son of David’ by
Bartimaeus (10:47-48) and associated with
‘the coming kingdom of our father David’
(11:9-10), refers to Ps 110:1. This passage is
clearly hinted at in 14:61-62 where Jesus,
standing before the Sanhedrin, acknowl-
edges that he is "the Christ, the son of the
Blessed One™, but adds “you will see the
Son of man seated at the right hand of the
Power and coming with the clouds of
heaven (Ps 110:1: Dan 7:13)". Jesus will
reign as Son of man/Son of David-Messiah-
/Son of God when God's rule will fully be
established on earth (cf. also 8:38-9:1;
13:26). The immediately following story of
the trial before Pilate in chap. 15 makes
clear that Jesus is not a ‘king of the Jews’ in
the political sense of that term, or an insur-
gent like Barabbas. Only at the parousia,
when God's kingdom will become full reali-
ty, will the royal rule of the crucified mes-
siah be shown to be triumphant. Mark 15, as
Mark 13 which speaks about false messiahs
and false prophets (vv. 21-22), reflects the
tensions connected with the war between the
Jews and the Romans culminating in the
destruction of the temple in 70 ck.
All in all, Mark uses christos rather
sparingly. In Q—the sayings source behind
Matthew and Luke—the term is not found at
all. Matthew essentially underlines what is
found in Mark, using the term more often
than his predecessor. He emphasizes that
Jesus is son of David (1:1-17.20; 21:9, cf.
22:41-42). In 2:1-6 he makes clear that
"Christ denotes the Messiah, Son of David,
king of Israel. The designation 'son of
David' is especially used in stories about
Jesus' healings (9:27-31; 12:22-23; 15:21-
28; 20:29-34; 21:14-17).
In Luke-Acts we find the terms ‘the
anointed of the Lord' (Luke 2:26; Acts 4:26)
and 'the anointed of God' (Luke 9:20;
23:35). It is specified that God anointed
Jesus with the Spirit—so in Luke 4:18,
quoting Isa 61:1, Acts 10:38 and also 4:27.
‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’ are found as parallels in
Luke 2:12 and Acts 2:36. Another typical
feature of the Lukan use of christos is found
in a variant of the double formula about
198
CHRIST
Jesus’ death and resurrection, of which the
first part speaks of the suffering of '(the)
Christ’ (Luke 24:26.46; Acts 17:3; 26:23. cf.
3:18; 25:19). In Acts, it becomes clear that
this is a special debating point between Jews
and Christians (cf. 9:22; 18:5.28 mentioned
above). Finally it should be noted that in
Acts 11:26 (cf. 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16) the
designation ‘Christians’ is first used for the
followers of Jesus in Antioch.
As already noted, the Gospel of John
describes Jesus in an ongoing debate with
Jewish opponents, in which interesting
features emerge of Jewish expectations con-
cerning the messiah. For the gospel itself,
faith in Jesus as the Son of God (11:27:
20:31), living in a unique unity with the
Father, is of primary importance. In the
Johannine communities, this received so
much emphasis that the author(s) of 1 and 2
John felt obliged to remind their readers that
Jesus Christ had ‘come in the flesh’ (1 John
4:2-3; 2 John 7; cf. 1 John 5:6).
Among the other NT writings, Hebrews
repeatedly calls Jesus ‘high priest’. It makes
clear that this has to be construed in the
light of Ps 110:4 “you are a priest for ever
according to the order of -*Melchizedek"
(e.g. 5:6; 7:17). In 7:4-14 it states explicitly
that Melchizedek was superior to -*Abra-
ham who paid him tithes, and that, there-
fore, priests according to the order of
Melchizedek are superior to those according
to Aaron, descendant of Levi, great-grand-
son of Abraham. Jesus. descended from
—Judah, belonged to the first category, and
hence the salvation brought about by him is
vastly superior to anything effected by those
officiating according to the rules of the OT
cult: particularly as this new high priest
"offered himself without blemish to God"
(9:14).
In Revelation the titular meaning of
christos is evident in 11:15; 12:10 and
20:4.6. The announcement in 11:15 “The
kingdom of the world has become the king-
dom of the Lord and his anointed” is clearly
influenced by Ps. 2:2 (cf. 11:18, reminiscent
of Ps 2:1-2:5.12 and Ps 99:1). The emphasis
is on God's sovereignty, as vv 17-18 show.
In 12:10 the same theme is repeated: “now
the salvation and the power and the king-
dom of our God and the authority of his
anointed have come”. In 20:4-6 we find a
description of the reign of the faithful who
have given their lives for their testimony to
Jesus and the word of God. They will come
to life and will reign with the Anointed/
Christ for a thousand years. In chap. 5 the
seer hears the announcement ‘the Lion of
the tribe of Judah, the Root of David has
conquered’ (v 5, cf. 3:7; 22:16). He sees a
—Lamb standing near God's -*throne ‘as
though it had been slain' (v 6, cf. 7:9-10.17;
13:8). This lamb is the Lion of Judah (cf. vv
12-13). In 17:14 the victorious Lamb is
called ‘the Lord of lords and King of kings’:
and the same name is inscribed on the robe
and the thigh of the rider on the white horse
in 19:11-16. During the persecution and the
distress at the end of the first century CE,
Christians in Asia Minor are (still) very
much aware of the ‘messianic overtones’ in
the designation ‘Christ’ which is used for
Jesus.
It is not easy to explain how the term
christos, found in relatively few passages in
contemporary Jewish literature, became a
central designation for Jesus that could very
soon receive a specific Jesus-centered mean-
ing.
The idea of an anointed high priest,
important in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is not
found in early Christian writings—the con-
cept found in Hebrews is entirely different.
The notion of a prophet ‘anointed with the
Spirit’ found in Luke-Acts suits the picture
of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels very
well. Unfortunately we cannot prove that
this interpretation of the use of christos is
older than Luke. The related Q-passage
Luke 7:18-23 par. Matt 11:2-6 does not use
christos.
In most instances where 'messianic' con-
notations are evident in the Christian use of
the term, we find emphasis on royal el-
ements. In a number of cases Jesus’ Davidic
descent is mentioned, see e.g. Mark 12:35-
37; 14:61-62 and (already) the pre-Pauline
formula Rom 1:3-4 (cf. 2 Tim 2:8). The
199
CLAUDIUS — CLAY
royal dominion of this son of David may
have been believed to become evident at the
parousia. Yet the Synoptics and John seem
to prefer the term ‘Son of man’ in connec-
tion with this future event, whilst Paul pre-
fers —*kyrios. Only in Phil 1:6.10; 2:16; 1
Cor 15:23-28 do we find ‘Christ’ in connec-
tion with eschatological rule (cf. Acts 2:36,
3:20-21 and Revelation).
The story of Jesus’ activities in Galilea
and Judea reveals hardly any royal-
messianic features. Were they connected
with Jesus by over-ardent followers who
regarded him as the expected messiah? Or
was he falsely accused of being a royal
pretender by his opponents who wanted to
get rid of a dangerous person? It is often
argued that this must have been the case and
that, because Jesus was crucified as ‘king of
the Jews’, his first followers took up the
royal designation ‘Christ’ as an honorific
and used it particularly in connection with
his death and resurrection. It is difficult to
verify this hypothesis. An unsatisfactory
aspect of it is that it assigns a final role to
Jesus’ opponents in the choice of the term
characterizing his public appearance.
Another hypothesis is that already during
his lifetime, Jesus’ disciples came to regard
him as a special son of David/Messiah.
Mark 8:29 makes Peter confess him as
Messiah on the strength of Jesus’ activity as
(unique) preacher, teacher, healer and ex-
orcist. Interestingly, contemporary Jewish
sources portray David not only as king but
also as prophet. Josephus, Ant. Jud. 6 §166-
168, following 1 Sam 16:13-23, explains
how after the divine Spirit had moved to
David, the latter began to prophesy and to
exorcise the -*demons which troubled Saul
(cf. Ps. Philo, LAB 59-60). 11QDav Comp
attributes 3600 psalms to David as well as
450 songs, four of which were ‘songs for
making music over the stricken’ (lines 9-
10). It is stressed that David spoke all these
things through prophecy. We may compare
here 2 Sam 23:1-2 (as well as Isa 11:1-5)
and the statement ‘David was a prophet’ in
Acts 2:30 (cf. 1:16; 4:25).
In view of these traditions, Jesus could be
called a true son of David, and ‘anointed of
the Lord’: not only in view of his future role
when God's Kingdom would reveal itself
fully, but also in the present while he dis-
played God's power as prophet-teacher and
exorcist. It is possible that Jesus himself
used 'Christ'/'Messiah' as self-designation.
creatively but modestly (see Jesus' reticence
in Mark and the absence of the term in the
sayings source Q): perhaps trying to avoid
misunderstanding.
IV. Bibliography
J. H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Messiah.
Developments in Earliest’ Judaism and
Christianity (Minneapolis 1992); J. J. CoL-
LINS, The Scepter and the Star: The Mes-
siahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other
Ancient Literature (New York 1995), F.
Garcfa MARTINEZ, Messianische Erwartun-
gen in den Qumranschriften, Jahrbuch fiir
Biblische Theologie 8 (1993) 171-208; M.
HENGEL, Erwiigungen zum Sprachgebrauch
von Xpictóg bei Paulus und in der 'vor-
paulinischen' Uberlieferung, Paul and Pau-
linism. Essays in honour of C. K. Barrett
(ed. M. Hooker & S. G. Wilson; London
1982) 135-158; M. HENGEL. Jesus der
Messias. Zum Streit tiber das ‘messianische
Sendungsbewusstsein' Jesu, Messiah and
Christos. Studies in the Jewish Origins of
Christianity (FS. D. Flusser, ed. I. Gruen-
wald et al.; TSAJ 32: Tübingen 1992) 155-
172; M. DE JONGE, Christology in Context.
The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus
(Philadelphia 1988); DE JONGE, Jewish
Eschatology, Early Christian Christology
and the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs. Collected Essays (NovTSup 63;
Leiden 1991) Chaps. 1-8. 12; M. KARRER,
Der Gesalbte. Die Grundlage des Christus-
titels (FRLANT 151; Góttingen 1991).
M. DE JONGE
CLAUDIUS -> RULER CULT
CLAY Dd
I. In the Ugaritic texts a binomial deity:
zz wkmt (KTU 1.100:36; 1.107:16) is at-
tested. VIROLLEAUD read the first name as
200
CLAY
ft. He and other scholars connected the word
with Heb fit, Akk tidu(m), titu, titt/ddtu,
Aram fyn/fíinà (DISO 110); Ar fin ‘clay’,
‘mud’. [t is the substance from which man
was made (Atra-Hasis 1.210-260). As such it
is not mentioned in the OT, but here the
word appears parallel to /iomer (Isa 41:25;
Nah 3:14, cf. Isa 45:9; 64:9; Job 10:9; 33:6).
Otherwise it is a usual word for dirt, silt or
any slimy deposit (Jer 38:6; Ps 18:43; Mic
7:10). Sometimes a more mythic connota-
tion is implied when it refers to living con-
ditions in the netherworld (Ps 40:3; 69:15;
Job 41:22 KAPELRUD, TWAT 3, 343-344).
Jewish exegetical tradition considers fit
hayyàwen (Ps 40:3) to be one of the
designations of hell (ISRAEL 1991-92:61-62).
The second name kmt has been taken as an
attestation of the Moabite god, >Chemosh
(VIROLLEAUD; ASTOUR 1966; MULLER
1980). Because this Moabite god—equated
with Babylonian -*Nergal—is seen as a god
of infernal and chthonic nature, the binomen
zz understood as fif is sometimes adduced as
evidence for the chthonic character of the
deity (ISRAEL 1991-92; MATTINGLY 1989:
217). In the OT sit has no divine status.
II. The Ugaritic binomial god is attested
in three incantations and a text which looks
like a god-list, but might have been a kind
of litany or benediction (KTU 1.123; DE
Moor 1970). Twice the spelling zz wKmnt is
found (KTU 1.100:36; 1.107:16) and once
zz.wkmt/d. ilm[ ] (KTU 1.82:42-43). The
latter text confirms that the rendering ought
to be 22 and not ff. KTU 1.123 has tz wkmt,
which is either a mistake or an alternative
spelling for zz wkmt. In the incantation KTU
1.100 the cultplace of zz is Aryt, perhaps
identical with Hiina in Northem Syrian or
Mesopotamia (ARM 8, 100:19; AIT 201:15;
AsTOUR 1968). In KTU 1.82:41-42 the bi-
nomial deity appears as servant of the god
—Horon, who is pre-emimently a god of
spells and curses at Ugarit. That is virtually
all that is known about their character. Pre-
sumably, the second divine name occurs in
the Ug name pumĪmu(bin)-ka-mi-ši (PRU 3,
195 = RS 15.09: A.2) as it does in Ebla
(MÜLLER 1980), but if alphabetic cuneiform
bn gmš (KTU 4.611:18; 4.713:2) is the same
name and person, the equation kıt = Kamiši
becomes questionable (WATSON 1990:118).
III. The relationship between Ug zz and
Heb fit is rather problematic. KAPELRUD
does not mention the Ugaritic evidence at
all. If DE Moor’s analysis (1970) of Ug ttn
in KTU 1.1 iv:8 is correct, two or even three
distinct words for ‘clay’,‘dirt’ would already
exist in Ugaritic like in Arabic (tit; rt; tt[m];
RENFROE 1992). The initial sér is attested in
all cognates, suggesting an original root
*TYN. From a phonetic point of view the
proposed derivation of zz is hard to main-
tain. DierricH & Loretz think of a god of
Hurrian origin, which would account for the
diverse spellings (TUAT I1/3, 348), but
Hurrian-Hittite sources do not mention
them. A god Kamish was definitely known
in Ebla in the 3rd millenium (MULLER
1980; Permnato 1981; ISRAEL 1991-92)
and he could be identical to Ug kmt, but
even then the connection between kmt and
Chemosh remains very tenuous. Most prob-
ably the divine name zz had nothing to do
with fit.
IV. Bibliography
M. C. Astour, Some New Divine Names
from Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284;
ASTOUR, Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms,
JNES 27 (1968) 13-36, esp. 20; F. ISRAEL,
TT WKMT: Les avatars de l'enigmatique
dieu TT, Sem 41/42 (1991-92) 59-62: A.
KAPELRUD, tyt, TWAT 3 (1982) 343-344; G.
L. MATTINGLY, Moabite Religion and the
Mesha‘ Inscription, Studies in the Mesha
Inscription and Moab (ed. A. Dearman;
Archeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta
1989) 211-238; H. P. MÜLLER, Religions-
geschichtliche Beobachtungen in den Texten
von Ebla, ZDPV 96 (1980) 10-11; J. C. DE
Moor, Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts
From Ras Shamra II, UF 2 (1970) 312-316,
esp. 314; G. Pettinato, The Archives of
Ebla. An Empire Inscribed in Clay (New
York 1981) 150-152, 245; F. RENFROE,
Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies (ALASP. 5;
Miinster 1992) 67-68; C. VIROLLEAUD,
Ugaritica V (1968) no. 7 (RS 24.244); no. 8
(24.251); no. 10 (RS 24271); W. G. E.
01
CONSTELLATIONS
Watson, Ugaritic Onomastics (1), AulOr 8
(1990) 113-127.
M. DIJKSTRA
CONSTELLATIONS min
I. The Hebrew term mazzalét (sing.
mazzal) occurs once in the Bible in 2 Kgs
23:5. Many authors hold that a second
occurence may be found in Job 28:32 in the
slight phonetic variant of mazzdrét. The
context in Job is clearly astronomic, while
mention is made in 2 Kgs 23 of astral cults
which were prohibited by Josiah.
Mzl derives from the Akk manzaztu
>manzaltu, ‘abode’ or ‘station’. Perhaps
they were originally the celestial abodes of
the great gods represented by the -stars
(MOWINCKEL 1928:24). In the Babylonian
Creation epic, -Marduk is represented as
setting the heavenly bodies in order. He
allotted their stations to the great gods, di-
viding the constellations of the zodiac and
the months of the year among them
(MAUNDER 19093:244). Intended in a tech-
nically astronomical sense, they indicate the
stations on the sidereal orbit of the moon
and those on the ecliptic of the sun (the
ecliptic being the apparent annual celestial
path of the sun [Helios, ^Shemesh] rela-
tive to the fixed stars). Thus they strictly
indicated the constellations of the zodiac
and, even more precisely, the term stood to
indicate the zodiacal signs after the division
of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, cach
part being called after the constellation to
which it most closely corresponded at the
time (about 700 BCE in Mesopotamia).
Zodiacal constellations or signs is the mean-
ing that the Heb mazzdlér has in the Bible.
The term occurs in Phoen as mil, ‘for-
tune’; in MHeb as mz, ‘sign of the zodiac’,
‘planet’ or ‘luck’; in Jew Aram as mal’, ‘star
of fortune’ or ‘planet’; in Syr as rnauzaltá,
‘zodiac’. There is also in Mandaean
mnz7vlr, ‘signs of the zodiac’ (borrowed
directly from Akkadian) and mandalta, Ar
manzil, ‘mansion of the moon’.
II. Typical of astrology in ancient Mes-
opotamia was the omina system which
studied celestial phenomena as signs or indi-
cators of future terrestrial events. However,
the study of the influence of the heavenly
bodies over the course of events on earth
Originated in the Hellenistic sphere (ROCH-
BERG-HALTON 1992:504). It is not clear just
when the Greeks adopted the zodiac—and
the notion of the ecliptic. These concepts are
particularly important in the elaboration of
genethlialogical or horoscopic astrology.
Babylonian precedents, in existence before
the Greek horoscopes (from ca. 400 BCE),
recorded computed positions of the moon,
the sun and the five planets—Jupiter, Venus,
Mercury, Saturn and Mars—on the date of a
birth (ROCHBERG-HALTON 1992:] 506). The
Babylonians considered the sun, the moon
and the five planets as their seven great
divinities. The zodiacal constellations were
closely connected to them and they
themselves became objects of a religious
cult.
IHI. A syncretistic cult of Assyrian
influence is attributed to the biblical
mazzálót and they are mentioned in 2 Kgs
23:5 along with important astral divinities
such as the sun, the moon and the -*host of
heaven, as well as the Syro-Canaanite
-*Baal. The listing of Baal, the sun and the
moon is typically Syrian. We have here,
therefore, constellations of the ecliptic, even
though, if we reflect on the meaning which
the term ‘planets’ has taken on in Jewish
Aramaic and Middle Hebrew, we cannot
exclude that this semantic value was already
present in the biblical term (what is more,
the “abodes” are also dwelling places for the
planets). One must also consider that the
passage under perusal in 2 Kgs is a later
addition to the account of Josiah’s cultic
reform (GRAY 1977:732; MONTGOMERY &
GEHMAN 1986:546). One could even com-
pare it to parallel passages in Deut 17:3
(where the mazzalét that became so popular
in Israel in the late post-exilic and post-
biblical periods are not even mentioned) or
in Deut 4:19 (where "stars" are cited in
general terms on the list of forbidden dei-
ties, perhaps meaning just special groupings
of stars or else important planets as
202
CONSTELLATIONS
distinguished from the "host of heaven" in
general). The moon’s “abode” is mentioned
in Hab 3:11 under the term zbl.
The interpretation of mazcdrét in Job
38:32 is problematic, because the feminine
plural of the noun does not agree with the
singular pronominal suffix of b‘nv: “Canst
thou bring forth mazzdrét in its season?”. In
this context the stars are not deified. Indeed,
the Lorp -*God reigns supreme in the uni-
verse which is disposed by Him. Not all
authors support the “constellation” interpre-
tation (still connected with the zodiac).
MOWINCKEL (1928:27-36) cautiously pro-
poses to interpret the term as Booetus.
SCHIAPARELLI (1903:95-111) perceives both
mazzàlót and mazzárót as Venus in her two-
fold aspect of evening and morning star.
Regarding other specific constellations,
the Bible provides very few plain facts. We
may consider the names which appear in Job
9:9; 26:13; 37:9; 38:31-32 and Amos 5:8.
There is a certain amount of consensus in
interpreting kimd as the -*Pleiades and késil
as — Orion; 'ayi3 or *à$ could be -*Aldebaran
with the Hyades; mézdrim is interpreted as
the two winnowing-fans, i.c. the Great Bear
and the Little Bear (ScHiAPARELLI 1903:86-
92) or Antares (MOWINCKEL 1926:16-23);
hadré téman are mostly considered as the
Southern Cross, Canopus and Centauri, stars
of the southern hemisphere which, in bibli-
cal times, were visible in the sky over Israel,
though no longer so today because of the
precession of the equinoxes—Canopus
excepted. Also to be remembered is nāhaš,
usually understood to be Draco (-*Dragon,
-*Serpent).
IV. The Targum translates. mazzálót as
mzl? and mazzárót as Stry mzly! which
should indicate the signs of the zodiac; the
LXX transcribes mazouróth without translat-
ing in either case; the Vg translates these
terms as the twelve signs in 2 Kgs and
Lucifer in Job. St. John Chrysostom adopted
zdidia, the signs of the zodiac, noting how-
ever that many of his contemporaries inter-
preted »nazouróth as Sirius. Mz! became of
frequent usc in the Talmud and in rabbinical
literature, generally holding the meaning of
?
‘planet’ and ‘zodiacal sign’. [t also in-
creasingly appeared with the meaning of
‘luck’. It is not by coincidence that in a later
period in the history of the Hebrew language
this term was endowed with the meaning of
‘luck’. through a semantic loan already pres-
ent in another Semitic language, Phoenician.
A bilingual Greek-Phoenician inscription
from the 4th century BcE which was dis-
covered at Cyprus (KAI 42:5) has the term
mzl corresponding to the Gk tyché, ‘fortune’
( 'Tyche).
Once the threat of idolatry had faded
away, the constellations (particularly those
of the zodiac) enjoyed widespread propaga-
tion within the Hebrew culture. Philo of
Alexandria (De Vita Mosis 11 122-126) and
Josephus Flavius (Ant, lll 181-187) had
already established, in the Ist cent. CE, alle-
gorical links between some biblical concepts
and the zodiacal signs. Abstracted from Hel-
lenistic culture, the zodiac found itself per-
fectly set into the background of rabbinical
literature. This was also due to the number
twelve, which represented the number of
tribes, that of the stones on the Ephod (Exod
28: 17-20), that of the oxen forming the
base of the copper basin in the courtyard of
the Temple (1 Kgs 7:23-26) and so on.
In Pirge de Rabbi Eliezer, chaps. 6-8 are
dedicated to the sun, the planets, the signs
of the zodiac and the seasons. The twelve
signs have a position of great importance in
sacred poetry. In Eleazar ha-Kallir's famous
Prayer for Rain (ca. 5th cent. CE) the signs
of the zodiac appear in combination with
those of the months (SanrFATI) 1978:180-
195). There is also a learned literary compo-
sition called Barayta de-Mazzalot of the
llth century, which deals with the signs of
the zodiac and the planets. Finally, it is
worth mentioning the artistic beauty and
refined symbolism of the zodiac symbols
which are portrayed on the mosaic floors of
several synagogues in Isracl of the Roman
and Byzantine periods. The zodiac surround-
ing Helios (and the symbols of the months
and seasons which are represented therein)
rises to become a cosmic value and states
that the sun is just the image of the trium-
03
COUNCIL
phant ->glory of the Lorp God, and that
God govems the cosmos and by Himself
firmly holds the reins of the stars which the
changing of the times and seasons depends
on. This latter reality is fundamental for the
life of men on earth.
V. Bibliography
A. BEER, Astronomy, EncJud 3 (Jerusalem
1974) cols. 795-807; E. BiscHorr, Babylo-
nisch-Astrales im Weltbilde des Thalmud
und Midrasch (Leipzig 1907) G. R.
Driver, Two Astronomical Passages in the
Old Testament, J7S 4 (1953) 208-212; JTS
7 (1956) 1-11; S. R. DRIVER & G. B. GRAY,
The Book of Job (Edinburgh 1977) 308-309;
G. FOERSTER, The Zodiac in Ancient
Synagogues and its Place in Jewish Thought
and Literature Erlsr 19 (1987) 225-234
(Heb); J. Gray, | & 1I Kings (London 1977)
730-733; E. W. MAUNDER, The Astronomy
of the Bible (London 19093) 243-257; J. A.
MONTGOMERY & H. S. GEHMAN, The Book
of Kings (Edinburgh 1986) 529-539, 546-
548; S. MOWINCKEL, Die Sternnamen im
Alten Testament (Oslo 1928) 16-36; P.
PRIGENT, Le Judaïsme et l'image (Tübingen
1990) 157-173; F. ROCHBERG-HALTON,
Astrology in the Ancient Near East, ABD 1
(1992) 504-507; G. SARFATTI, An introduc-
tion to “Barayta de-mazzalot”, Shnaton Bar-
Ilan 3 (1965) 56-82 (Heb); SARFATTI, Note
di semantica, Scritti sull'ebraismo in memo-
ria di Guido Bedarida (Firenze 1966) 206-
209; SARFATTI, I segni dello zodiaco
nell'iconografia ebraica, Scritti in onore di
Umberto Nahon (ed. R. Bonfil et al;
Jerusalem 1978) 180-195; G. SCHIAPARELLI,
L'astronomia nell'Antico Testamento (Milano
1903) 67-111; B. SULER, Astronomie. In der
Bibel, EncJud 3 (Berlin 1929) cols. 591-
595; I. ZATELLI, Astrology and the Worship
of the Stars in the Bible, ZAW 103 (1991)
86-99.
I. ZATELLI
COUNCIL ^2
I. The noun sód is found 23 times in
the Hebrew Bible: twice in personal names,
otherwise in poctry (though Ezek 13:9 may
be termed high prose). Its semantic range
includes ‘council, assembly; counsel, delib-
eration, plan(s), will; company, fellowship,
friendship'—each of which may be applied
to both the human and divine spheres. It
refers specifically to the divine court in four
passages, implies its existence in two others,
and could possibly refer to it in an addi-
tional two. Sód is probably a primary noun.
In Qumran Literature it appears beside the
variant yswd, meaning both 'council' and
‘counsel’—as it does in Mishnaic Hebrew.
A cognate may be attested in a broken pas-
sage in Ugaritic: ]b(.)kqrb.sdA (KTU? 1.20 i
4; for the reading see now W. PITARD,
BASOR 285 [1992] figs. 1-6 and pp. 44-45).
In Old South Ar mfwd is used of the
‘assembly, council’ of the heads of clans.
Cognates in Aramaic and Arabic mean
‘(confidential) conversation, speech’.
A root SWD has been proposed and seen
in the idiom ysd (Nif] yahad ‘al “conspire
together against” (Ps 2:2; 31:14). Others
with more justification propose for these
two passages a root vsD lI. The first certain
appearance of the verb swd is in Sir (Qal
7:14 ‘chatter’; Hitpa 8:17; 9:14 ‘consult
with’; 9:4; 42:12 ‘consort with’). Cognates
are attested later in Syriac (Pa and Etpa) and
Arabic (III), both meaning ‘talk, converse’.
Thus the verb has a narrower range of
meaning than the noun, appears in only (but
not all) those dialects in which the noun is
attested and only in meanings derivable
from the noun. It is therefore probably deno-
minative.
It is now clear from the Mari correspon-
dence that piriitum there served as a near
synonym of sód, meaning both 'secret' and
*council'7—only a human council, however;
sec ARM 26 no. 101:26 and n. b; no. 307:3
and n. a.
Thus the use of sód for the divine council
(and counsel) seems to be original with the
Israclites (the one possible instance of a
Ugaritic cognate being of unknown ref-
erent). The contemporary and antecedent
Semitic cultures all have the concept, but
use a variety of other expressions: e.g. Akk
puhur ilāni and Ug phr (bn) ilm ‘assembly
204
COUNCIL
of the gods’, phir m‘d ‘assembly of the meet-
ing’, mphrt bn il ‘assembly of the gods’, and
“dt ilm ‘meeting of the gods’, Phoen (10th
cent. Byblos) mplirt ?| gbl qdim ‘the assem-
bly of the holy gods of Byblos'. The gods
(Sdyn) also come together in a rn'd in the
Balaam text from Deir *Alla. Ug dr (bn) il
‘circle of the gods' and Phoen (8th cent.
Karatepe) kl dr bn "Im *the whole circle of
the gods' are references to the collectivity of
the gods, but do not necessarily imply their
assembly in a formal council (cf. the simpler
Kl 71 X ‘all the gods of X'). The OT also
uses other terms, including cognates of three
of the preceding—mdé‘éd, ‘édé and dór—
beside sód and qéhal qédósim (Ps 89:6;
Saints).
II. While there is no clear case of the
term sód being used of the divine council
outside Isracl, there is abundant evidence of
such a council and its functioning in the
neighbouring literatures (-*Angels, -*Sons
of (the) Gods, -^Host of Heaven. etc.), es-
pecially those of Mesopotamia and Ugarit.
The essential business of the council is dis-
cussion leading to a decision, but the actual
process is highly variable. The great narra-
tives of the Mesopotamian literary tradition
are especially revealing. Enkidu gives an
account of deliberations in the divine coun-
cil that he witnessed in a dream: the high
god Anu sets the terms of the debate; Ellil
makes a proposal; Shamash objects but is
discredited by Ellil (Gilgamesh Epic VII i
(from the Hittite version]). In Atrahasis |
Enlil calls a meeting of the great gods and
informs them of a crisis (a rebellion of the
lesser gods). Enlil and Anu make successive
proposals which are carried out; but Anu’s
final solution refers the matter to Nintu, who
in turn requires that Enki cooperate with
her. In such literary texts the great gods
appear free to make proposals, raise objec-
tions or state terms without any strict proto-
col, and the high god seems to exercisc
rather loose control over the proceedings.
In Anzu Anu calls for a god who can
defeat Anzu. The gods summon various
specific deities, all of whom decline. Final-
ly. as the gods despair. Enki/Ea addresses
Anu and offers to find one who will conquer
Anzu. The gods agree. Here Anu is thor-
oughly passive after his initial appeal. It is
the rest of the gods who make proposals or
endorse those of others. A particular form of
consultation emerges here that reappears at
Ugarit and in the Bible: the high god calls
for some god to volunteer to resolve a crisis;
different members of the council may be
proposed and prove inadequate; finally,
when all appears lost, a winning proposal is
made and accepted, and the saviour is com-
missioned. This is used in particular to
depict the elevation of a deity to supremacy
in the council. Thus in Enüma elis, after
Anshar has unsuccessfully approached a
couple of possible champions, the gods
silently despair of finding one who will con-
quer -*Tiamat. Finally, prompted by Ea,
-'Marduk volunteers. Anshar gives him his
blessing, but Marduk bargains for supreme
authority. Accordingly Anshar convenes a
special meeting of the council—the narra-
tive details the gods’ gathering, greetings,
banqueting and drinking (II 129-138)—and
they transfer all authority to Marduk.
In general it was in the supreme council
that the destinies of individual gods (e.g.
Marduk) and people (e.g. Enkidu), of cities
(Lament over Ur 137-169) and indeed all of
humanity (flood story) were decided.
In Ugaritic literature >El presides over
the council. In the -*Baal cycle the gods
seem to speak and act with great freedom,
and El exercises minimal control. In KTU?
1.2 I the gods are banqueting when they see
messengers coming from Yam (-*Sea) and
are cowed. Baal rebukes them and promises
to come up with a response. On their arrival
the messengers demand that Baal be handed
over to Yam. El immediately gives his
assent, but Baal attacks them furiously and
has to be restrained by two goddesses. In
Kirta, on the other hand, the traditional form
of the appeal for a volunteer to resolve a cri-
sis is used to show all the gods speechless
and helpless in the face of Kirta’s illness.
Repeated appeals by El yield no response,
so that finally he must propose and execute
the solution himself (KTU? 1.16 v 9-28).
205
COUNCIL
The mythology is actually more complica-
ted. For example, in the course of the Baal
cycle, El’s council declares Baal their king
(KTU2 1.4. iv 43-44), and in the sacrificial
text KTU2 1.39:7, there is reference to a phr
b'l ‘assembly of Baal’.
IH. While the OT passages using the
word sód to refer to the divine council give
little information about its operation, other
biblical passages confirm that the ancient
Near Eastern institution was well known in
Israelite thought. Thus Micaiah’s account of
his vision (1 Kgs 22:19b-22) has Yahweh
seated on his throne with his court around
him. He asks who will undertake a certain
task. Various suggestions are made by mem-
bers of the assembly. Finally one individual
makes a proposal which Yahweh accepts.
Yahweh commissions the proposer accord-
ingly. Despite the terms ‘host of heaven’ for
the court and ‘spirits’ for the individual
members, the functioning of the old divine
council is obvious. The setting is more
ambivalent, but the traditional function is
clear again in the vision report of Isa 6:1-11,
in which the prophet is present as the volun-
teer. (With the first person plural of v 8,
Yahweh speaks for the divine court as a
whole; so also in the divine resolutions of
Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7.)
Other references follow a less standard
course, but equally clearly involve a dia-
logue between the supreme deity and mem-
bers of his council, leading to a decision and
the authorizing or commissioning of one of
those present. In Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7a, scenes
in heaven modelled on the epic tradition,
Yahweh addresses a certain member of the
divine council and introduces a particular
topic. The individual proposes a particular
course of action, and Yahweh authorizes it.
Zech 3:1-7 is another vision report with a
mal'àk 'envoy' representing Yahweh, and a
priest present in the council as the object of
interest. Yahweh rebukes one of the council
who is maligning the priest, directs others to
dress the latter in the regalia appropriate to a
high priest, and then gives him a charge.
Thus the divine council is not just an amor-
phous mass in Israclite literature: individual
members appear as actors in these scenes.
However. there is never any doubt of
Yahweh's effective authority over the council.
Ps 82:1-7 recounts a unique procedure
and judgement in the council, which is here
called *ádat ?él *meeting of EI' (v 1 MT -
or, probably reflecting the original text,
cuvayoyn Gewv, ‘meeting of [the) gods’
LXX): one deity (Yahweh) addresses all the
other gods, announcing their demise as a
consequence of their misrule of the world.
His own assumption of world rule in their
place is then acclaimed by the psalmist (i.e.
congregation? v 8).
The opening verses of Second Isaiah (Isa
40:1-8) imply the same setting. They pre-
suppose that a decision has been made. God
now orders the council (plural imperatives)
to act upon it. In particular, the prophet-
author, conceived to be present in an audi-
tion (if not vision), is himself addressed by a
member of the council (‘a voice’): ‘Pro-
claim (singular imperative)!” and responds
with a request for the message he is to de-
liver. (Cf. above on Isa 6.)
These, as well as the larger ancient Near
Eastern tradition, provide the background
for references to the sód ylhwh. As noted,
sód may refer to a council or assembly or
other group, or to one of two more abstract
concepts: the counsel or plan that such a
group might devise, and the company or
friendship that it might imply. All three
meanings are found on the divine as well as
the human plane.
In Ps 89:8 Yahweh's fearsomeness is
expressed by reference to the rest of the
divine court: bésód qédósím "in the council
of the holy ones" parallel to "over all those
around him". The same group is referred to
in the same context as "(the children of) the
gods" (v 7) and qgéhal qédósím "the convo-
cation of the holy ones" (v 6). There is no
place here for reference to any particular
members of the council, which is mentioned
solely to emphasize the absoluteness of
Yahweh's supremacy in it (cf. the function
of the divine assembly scene in KTU? 1.16
v).
Outside this psalm God's council is re-
206
COUNCIL
ferred to only as the setting in which special
mortals may have access to divine intentions
and knowledge. Thus it is invoked as the
source of true prophecy and of wisdom. It is
in his council that Yahweh gives the mess-
age to and commissions the prophet. Only
those who have stood in Yahweh’s council
(nd bésód-) and heard his words can con-
vey those words to his people (Jer 23:18,
21-22; cf. Isa 6). Eliphaz questions whether
Job has got some special wisdom by listen-
ing bésód 'élóah "in the council of Eloah”
(Job 15:8).
Since the prepositional phrase bésdéd
always refers to a group (besides the pre-
ceding examples see those concerning a
human group: Gen 49:6; Jer 15:17; Ezek
13:9; Ps 111:1), the personal name Bésódyá
(Neh 3:6; cf. the hypocoristicon Sódi in
Num 13:10) must mean "In the council of
Yah” (contrast M. Nori, /PN, 152-153).
This might refer to the bearer's access to the
council (as above) or to the divine origins of
the decision to grant (to his parents) the
conception of the bearer.
It is in his divine council (sód) that God
deliberates and decides on a plan (sód). This
is what lies behind the claim that Yahweh
does nothing without first revealing his plan
(sód) to his servants, the prophets (Amos
3:7). This is probably the meaning also in Ps
25:14 which states that "those who fear
Yahweh have his sód, his bérít (covenant) to
inform them".
In two other passages the abstract ‘com-
panionship, friendship' is perhaps more like-
ly: "When God's sód was beside my tent,
when Shadday was with me" (Job 29:4-5;
many emend to sdk); “for the devious are an
abomination to Yahweh, but his sód is with
the righteous” (Prov 3:32). (However, a
reference to the divine council here remains
a possibility; cf. KTU? 1.15 ii l-iii 19,
where, for El's blessing of Kirta on the
occasion of his marriage, the gods gather
around Kirna in a “meeting of the gods" ‘dt
ilm).
In the NT the full portrayal of the divine
council reappears elaborated in the dress of
a Christian apocalypse (Rev 4-5): the writer
has a vision of God, seated on his throne
holding a sealed scroll and surrounded by
twenty-four >elders also seated on ~ thrones.
An angel appeals for a volunteer to break
the seals and open the scroll. The writer
repons that there is none in the entire uni-
verse able to perform this act. Finally, his
attention is drawn to the -*Lamb, who,
acclaimed by the elders and myriads of
angels, proceeds to open the seals. In the
setting, the course of action, and even some
of the wording the pattern laid down in
ancient Mesopotamia remains visible, as
does the purpose of the episode: the recogni-
tion of a new divine hero who will accom-
plish what none other can.
IV. Bibliography
G. CouruniER, La vision du conseil divin:
étude d'une forme commune au prophétisme
et à l'apocalyptique, Science et Esprit 36
(1984) 5-43, esp. 14-35; F. M. Cross, The
Council of Yahwe in Second Isaiah, JNES
12 (1952) 274-278; H. J. Fasry, TO. Der
Himmlische Thronrat als Ekklesiologisches
Modell, Bausteine Biblischer Theologie
(BBB 50; ed. H. J. Fabry; Kóln & Bonn,
1977) 99-126; FABRY, TO sôd, TWAT 5
(1986) 775-782; A. R. Hust, Over de
Betekenis van het Woord sod, Vruchten van
de Uithof: Studies opgedragen aan Dr. H.
A. Brongers (Utrecht 1974) 37-48, esp. 40-
45; T. JACOBSEN, Primitive Democracy in
Ancient Mesopotamia, JNES 2 (1943) 159-
172, esp. 167-172; A. MALAMAT, The Secret
Council and Prophetic Involvement in Mari
and Israel, Prophetie und geschichtliche
Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (ed. R. Liwak &
S. Wagner; Stuttgart, Berlin & Kóln 1991)
231-236; E. T. MULLEN, The Assembly of
the Gods (HSM 24; Chico 1980); H.-P.
MÜLLER, Die himmlische Ratsversammlung,
ZNW 54 (1963) 254-267; H. NiEHR, Der
höchste Gott (BZAW 190; Berlin 1990) 71-
94; S. B. PARKER, The Beginning of the
Reign of God - Psalm 82 as Myth and
Liturgy, RB 102 (1995) 532-559; H. W.
ROBINSON, The Council of Yahweh, J7S 45
(1944) 151-157; M. SAaEBO, TO sōd
Geheimnis, THAT II (1976) 144-148; R. B.
SALTERS, Psalm 82,1 and the Septuagint,
207
CREATOR OF ALL
ZAW 103 (1991) 225-239; R. N. WHYBRAY,
The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl, 13-14
(Cambridge 1971); I. WiLLi-PLEIN, Das
Geheimnis der Apokalyptik, VT 27 (1977)
62-81.
S. B. PARKER
CREATOR OF ALL “D TOY, ta navta
KTLOOS
I. The Hebrew epithet coming closest
to the concept Creator-of-All is 22 i99 in
Isa 44:24. Yet this epithet in itself presuppo-
ses neither a creatio ex nihilo nor a rigid
monotheism. In Jer 10:16 (= Jer 51:19) the
God of Israel is called 5377 7^, literally
'Shaper-of-All' (REB: 'Creator of the uni-
verse’). In Eph 3:9 and Rev 4:11 God is
denoted as ta navta xtioas, ‘Creator of all
things’. Furthermore Col 1:16 refers to
Christ as the one in whom éxtto€n ta
vavta, ‘all things were created’. So we may
conclude that several biblical texts convey
the concept of God as the Creator-of-All.
II. In Egypt the role of Creator of every-
thing is attributed to several gods. The most
important of them are —Re, -*Amun,
~Atum, —Ptah and Khnum. Although the
ways creation was envisaged may differ, and
various ways of describing the mode of cre-
ation may coexist in one and the same text,
the concept of creation in Egyptian theology
always implies that the universe, heaven and
earth, and all life in heaven and on earth,
originated from a single deity, an idea based
on the concept of a multitude of deities
emanating from this one god (Orro 1955;
HonNuNG 1971; ASSMANN 1983, 1984;
ALLEN 1988). So the creator god is at the
same time the creator of all other gods. Ech-
naton viewed the god Aton as the sole Cre-
ator who created objects only, not the other
gods. According to DE Moor the Egyptian
concept of the sole creator of all, as formu-
lated in the Amun-Re theology of the New
Kingdom, exercised considerable influence
on Canaan and early Israel towards the end
of the 2nd millennium BCE (DE Moor
1997).
Several creation myths of the ancient
Near East imply that there existed already a
large body of water before the work of cre-
ation began (LAMBERT 1986:126). In the
Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish for
example, the primordial world came into
existence by the mixing of the sweet waters
(ApsQ) with the salt waters (->Tiamat = Sea,
Flood). Later on, after having vanquished
Tiamat, the god -*Marduk starts his work of
creation by splitting the watery body of Tia-
mat into two halves. One half of her he re-
shaped into heaven, the other half into earth.
Furthermore he creates man. Marduk thus
forms the universe out of the existing prime-
val sea. Next to Enuma Elish there circula-
ted many other creation myths in Mesopota-
mia (BOTTERO & KRAMER 1989) and
therefore it seems certain that no standard
cosmogony was developed. Both in Sumer-
ian and Akkadian the epithet ‘Builder (=
Creator) of All’ is attested for the deities
An/Anu, Enki/Ea, Enlil and Marduk (AKkGE
69; CAD B [1965] 84a, 88).
In the Canaanite world the highest god
—El is called ?i] qn "ars, -*’El-creator-of-
the-earth' (see for Palmyrene attestations,
some of them including the earth, MILIK
1972:183). There is sufficient reason, how-
ever, to suppose that in fact El was thought
to be the creator of both the cosmos and
man. In Ugarit El is called bny bnwt, 'buil-
der of builded things (2 creator of created
things)’ (Pore 1987; see also, however, DE
Moor 1980:172, 182-183; KaAPELRUD
1980:4-5), "ab "adm, ‘father of man’ and
father of the gods (KonPEL 1990:235-236).
A god list from Ugarit assumes him to be
the creator of heaven and earth (DE Moon
1980:182-186). This is in accordance with a
Canaanite myth preserved in Hittite transla-
tion mentioning ElkunirSa, an obvious bot-
ching of "i! qny "ars. It is significant, howe-
ver, that in this myth -*Baal is already
beginning to take over El's position (Hor-
FNER 1990:69-70).
Also in Ugarit Baal seems to manifest
himself as a ‘creator’ (bny) in his own right.
In the work of the chief priest [limilku a
gradual transfer of El’s status as the highest
god to Baal may be observed (KORPEL
208
CREATOR OF ALL
1998). Like the Myth of Baal (KTU 1.3:V.7;
1.4:1V.22; 1.6:1.34), the Legend of Aqhatu
(KTU 1.17:V1.48) still describes Ilu as dwel-
ling at the confluence of the Upper and
Lower Flood which he as the creator of
everything presumably had separated in pri-
mordial times, as Marduk did in the Babylo-
nian Creation Epic. However, for the first
time it appears that Baal too has some kind
of control over the two Floods (KTU
1.19:1.45, confirmed by KTU 1.92:5 if git D
means ‘to make it snow’: cf. KTU 1.4:V.7;
KonPEL 1990:561-562).
Text KTU 1.100 seems to refer to the
Sun-goddess as creatress of all other gods
and of all living creatures. It is possible that
this concept was derived from Hittite sour-
ces. In Hittite religion the Sun-goddess was
also heading the pantheon. The main body
of the text mentions Ilu as the head of the
deities, which suggests that when the text
was written down the Sun-goddess had been
replaced by Ilu as head of the pantheon and
creator of the universe (ARTU 146 n.3).
In a text from Emar Dagan (—>Dagon) is
called ‘the Lord of Creation’ (Emar V1.3,
No. 382:16: [Sku]r en qu-n[i]) and in later
times it is -*Baal-Shamem who is called
gnh dy rch ‘Creator of the earth’ (KAI
244:3; translation uncertain, cf. DNWSI 111,
1016; cf. NignR 1990: 122f.).
According to Philo of Byblos’ account of
the Phoenician religion the beginning of cre-
ation was an autonomous process. The pri-
mordial Spirit mixed with its own origin and
the result of this union was Mot, a watery
mud from which eventually everything came
into being (BAUMGARTEN 1981:106-108).
According to Ugaritic myth Mot, Death, was
living in a muddy pit. Does this mean that
the Phoenicians held Death responsible for
the coming into existence of all life forms?
II. In Isa 44:24 the epithet “$h kl
*Maker-of-All’, occurs as a designation of
the God of Israel. The verb ‘fh literally
means ‘to make’. However, parallel verbs
are br’, ‘to create’, ysd, ‘to lay foundations’,
ysr. ‘to form’, Ayn, ‘to establish’; p‘I ‘to
make’ and qnh, ‘to create’ (BERNHARDT.
TWAT 1:774, Foerster, TDNT 3:1007). In
Isa 44:24 itself parallel terms like nfh Xmym
and rq hrs suggest that Deutero-Isaiah
viewed the creative process as working with
existing materials and that for him there was
hardly any difference with the age-old Can-
aanite concept of the Creator of Heaven and
Earth.
It is not unlikely that even the verb br’,
‘to create’, which in the Old Testament is
reserved for God's creative work, originally
was a rare verb meaning 'to construct. to
build’. just as bnh, ‘to build’, which is used
in a literal sense in Gen 2:2 where God is
building Adam's rib into a woman, and in
Amos 9:6 where God builds his upper
chambers in heaven. A verb br’, ‘to con-
struct, to build’, and ‘to create’, is attested
in Sabaic (KORPEL 1990:383-389). So it is
stretching the evidence if one would try to
derive the doctrine of the creatio ex nihilo
from the epithet ‘Creator/Builder of All’.
Like other ancient Near Eastern religious
traditions, the Old Testament distinguishes
three modes of creation: creation through
the word alone (Gen 1); creation as making
(expressed by the metaphors of the builder,
the smith and the potter); and creatio conti-
nua. The different modes could stand side
by side. This enables Deutero-Isaiah to play
with the epithet ‘gh Al in Isa 44:24, because
it is obvious that this refers both to God’s
creatorship and to his mighty acts in deliv-
ering his people (cf. Isa 44:23, 25).
Deutero-Isaiah’s designation of God as
*éh kl may be compared to Gen 1:31 where
it is said, 'and God saw all that he had
made', ?r-kl-?Xr. *€h. lt is clear that kl refers
to the totality of created things and beings
enumerated in the preceding verses. A simi-
lar expression is used in Isa 45:7, ‘I formed
the light, and created darkness, | made peace
and created evil, I the Lorp have made all
these things’ (‘sh kl-?sh). The noun K/ has a
comprehensive meaning here too. The same
can be said of Jer 14:22. Von Rap
(1982:166) compares the use of K/ in Isa
44:24 with Ps 8:7 and Qoh 3:1, and takes it
as a designation of the visible world, far less
extensive in meaning than Greek kosmos.
Deutero-Isaiah often refers to the creative
209
CREATOR OF ALL
work of God and his descriptions match the
creation account of P (Gen 1).
Deutero-Isaiah speaks of God who cre-
ated (br?) the stars (40:26), the —ends of the
earth (40:28), heaven (42:5) and his people
(43:1,7,15). On the other hand God also is
the creator of darkness and evil (Isa 45:7; cf.
Prov 16:4 "He makes, [p‘/] all things for his
purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil"). This concept is part of God's opus
alienum (cf. Isa 28:21). It does not really
belong to him, but it is part of the mono-
theistic discourse about God as the Creator.
He is the Former (ysr) and Maker (‘fh) of
Israel and Jacob (Isa 43:1.7.21; 44:2.21.24
[contrast 44:9.10.12.13.15.17.19]; 45:11;
54:5), the Former of the light (45:7), of man
(45:9), and of the earth (45:18). He stretched
out (nfh) the heavens (40:22; 42:5; 44:24
[contrast 44:13]; 45:12; 51:13) and planted
(ni*) the heavens and fashioned (rg^ and
founded (ysd) the earth (Isa 42:5; 44:24
[contrast 40:19]; 48:13; 51:13,16). Accor-
ding to Deutero-Isaiah the God of Israel is a
creator in the past, the present and the futu-
re. Also the change in history, the redemp-
tion of the exiles, can be described in terms
of creation (Isa 41:20; 42:16; 43:19; 44:23).
In all other OT texts which use the verb ‘fh,
‘to create’, together with ki, parts of creation
are summed up (Gen 3:1; 7:4; Exod 20:11;
cf. 2 Kgs 19:15; Jer 14:22; Ps 146:6; Neh
9:6). The prophet Jeremia twice calls YHWH
**the Shaper-of-All’’, ysr Akl, Jer 10:16, par.
51:19. HoLLADAY (1983:336) assumes that
this phrase refers to Yuwn as the Creator of
the whole universe, pointing to kl in Pss
103:19 and 119:91. Jer 10:12-16 (par.
51:15-19), the broader context, deals with
idolatry (just as Isa 44), and therefore this
way of describing God may serve as a de-
liberate contrast to the worthless ‘creative’
acts of the makers of idols.
IV. 2 Macc 7:23 explains the epithet ò
TOU KOOHOU KTLOTNS ‘the Creator of the uni-
verse’ as navtwv &Eeupov yeveow ‘he who
devised the origin of all’. The author consi-
dered God's creation of everything a true
creatio ex nihilo, oox €& Ovtwv £xotnoev
avta ò Beos ‘God did not create [all] these
from existing things’ (2 Macc 7:28).
Eph 3:9 too describes God as ta navta
Ktioas ‘Creator of all things’ within the
context of God’s eternal plan with the world
and especially the people living in it. The
designation of God as the ‘Creator of all’
hints at God’s hidden purpose with the
world. He knows the outcome from the ear-
liest beginning of the world. In contrast to
this opinion Marcion took this text as a
proof for his theory that the demiurge, cre-
ator of the world, had to be contrasted with
the highest God. In his edition he left out
the word £v in the phrase év tà 0Eà tà tà
navta Kttoavt, and by this he was able to
conclude that the mysterious purpose of the
universe was kept hidden from the Creator
of All, instead of hidden in Him. ScHNAC-
KENBURG (1982:140) connects the phrase of
Eph 3:9 with 1:10 and concludes that the
Creation of All will be fulfilled in eschatolo-
gical times when the universe, everything in
heaven and earth, will be brought into the
unity of Christ. The unity and order of the
'all' in the end will be restored in Christ,
who was alreay present at the beginning of
the world (1:4).
The phrase ‘Creator of All’ is also used
in Rev 4:11, where it describes the absolute
dependence of the 24 elders upon their God.
In the following chapter (Rev 5) the sealed
scroll is discussed, which places the
designation of God as the Creator of All
(just as Eph 3:9) in the context of God's
omniscience and his knowledge of the pur-
pose of the world, hidden from all creatures.
Col 1:16 refers to Christ as the one in whom
éxrio8n tà navta, ‘all things were created’,
in heaven and on earth (see also Rom 11:36;
1 Cor 8:6; Hebr 2: 10) and xà ravta 81° av-
100 xat eis aotov Extiotar ‘all things were
created through him and for him'.
V. Bibliography
J. P. ALLEN, Genesis in Egypt: The Philos-
ophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts
(New Haven 1988); A. ANGERSTORFER, Der
Schópfergott des Alten Testaments: Herkunft
und Bedeutungsentwicklung des hebrüischen
Terminus br? ‘‘schaffen’’ (Frankfurt a.M.
1979); J. ASSMANN, Re und Amun: Die
210
CURSE
i a M — —— MÀ
Krise des polytheistischen Weltbilds im
Agypten der 18.-20. Dynastie (Freiburg
1983) 218-246; ASSMANN, Schdpfergott,
LdA 5 (1984) 676-677; ASSMANN, Schóp-
fung, LdA 5 (1984) 677-690; A. I. BAUM-
GARTEN, Zhe Phoenician History of Philo of
Byblos (Leiden 1981); K.-H. BERNHARDT,
N13, TWAT 1 (1973), 774-777; J. BotréRO
& S. N. Kramer, Lorsque les dieux faisai-
ent l'homme: Mythologie mésopotamienne
(Paris 1989) 470-601; R. J. CLIFFORD, Cre-
ation in the Ancient Near East and in the
Bible (Washington, DC, 1994); J. J. VAN
Dux, Le motif cosmique dans la pensée
sumérienne, AcOr 28 (1964) 1-59; W.
Foerster, xtiCw, TDNT 3 (Grand Rapids
1965) 1000-1035; W. L. HotLLADaY, Jere-
mia 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1983); E.
Hornuna, Der Eine und die Vielen. Aypti-
sche Gottesvorstellungen (Darmstadt 1971);
A. S. KAPELRUD, Creation in the Ras
Shamra Texts, ST 34 (1980) 1-11; E. KLEIN
et al. (eds.), Die Schépfungsmythen. Agyp-
ter, Sumerer, Hurriter, Hethiter, Kanaaniter
und Israeliten (Darmstadt 1977); M. C. A.
KorpeEL, A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and
Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Münster
1990); KoRPEL, Exegesis in the Work of Ili-
milku of Ugarit, OTS 40 (1998) 55-80; W.
G. LAMBERT, Old Testament Mythology in
its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Congress
Volume Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup 40; Leiden
1988) 124-143; J. T. Miui&, Dédicaces fai-
tes par des dieux (Paris 1972); P. D. MiL-
LER, El, the Creator of Earth, BASOR 239
(1980) 43-46; J. C. pe Moor, El the Cre-
ator, The Bible World. Essays in Honor of
Cyrus H. Gordon (ed. G. Rendsburg et al.;
New York 1980) 171-187; DE Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite
Monotheism (2nd ed.; BETL 91; Leuven
1997); H. NreHR, Der höchste Gott (BZAW
190; Berlin 1990); E. Orro, Monotheisti-
sche Tendenzen in der ägyptischen Religion,
WO 2 (1955) 99-110; M. H. Pore, The Sta-
tus of El at Ugarit, UF 19 (1987) 219-230;
G. von Rap, Theologie des Alten Testa-
ments, Bd.1 (München 1982); R. ScuNAC-
KENBURG, Der Brief an die Epheser (EKK
10; Zürich 1982); B. UFFENHEIMER, El
Elyon, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Shna-
ton 2 (1977) 20-26.
M.C.A. KORPEL
CURSE 778
I. Some scholars have contended that in
ancient Israel 'curse' ("dlád) was conceived
of as a kind of demonic force that could
invade the land or take over a person's
being. Although curse could on occasion be
personified, therc is little evidence from the
Bible that curse was thought to be a self-
acting force. This is true not only for the
root ?LH but also for vocables from other
roots used to express curses in the OT (no-
tably °RR, QLL, QBB, and 5B‘). Etymological-
ly the root °LH is cognate with Ar ?Lw (IV),
‘to swear’, ‘to curse’, and 'allu, ‘oath’,
‘curse’. In the OT the root is attested as a
verb in the Qal (Judg 17:2; Hos 4:2; 10:4)
and in the Hiphil (1 Sam 14:24; 1 Kgs 8:31
- 2 Chr 6:22) the noun 'dlá occurs 36
times. In addition, the noun ra'álá (Lam
3:65) is probably to be derived from this
root. Despite the occasional personification
of curses both in Israel and elsewhere in the
ancient Near East, curses were thought to
derive their effectiveness not so much from
any inherent demonic force or magical
power as from the agency of the cooperating
deity invoked in such illocutionary or per-
formative utterances.
II. There are no certain attestations of
’ala ‘curse’ in ancient Near Eastern litera-
ture outside the Hebrew Bible. In the al-
leged eighth-century BCE Phoenician inscrip-
tion from Arslan Tash the word "/It—which
occurs four or five times, depending upon
one’s interpretation—has been read various-
ly as ‘goddess’, ‘bond’, or ‘curse’. However,
there is a growing conviction among
scholars that the Arslan Tash inscription is
in fact a forgery made in the 1930s and so
will not be considered here (see J.
TEIXIDOR, Les tablettes d’ Arslan Tash au
Musée d'Alep, AulOr 1 [1983] 105-108; P.
AMIET, Observations sur les “Tablettes
magiques" d'Arslan Tash, AulOr 1 [1983]
109). ?álá has also been read in line 2 of the
211
CURSE
Panammu Il (KA/ 215), an eighth-century
BCE Aramaic inscription from Zinjirli. The
word in question occurs in a broken and
difficult context; it is usually read as "zi, i.e.
a relative pronoun. However, CRAWFORD
(1992:102-103), following Gisson (TSS/
2.78-79) reads Ih, ‘curse’, and translates,
"because of his father's righteousness the
gods of Y'DY delivered him from destruc-
tion. There was a curse on his father's
house, but the god -*Hadad stood with him,
and [...)." If correctly read as 'cursc', then
*th here can be compared to the sanctions
attached to a breach of ancient Near Eastem
treaties (e.g. Sefire 1.A.14-42; 1.B.21-45;
1.C.17-25) or to covenants (cf. Deut 30:7;
Jer 23:10).
Although not cognates, Heb ’ald is often
correctly compared to Akkadian mamitu, the
semantic range of which extends from ‘oath’
(swom by the king and the gods) and
"sworn agreement! to 'curse' (consequences
of a broken oath attacking a person who
took it, also as demonic power) (CAD M/I,
s.v.). Both ’al@ and mdmim have as their
primary meaning ‘oath’, as in treaties and in
promises of fidelity. Likewise, both terms
are used by mctonymy to refer to disasters
and maladies considered to be sanctions for
breaking an oath. Such disasters and mal-
adies were thought to be inflicted by divine
beings (Sons of (the) Gods) explicitly or
implicitly invoked to enforce the oath.
Accordingly in Akkadian literature the dis-
asters and maladies associated with mdmitu
were themselves on occasion demonized or
deified (CAD M/1, mamitu 2c).
In the targums 'álá, like $ébá'á (another
word for 'oath'), is normally translated by
Aram móniátd, a cognate to Akk māmiītu. In
cases where ’ald and 3ébí'á occur together,
'álá is translated by Aram lita or léwdid
(‘curse’).
HI. The notion of ’ald, ‘curse’, as some
kind of self-acting malevolent force has first
been proposed by PEDERSEN (1926:437-
443). Although Pedersen used the label ald,
it is clear from the examples he used that
‘curse’ also includes vocables derived from
other roots, notably ’RR and QLL. PEDER-
SEN's conception of curse is intimately
linked with his understanding of the soul in
Israelite psychology. “Man, in his total
essence, is a soul" (1926:99). In other
words, were one to substitute ‘person’ for
‘soul’, one would have a more accurate
understanding of what the Israelites meant
by soul. The soul is a coherent whole char-
acterized by volition realized in action. That
is, human persons are by nature oriented
toward accomplishment of what they con-
ceive in thought. Moreover, this ancient psy-
chology assigned a magical quality to lan-
guage: words effect what they symbolize.
Curses—like their opposites, blessings—
operate by a power inherent in the words
themselves and thus take on a life of their
own once uttered. Blessing is the vital
power that no living being can live without;
it is the strength of life, a creative power
manifested primarily in fertility but also in
bringing about wealth. Great-souled persons
possess greater blessing and the full life that
goes with it. The act of blessing transfers
this soul power to another person. The bless-
ing is a self-fulfilling power that cannot be
revoked, but it can be made more effective
by joining human power with divine power.
Curse is just the opposite of blessing.
Curse, like its counterpart, ->sin, causes dis-
solution of the soul, diminishment of vital-
ity, and destruction of the community. But
unlike sin, the curse can be put into the soul
from without. Like the blessing, the curse
can be put into the soul by someone else
uttering the curse. The power of the curse
lies not in the wish or the words but in the
mysterious power of souls to react upon
each other. One whose soul creates some-
thing evil puts that evil into the soul of his
neighbour, where it exercises its influence.
Persons of stronger souls speak stronger
curses than ordinary people (2 Kgs 2:24; cf.
6:16); persons like Balaam had special gifts
for that kind of utterance (Num 22-24).
Also, the strength of the word could be
increased by uttering it in a holy place such
as before the altar (1 Kgs 8:31).
Pedersen's views about curse as a self-
operating power were adopted and devel-
212
CURSE
oped in different ways by others.
MowINCKEL (1924) sought to ground curse,
like blessing, in the cult. Although originally
the power of blessings and curses may have
been thought to arise from within the blesser
or the curser and to be transmitted by means
of the effectual word, in Israel blessing and
cursing increasingly took the form of a wish
or a prayer to Yahweh to bless one's com-
munity or friends and to curse one’s en-
emies or malefactors. In Mowinckel’s the-
ory, the magical quality of the word was not
so much abandoned as transformed into a
‘sacramental element’ through which the
deity’s power could actually be strengthened.
HEMPEL (1925) posited an even greater
evolutionary development in the notions of
blessing and cursing in Israel. In the folk
religion stage, blessings and curses were
magical and self-fulfilling. In the cultic
stage, blessings and curses still required
ceremonies and oral formulas to prompt the
deity to bless or curse. In the ethical mono-
theism stage, blessings and curses lost their
magical quality altogether; blessings and
curses were now believed to come from the
deity in accordance with the cthical values
proclaimed by the prophets. That the genre
of curse in ancient Israel underwent such
evolutionary development, however, may be
doubted. SCHARBERT (1958) is closer to the
OT evidence in concluding that, although
word-magic may still be present in a number
of OT passages involving curses, the magi-
cal element was largely neutralized by faith
in Yahweh. That is, the curse became more
of a prayer to Yahweh to bring about the
calamity on the evildoer and thus call the
evildoer to account. But even this recon-
struction depends too heavily upon a hy-
pothesis of word-magic as the norm in the
ancient Near East.
CrawrForD (1992) has shown that none
of the blessing and curse formulations in
Syro-Palestinian inscriptions roughly con-
temporary with the monarchical period in
Israel (ca. 1000-586 BcE) should be inter-
preted as vague magical imprecations; rather
in every case they are dependent for their
fulfillment upon the power of deities in-
voked either explicitly or implicitly. A
closer analysis of OT curse formulations
yields similar results (see BricHto 1963).
The notion that words have power is based
upon a modem misconception about the
ancients’ inability to distinguish between
‘word’ and ‘thing’. With THISELTON (1974),
blessing and curse are best understood as
illocutionary or performative utterances.
That is to say, the congruence between word
and thing derives from the fact that they are
uttered by an acceptable person at an accept-
able time and in an acceptable manner. A
divorce formula, for example, derives its
force not from mere utterance but from
being pronounced by the proper person(s) in
a forum acknowledged by that society for
that purpose.
Curse (’ald) in the OT was operative in
two basic contexts: (1) As part of an oath,
such as in the making of covenants or con-
tracts. In this usage the curse is essentially
an imprecation. That is, curses attached to
covenant-making functioned as sanctions
invoked upon oneself for breach of contract.
Just as blessings motivated covenant fidelity
through promise of a full life and prosperity,
SO curses militated against covenant infidel-
ity through threat of loss of life and dim-
inishment of community or wealth. The
close connection between 'dlá and covenant
is particularly evident in Deut 29:9-20:
“You are assembled today, all of you, before
Yahweh your God [...] to enter into the
covenant of Yahweh your God and into its
curse” (vv 9-11, cf. vv 13, 20). A covenant
context for ’ald is also explicit or implicit in
passages such as Deut 30:7; Isa 24:4-6; Jer
23:10; Ezek 16:59; 17:11-19; 2 Chr 34:24;
Neh 10:30: Dan 9:11; and perhaps also in
the obscure passage Hos 10:4. Because of
the close connection between curse and
covenant, 'dlà can by metonymy, specifi-
cally by synecdoche of the part for the
whole, stand for the covenant itself (e.g.
Deut 29:18, 19). Within a covenant context,
it is obvious that the curses are not sclf-
acting but rather are carried out by the deity
or deities invoked to guarantce the integrity
of the covenant. (2) As adjurations against
213
CYBELE
another person (in grammatical 2nd or 3rd
person formulations) (a) for the purpose of
motivating witnesses or malefactors to come
forward (e.g. Lev 5:1); (b) for the purpose
of evoking a desired action or precluding an
undesired action (e.g. Gen 24:41; Josh 6:22;
1 Sam 14:24, 28); or (c) as a conditional
imprecation (or prayer) addressed to the
deity to punish a malefactor whose guilt
cannot be proved (e.g. Judg 17:2; Num
5:11-31; 1 Kgs 8:31-32=2 Chr 6:22-23). It
was a breach of the moral code to evoke the
deity frivolously or under false pretenses
(Job 31:29-30; Hos 4:1-2: Ps 59:13).
In no passage does the curse operate
independently of the agency of the deity,
even in passages which have the most sem-
blance of magic. An example is the fre-
quently-cited case of a woman suspected of
adultery who must endure a trial by ordeal
wherein the woman is forced to drink water
containing a curse (Num 5:11-31). Here the
placing of the trial in the sanctuary (vv 15-
16. 18, 30) and the explicit invocation of the
deity to effect the curse (v 21, cf. v 25)
make it clear that the words and the actions
of the ritual have at most a sacramental
quality; that is, they are merely material
forms through which divine action is mani-
fested. Even in cases where the actual words
of the curse arc not recorded, such as in
Judg 17:2 where a distraught woman curses
the unknown thief who stole her money, it is
likely that the deity was invoked. For when
the woman learned that the thief was her
own son, in an attempt to counteract the
curse, she immediately invoked Yahweh to
bless her son. The logic here seems to be
that, since her son was patently guilty, the
imposition of the curse by the just divine
judge could not be averted. However, the
effects of the curse could be softened
through blessing from the same deity.
Examination of other cases yields a simi-
lar conclusion. The curse in ancient Israel—
whether expressed by 'áld or some other
vocable—was not believed to be a magical,
self-acting force. Rather, a valid curse was
always conditional (a) upon the speaker
having legitimate reason to utter the curse,
(b) upon the object person being deserving
of punishment, and most importantly, (c)
upon the complicity of the deity in effecting
the curse.
IV. Bibliography
S. BLANK, The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell
and the Oath, HUCA 23 (1950-51) 73-95;
*H. C. Bnicuro, 77e Problem of the
‘Curse’ in the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia
1963) esp. 22-71; T. G. Crawrorb, Bles-
sings and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscrip-
tions of the Iron Age (American University
Studies: Ser. 7, Theology and Religion 120;
New York 1992); J. Hemper, Die israeli-
tische Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch
im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen,
ZDMG 79 (1925) 20-110 (Reprinted in
BZAW 81 [1961] 30-113); S. MOWINCKEL,
Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psal-
mendichtung. Psalmenstudien V (Oslo 1924;
reprinted Amsterdam 1961); MOWINCKEL,
The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Oxford
1962) II, 44-52; J. PEDERSEN, Der Eid bei
den Semiten (Strassburg 1914); PEDERSEN,
Israel: its Life and Culture 1-11 (Copenhagen
1926) 437-443 (First published in Danish,
19205; J. ScuaRBERT, “Fluchen” und
"Segnen" im AT, Bib 39 (1958) 1-26;
SCHARBERT, Z7R 'álüh, TN "m, TDOT |
(1974, rev. 1977) 261-266. 405-418; W.
ScHorrRorF, Der altisraelitische | Fluch-
spruch (WMANT 30; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1969); A. C. TuisELTON, The Supposed
Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,
JTS 25 (1974) 283-299.
B. F. Batto
CYBELE
I. According to HoMMEL (1929), the
field of Machpelah (Gen 23:9.17.19; 25:9;
49:30; 50:13) was named after the goddess
Ma-Cybele.
II. Cybele (KuBéAn) or Cybebe (KuB Bn)
is a goddess of the fertile earth originating
from Asia Minor, where she was known in
the second millennium BCE as Kubaba
(LAROCHE 1960). Having made her way into
the Greek world, the deity was identified
with a number of other ‘mother goddesses’
214
CYBELE
such as Rhea, Agdistis, Ma, and Bellona.
Her cult had orgiastic traits. The latter were
accentuated in the course of time as the god
Attis (in some respects comparable with
— Adonis) was associated with Cybele. The
goddess and her male consort were quite
popular in the Hellenistic and Roman world
(TURCAN 1989).
III. The connection made between Mach-
pelah and Ma-Cybele is based purely on
phonetic similarity. In fact, the construct
Ma-Cybele is extremely rare; the conjunc-
tion Ma-Bellona is more frequent. The cult
of Cybele would not have been known (cer-
tainly not under that name) in Palestine
before Alexander the Great—which would
mean that the Machpelah tradition is much
younger than commonly accepted. Also, the
word makpéld is a perfectly proper Hebrew
magqtél formation based on the root KPL, ‘to
be double’ (cf. BAUER & LEANDER, Histo-
rische Grammatik, 492).
IV. Bibliography
F. Grar, Nordionische Kulte (Rome 1985)
107-115; H. HowwEr, Das religionsge-
schichtliche Problem des 139. Psalms, ZAW
47 (1929) 110-124, esp. 117 n.l; E. N.
LANE (ed.), Cybele, Attis and Related Cults:
Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren
(RGRW 131; Leiden 1996); E. LAROCHE,
Koubaba, déesse anatolienne, et le probléme
des origines de Cybele, Eléments orientaux
dans la religion grecque ancienne (Colloque
de Strasbourg 22-24 mai 1958; Paris 1960
113-128; E. SiwoN, LIMC VIIL1 (1997)
744-766; R. TURCAN, Les cultes orientaux
dans le monde romain (Paris 1989) 35-75.
K. VAN DER TOORN
215
DAGON [71
I. Dagon is the Hebrew form of the
name of the god Dagan, who was an import-
ant Mesopotamian and West Semitic deity.
Dagon occurs as a Philistine deity in the
Hebrew Bible, specifically as the god of
Ashdod (1 Sam 5:1-7 and 1 Macc 10:83-84;
Judg 16:23 [Gaza] ] Chr 10:10 [Beth-
Shan?]). The LXX also reads the name
Aayov instead of Nebo (—>Nabû) in Isa
46:1.
The etymology of the name Dagan is
uncertain. Etymologies based on dag, ‘fish’,
dagan, ‘grain’, and on a root meaning ‘be
cloudy’ (Arabic dajj or dajana) are all
equally dubious and there is no contextual
evidence from the Hebrew Bible or from
Mesopotamian/West Semitic sources to give
much support to these speculations. It is
wiser to restrict oneself to what can be
known from the evidence. principally that
Dagan was a deity of major significance in
the Mari region in the Old Babylonian
period and that his worship appears to have
spread widely in later times. He was thus
adopted, no doubt in some syncretistic form,
perhaps as a com-god, by the Philistines.
II. Dagan is one of the most persistent
deities of the world of Semitic religion. His
worship is well attested from the third mil-
lennium BCE in the Ebla texts and he ap-
pears in Sargonic personal names, but
neither source gives any hint of the precise
nature of this deity. In Ebla, though import-
ant in cult, he is rarely named, but called by
various titles including “BE (bé/u, ‘Lord’)
and fLUGAL-du-du-lu¥) (‘Lord of Tutul’).
Temples, festivals and even a section of the
city were dedicated to Dagan.
Sargon attributed his conquest of
Upper/Western Mesopotamia to Dagan and
worshipped him in Tuttul. This confirms
Dagan’s regional authority, leaving southern
Mesopotamia to other deities, including
Enlil. He is well attested in the Mari texts as
one of the principal deities of the Amorites
of Old Babylonian Upper Mesopotamia and
he is specifically linked with Mari, his great
cult-centres being at Terqa and especially
Tuttul. It may be noted that Dagan is often
connected in the Mari texts with the activ-
ities of ecstatics/prophets who received mess-
ages from the god in his temple, which were
then transmitted to the king.
In southern Mesopotamia Dagan was
sometimes identified with the god Enlil.
This may suggest some ‘storm-god’ aspect
(supporting the etymology linking the name
with the possible Arabic cognate noted
above), though the significance of the
equation may not be this aspect and the
Arabic cognate is extremely remote.
The westward ‘migration’ of Dagan is
already evident in the Ugaritic texts. He has
a rather minor role in Ugaritic mythology,
playing a very small and obscure part in the
Nikkal poem. The context here is fragmen-
tary, but it is possible that Dagan is men-
tioned as the father of the lunar deity Yarikh
(Moon) (KTU 1.24:14). He has no active
role in the main myths and legends and is
merely mentioned as the father of -*Ba*al
(called bn dgn, htk dgn). His paternity of
Ba'al might be interpreted as implying char-
acteristics similar to Ba'al's. Be this as it
may, Dagan’s importance in Ugaritic relig-
ion is confirmed by his relative popularity in
offering-lists and similar texts. From the fact
that he is the recipient of offerings recorded
on two stelae found in the precinct of a
major temple (KTU 6.13 and 6.14) it ap-
pears that one of the two principal temples
at Ugarit was dedicated to Dagan, though
the evidence is not completely conclusive.
The other temple was that of Ba‘al. Ugaritic
‘theology’ (as opposed to the different world
216
DAGON
of Ugaritic mythology) may be reflected in
the local pantheon lists and the main one of
these, extant in several versions, puts Dagan
in third place, after -^El and -*Ilib but be-
fore Ba'al (sec KTU 1.47; 1.118 and Akkad-
ian RS 20.24=Ugaritica Vi, 18).
It is noteworthy that in the Ugaritic texts
Dagan is twice called dgn ttl, ‘Dagan of
Tuttul' (KTU 1.100:15; 1.24:14 [a(J)}), a
title which shows the continuity of the Ugar-
itic Dagan tradition with that of Mari.
The fact of Dagan’s having no active part
in the main Ba‘al myths may reflect the rela-
tive lateness of his arrival on the Syrian
coast. References to Ba‘al as ‘son of Dagan’
also present considerable problems, since he
is clearly also the son of El. Some have
sought to resolve this by assuming that
Dagan is to be identified with El, but this
idea is hard to maintain in view of the fact
that the two were separately worshipped.
Others suggest the title ‘son of Dagan’
reflects an awareness of Ba'al's foreignness
and secondariness within the history of the
Ugaritic pantheon. It may well be that the
confusion arises from a lack of fixity in the
gencalogy of the Ugaritic gods.
Biblical evidence of Philistine worship of
Dagan (below)—the form of the name
recorded for this is Dagon, reflecting a shift
of ā to 6—is uninformative in detail, but
clearly implies that the deity was taken over
by the Philistines as a national god. We
must assume his worship had been wide-
spread throughout the coastal (corn-pro-
ducing?) area which the Philistines came to
call their own. The adoption of pre-existing
cults, no doubt still popular among the
Semitic population, can be regarded as nor-
mal. It may be noted, however, that there is
only one possible direct Phoenician allusion
to Dagan/Dagon, in the phrase ’rst den
drt, ‘the rich lands of Dagon’, in the fifth
century BCE Eshmunazar inscription (KA/
14:19). Dagon does, however, have a promi-
nent role in Philo of Byblos’ speculative
account of Phoenician religion (below).
Roperts (1972:18-19) argued for Dagan
having had an underworld role. His argu-
ment is largely based on the underworld
aspect of Enlil, with whom Dagan was
identified, though he also cites a Mari text in
which Dagan is called bél pagré, which
Roberts takes to mean ‘lord of the sacrifices
for the dead’. This translation is dubious:
‘lord of sacrificial victims’ may be more
likely. There is, however, some slight evi-
dence pointing in the direction of the funer-
ary cult in that an inscription of Shamshi-
Adad I seems to connect the bit kispi
(‘temple of the funerary ritual’) in Terqa
with the temple of Dagan there.
We cannot resolve the question of the
etymology of the name Dagan/Dagon. It
could be pre-Semitic. The connection with
‘fish’ (cf. Biblical evidence as interpreted by
Wellhausen [below], Jerome and later
Jewish tradition [Rashi, Kimchi]) is entirely
secondary, being based on a folk etymology.
The name Dagan appears to have been a
‘given’ which needed explanation and the
explanation arrived at would, conveniently,
help to make sense of certain difficulties in
onc of the Biblical texts (see below). This
made the ‘fish’ connection the more attract-
ive, but it has little intrinsic merit. As an inter-
pretation it is only loosely supported by the
Philistine association with the sea and anal-
ogies with the goddess Derketo at a later date.
As for ‘grain’, this suggestion has a ven-
erable ancestry in that this is the significance
of Dagan in Philo of Byblos, where Dagon
is identical with Siton and is regarded as
having discovered grain and the plough.
This cannot, however, be regarded as
settling the issue and it is now a widely held
view that the word for ‘grain’ comes from
the name of the god and not vice versa. Per-
haps more simply we might suppose that the
connection with ‘grain’ is secondary and
based on the coincidence of the West Sem-
itic word for grain (e.g. Hebrew and Ugar-
itic [one doubtful occurrence: KTU 1.16
iii:13}) and the Mesopotamian name of the
god being homonyms. The grain-related
meaning of the root dgn is distinctively
West Semitic. It would not have been
known to a Mesopotamian worshipper of the
deity and cannot have been at all prominent
in the understanding of his name.
217
DAGON
Finally the Arabic dajana, ‘to be gloomy,
cloudy’, not found elsewhere in Semitic, has
been adopted by many recent scholars. As
we have seen, connection with storms (since
Dagan was Enlil-like and also the father of
Ba‘al) is possible though never explicit. The
appeal to such a remote Semitic cognate for
etymology smacks of desperation.
HI. | Sam 5:1-7 contains the most
important of the Biblical references to
Dagan/Dagon. The passage concerns the
bringing of the Ark of the Covenant by the
Philistines into the temple of their god
Dagon in Ashdod. The introduction of the
captured Ark into a temple is meant to be a
sign of submission to the god of the particu-
lar temple. According to the story in 1 Sam,
however, the statue of Dagon fell down (in
submission) before the Ark and was
smashed. There is a difficulty in the text of
the end of v.4: raq dàgón nis'ar ‘ala(y)w,
apparently “only Dagon was left upon him".
BHK and BHS recognise the need for a con-
struct noun before ‘Dagon’ and this is
reflected in the ancient versions (LXX: ù
payic, backbone; Vg: truncus, body without
limbs; Tg: ewpyh, his body, Syr: gwsmh, his
body). Wellhausen would correct dágoón to
dàgó, "his fish(-part)'. and this is still fa-
voured by BHK. This would give ‘only his
fish-part remained upon him’, which would,
if accepted, support the connecting of
Dagan’s name with dag, ‘fish’, a tradition
represented in Jerome (<dag ’6n, ‘fish of tri-
bulation'!) and in the Talmud. It is notable,
however, that while the ancient versions are
aware of a problem with the text, this is not
an interpretation they put upon it. The Well-
hausen suggestion is now rightly abandoned
by BHS.
Of the remaining Biblical references to
Dagan/Dagon, note may be made of other
passages which confirm the association of
the god with the Philistines. In Judg 16:23
the Philistine chiefs assemble, presumably in
the temple of Dagon, to offer sacrifice of
thanksgiving to Dagon for their capture of
Samson, Dagon is called ‘their/our god’ and
he receives a zebah gádól. 'a great sacri-
fice'. Although it is not explicitly stated here
that there was a Dagon temple at Gaza, no
change of locale is implied and it seems
likely that there was such a temple, since
there appear to have been many temples of
the god. Josh 15:41 and 19:27, where the
placename Beth-Dagon occurs, imply there
were such temples in Judah and in Asher.
According to | Chr 10:10 the head of Saul
was initially displayed by the Philistines as a
trophy of war in a temple of Dagon. This
appears to have been at Beth-Shan (1 Sam
31:10).
That the cult of Dagon persisted into the
intertestamental period is clear from 1 Macc
10:83-84, according to which the High
Priest Jonathan burned down the temple of
Dagon in Azotus, i.c. Ashdod, which had
become the place of refuge of the cavalry of
Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria.
In addition to these explicit biblical ref-
erences to the god Dagon, note should be
made of a number of biblical verses in
which it has been argued that the occurrence
of the word dàgàn, ‘grain’, intends an allu-
sion to the deity. Thus in Gen 27:28 and
Hos 7:14 and 9:1 (e.g. ALBRIGHT 1946:
1046). The claimed allusion in Gen 27:28 is
without foundation, since nothing in the
context suggests anything to do with foreign
gods and ddgan is satisfactorily translated as
‘grain’, one of the divine gifts in Isaac's
blessing upon his son. Here and elsewhere
“grain” is associated with -^'dew" (tal), 'fat-
ness of the earth’ and ‘new wine’ (firé§,
->Tirash). The fact that gal and fîrôš may
elsewhere have mythological overtones docs
not prove that ddgdn has such overtones in
Gen 27:28.
The case of the Hosea passages is dif-
ferent, since it is clear that it is one of
Hosea’s themes that it was Yahweh, not the
foreign gods, who gave Israel "the grain, the
wine and the oil” (2:10-11.24). In these
cases there may be a faint echo of the divine
name Dagan (though the fact that the
definite article is used means that it is in-
deed faint). In Hos 7:14 the specific context
is that of turning to other gods and "for
dagan and tíró$ (without definite articles)
they gash themselves" may plausibly be
218
DA(')MU -
interpreted as an allusion to illicit cult,
though the allusion could be simply to a cult
of lamentation for the failure of vegetation.
Hos 9:1, “you have loved a prostitute’s pay-
ment upon all the threshing-floors of
dágán", could again contain an allusion to
the deity.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel (Baltimore 19462); A.
Caguot & M. SzNYCER, Textes Ougarit-
iques. Tome I: Mythes et Légendes (Paris
1974); A. CooPER, Divine Names and Epi-
thets in the Ugaritic Texts, RSP HI (Rome
1981) 361-363; L. K. HANDY, Dagon, ABD
2 (1992) 1-2; J. F. HEALEY, The Under-
world Character of the God Dagan, JNSL 5
(1977) 43-51; HEALEY, The “Pantheon” of
Ugarit: Further Notes, SEL 5 (1988) 103-
112; F. J. MONTALBANO, Canaanite Dagon:
Origin, Nature, CBQ 13 (1951) 381-397; M.
J. MuLDER, Kanaänitische Goden in het
Oude Testament (The Hague 1965) 71-75;
G. PErriNATO & H. WaerzoLDpT, Dagàn in
Ebla und Mesopotamien nach den Texten
aus dem 3. Jahrtausend, Or 54 (1985) 234-
256; H. RiNGGREN, Dagan, i23, TWAT 2,
148-151. (TDOT 3; 139-142); J. J. M.
Roserts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon
(Baltimore/London 1972); H. SCHMÖKEL,
Der Gott Dagon, Ursprung, Verbreitung
und Wesen seines Kultes (Leipzig 1928); S.
A. WicGiNs, Old Testament Dagan in the
Light of Ugarit, VT 43 (1993) 268-274.
J. F. HEALEY
DA(*)MU -: BLOOD
DANIEL “NT
I. The name Daniel occurs in three con-
texts in the Hebrew Bible: (1) It occurs
twice in the Book of Ezekiel. Ezek 14:14
says that when a land sins, "even if these
three Noah, Daniel and Job were in it,
they would deliver but their own lives by
their righteousness". Again in Ezek 28:3 the
prophet taunts the king of Tyre (->Melqart)
by asking: "are you wiser than Daniel?" (In
DANIEL
both instances, the name is spelled 7W27,
without the plene yod) lt seems clear from
these references that Daniel was already the
name of a legendary figure, famed for right-
eousness and wisdom, in the time of
Ezekiel. (2) Ezra 8:2 mentions a priest
named Daniel, son of Ithamar, who went up
from Babylon to Jerusalem with Ezra. This
figure has no supra-human qualities. (3) The
hero of the book of Daniel is ostensibly a
Jew in the Babylonian exile, who distin-
guishes himself by his ability to interpret
dreams and mysterious writing, and by sur-
viving a sojourn in the lions' den. Hc is then
the recipient of apocalyptic visions in the
second half of the book. It is the consensus
of modern scholarship that this Daniel never
existed. In any case, he is not presented as a
deity or a demon. The name Daniel, how-
ever, is used for a heavenly figure in post-
biblical traditions.
The name Daniel means ‘my judge is El’
(pace M. Notu /PN, who proposed 'God
has judged'). The motif of judgment is pro-
minent in the story of Susanna, but not in
the other extant Daniel literature.
Il. Daniel occurs as the name of a tradi-
tional, legendary, figure in the Aqhat story
in the Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.17-19;
ANET 149-55). There we find a king named
Daniel (di'il) who is initially childless. He
supplicates the gods and is given a son
Aghat. The divine craftsman, Kothar-wa-
Khasis gives Aqhat a present of a bow. The
goddess -^Anat takes a fancy to the bow
and offers Aqhat silver and gold in ex-
change for it. Aqhat declines. Anat then
offers to make him immortal, but Aqhat
refuses to believe her, since old age and
death are the lot of humanity. Anat then
plots vengeance against him, and kills him
by sending her attendant Yatpan in the form
of a vulture to strike him down. The bow,
however, is broken and falls into the sca.
Messengers from Baal relate to Daniel and
his daughter late-born Pughat what has hap-
pened. Daniel beseeches Baal to break the
wings of vultures, so that he can rip them
open and see if Aqhar's flesh and bones are
in them. Eventually he retrieves his son for
219
DAPHNE
burial, and laments him for seven years. His
daughter Pughat puts on male attire with
dagger and sword, with a woman’s cloak
over it. She then sets out to the tent of
Yatpan, who boasts to her of having killed
Aghat. The tablets break off at this point.
III. The Daniel in KTU 1.17-19 is evi-
dently a righteous man, who supplicates the
gods and, as king. gives judgment for
widows and orphans. He is not portrayed as
exceptionally wise, and even his righteous-
ness is incidental to the story. If this is in-
deed the same hero Ezekiel refers to, the
prophet must have known other traditions
about him. Nonetheless it seems gratuitous
to suppose that there were two unrelated
legendary figures by the name of Daniel.
The relevance of this figure to the hero of
the Book of Daniel is very limited. Only the
name is taken over. He is given an entirely
new identity as a Jew in the Babylonian
exile. There is no reason to suppose that the
authors or tradents of the tales were at all
aware of the Ugaritic legend. Most probably
the name was taken from Ezekiel. Since
Daniel was not so well known as Noah and
Job in Jewish circles, the post-exilic author
was free to attach the name to a figure who
would illustrate righteousness and wisdom
in a historical context.
IV. A few other occurrences of the name
Daniel should be noted. It is the name of
one of the ^ Watchers, or fallen angels, in 7
Enoch 6:7, It also appears as the name of a
good angel on an Aramaic incantation bowl
(ISBELL 1975:102-3). Finally, Jub 4:20
reports that ~Enoch took a wife whose
name was Edni, “the daughter of Danel, his
father’s brother”. This latter figure may well
be a variant of the Ugaritic Dn’il, but his
tradition history remains obscure. Only in Z
Enoch, and in the much later incantation
bowl, is Daniel clearly the name of a
heavenly being.
V. Bibliography
J. J. CoLLiNs, Daniel (Hermeneia; Min-
neapolis 1993) 1-2; J. Day, The Daniel of
Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the
Book of Daniel, V7 30 (1980) 174-84; H. H.
P. DRESSLER, The Identification of the Ugar-
itic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel, VT 29
(1979) 152-61; DRESSLER, Reading and
Interpreting the Aqhat Text, VT 34 (1984)
78-82; C. D. ISBELL, Corpus of the Aramaic
Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17; Missoula:
1975); B. MARGALIT, Interpreting the Story
of Aqhat. A Reply to H. H. P. Dressler, VT
30 (1980) 361-5; M. NorH, Noah, Daniel und
Hiob in Ez 14, VT | (1951) 251-60; IPN.
J. J. COLLINS
DAPHNE Adovn
I. Daphne, metamorphosed into Apol-
lo’s laurel tree (Gk: Daphné) to escape his
amorous intentions, gave her name to a sub-
urb of Antioch (2 Macc 4:33). The name
can also result from the spelling in Greek of
Hebrew placenames—the fortress Tahpanhes
in the LXX (e.g. Jer 2:16) and a source of a
tributary of the Jordan (Jos., Bell. 4:3 and
Tg.Num. 34:11).
II. Stories involving Daphne are vari-
ously sited, but seem to go back to a tale
focussing on the River Peneios or its tribu-
tary the River Ladon on the fringes of Elis
and north-western Arcadia. She is depicted
at the moment of maidenhood, refusing the
company of men and typically hunting in
the wilds. But Leukippos, son of the King of
Elis, loves her and, masquerading as a
maiden, becomes her friend. Discovered, he
is killed by her group. Though Apollo
instigated the death of Leukippos in some
poems (Pausanias 8:20), he really belongs to
a different story altogether: in love with
Daphne, he pursues her till she prays for
release to her father, the river, and is trans-
formed into a daphné —which then, aeti-
ologically, becomes a plant appropriate to
Apolline cult (Ovid, Met. 1:452-567). In the
last century and the beginning of the 20th
century, she was viewed by M. Miiller as
the dawn destroyed by the rising sun, by
MANNHARDT (1904-05: I 297) as a tree-soul
and by ROHDE as a symbol of the defeat of
chthonic goddesses by the new oracular cult
of Apollo (1898, I 141; II 58 n. 2). More
recently she has lost speculative interest and
become a straightforward aetiological figure,
220
DATAN — DAY
though I have remarked upon initiatory el-
ements in the stories (DOWDEN 1989:177-
179).
Nine kilometres south of Antioch lies the
suburb Daphne, famous for its shrine of
Apollo Daphnaios and -*Artemis, founded
by Seleukos I, and its huge grove (15 km in
circumference, Strabo 16, 2, 6) and many
springs. One spring was named ‘Castalia’
(as at Delphi). This shrine re-sited Apollo's
pursuit: the grove actually contained a River
Ladon and the very laurel tree into which
Daphne had been metamorphosed. lt also
had a cypress, resulting from a transforma-
tion of a youth Kyparittos (Philostratos,
Vit.Ap. 1:16). This is the holy place where
the high priest Onias took sanctuary (2
Macc 4:33-4).
Another Daphne (at Tell Defne), whose
springs feed a tributary of the Jordan. is
mentioned by Josephus (Bell. 4:3) and by
Tg.Num. 34:11 (dpny); it is confused with
the Antioch Daphne by Jerome (Jn Ezek. 14,
47, 18) and probably by Tg.Num. (LE
DÉavur 1979:323 n. 25).
The fortress Tahpanhes (a Hebrew
rendering of the Egyptian ‘Fortress of the
Black Man’, now Tell Tefenne on the east-
ern fringes of the Delta) appears at Jer 2:16;
44:1; 46:14; Ezek 30:13-18. It is usually
rendered in the LXX as 'Taphnai', though
'Daphnai' is also found—by assimilation to
the Greek lexicon rather than with any parti-
cular semantic force. But at 1 (3) Kgs
11:19-20 the LXX does not take the op-
portunity to render the Pharaoh's sister and
wife of Hadad. Queen Tahpenes, as
‘Daphne’; she is, instead, ‘Thekemina’.
III. Bibliography
K. DowDbEN, Death and tlie Maiden (Lon-
don 1989) 174-179; J. LAssus, Antioch on
the Orontes, The Princeton Encyclopedia of
Classical Sites (ed. R. Stilwell; Princeton
1976) 63 [& lit]: R. Le DÉAUT, Targum du
Pentateuque, vol.3, Nombres (Sources Chré-
tiennes 261; Paris 1979); W. MANNHARDT,
Wald- und Feldkulte, 2 vols. (2nd ed.: Berlin
1904-1905); O. PALAGiA, L/MC III.1 (1986)
344-348; E. ROHDE, Psyche: Seelencult und
Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, (2nd
ed.; Freiburg/Leipzig/Tübingen 1898), O.
WasER, Daphne (6), PW 4 (1901) 2138-
2140.
K. DOwDEN
DATAN -* DEDAN
DAY CT
I. The Hebrew noun yóm, 'day', fre-
quently occurs in the OT (2304 times: the
Aram cognate yóm occurs 16 times in Dan
and Ezra). The noun has a common Semitic
background and is not derived from a verb
(VON SODEN, BERGMAN & SaEBO 1982:561-
562). At some instances in the OT ‘day’ is
personified. This use of ‘day’ indicating a
malevolent being construed as acting in his-
tory has some parallels in Mesopotamian
texts. In Ugaritic, ym, to be distinguished
from ym, ‘Sea’, is attested as a deity in the
Baal-epic and occurs in a syllabic god-list.
In the Old Aramaic Sefire-treaty yw occurs
as a deified witness.
II. In some Mesopotamian laments,
'day' occurs, not as an abstraction, but as "a
malevolent being, a demonic power that wil-
fully caused the evil ..." (JACOBSEN &
NIELSEN 1992:189). In a Sumerian peniten-
tial psalm related to the cult of Damu
(7*Tammuz) a mother cries on the death of
her boy: “Woe! Day destroyed him; lost me
a son” (ca. 2000 scE; OECT VI 15 Rev 3’-
10^). In the Lamentation over the destruction
of Ur ‘day’ is also personified: “*... the day
of storm was called off from the country—
the people mourn ... the country's blood
filled all holes like copper in a mould ..."
(S. N. KRAMER, Lamentation over the
Destruction of Ur (AS 12; Chicago 1940]
38-40:208-218). In a passage in the Epic of
Gilgamesh, Belit-ili bewails the day on
which the flood was ordered by addressing
herself to a personified day: “O, that you,
Day, had turned to clay on which I ordered
evil in the assembly of the gods!” (GE
X1:117-119).
This poetic personification of the day (of
birth) should be distinguished from the use
of ūmū as designation of supernatural
DAY
beings, or demons, who are manifesting
themselves as weather phenomena (Surpu
VIIE8; Enuma Elish 1V:50; GE VI:12;
WIGGERMANN 1986:284, 295, 323).
In a passage in the Baal-epic where thc
forces of Mot are attacking and threaten-
ing -*Baal, Baal says to his boys: "Look,
Gupanu-and-Ugaru! The sons of darkness
obscure ym, the sons of deep darkness
(obscure) the Exalted Princess!" (KTU 1.4
vii:53-56; J. C. pe Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism [BETL 91; Leuven 1990] 84,
interprets this line as a metaphorical depic-
tion of the effect of the hot desert wind, the
sirocco, on the agricultural areas). The last
two sentences form a parallelism. Since
‘Exalted Princess', rmt pr't, might be inter-
preted as an epithet for the sun-goddess
Shapshu, y; can be interpreted as a deity
‘Day, Daylight’ indicating the Sun. The
existence of this deity in the Ugaritic pan-
theon is established by a trilingual syllabic
god-list in which ‘Day’ appears as the
equivalent of the Mesopotamian deity
Shamash and the Hurrian god Tuenni: 4[u];
Il tu-en-ni //. ya-m[u] (Ug V No. 137
IVa:17). In a para-mythological text from
Ugarit, three times the sentence occurs: "Let
me invoke the gracious gods, the voracious
sons of ym" (KTU 1.23:23.58-59.61). These
lines refer to -Shahar and Shalim
(~Shalem), the deities of dawn and dusk.
Since they are seen as the beginning and
end of the day, their lineage is presented as
related to ym, ‘Day’, which might be a
metaphorical depiction of Ilu (-*El; M. C.
A. KoRPEL, A Rift in the Clouds [UBL 8;
Münster 1990] 566-567). Binger (1997:42-
50) has argued that the epithet for -*Asherah
rbt *trt ym should be rendered as ‘Great
Lady of the Day’. This proposal is in line
with the observations just made. In the Uga-
ritic texts Asherah is more clearly related
with solar elements, with Dawn and Dusk,
than with the Sea, as the traditional rende-
ring of the epithet ‘the great Lady who
walks on the Sea’ implies.
In the Aramaic treaty between Bar-Ga’y-
ah of KTK and Matiel of Arpad ywm,
‘Day’, occurs in a list of deities acting as
witnesses and guarantors to the treaty: wqdm
yw wlylh Shdn kl "[Ihy Ktk .... ‘and before
Day and Night; [let all the gods of Ktk and
of Arpad be w]itness" (KA/ 222 A:12; J.A.
FitzMEYER, The Aramaic Inscriptions of
Sefire [BcO 19; Roma 1967] 38-39).
ZADOK (1984) interprets ywm as a West
Semitic deity. The occurrence of the deity in
a Neo-Babylonian or Late-Babylonian list of
offerings (A. UNGNAD, VAS 6 [1908] Nr.
213:15: 1G1 9u4-mu DINGIR E-1i SMi-Sar-ra u
dpi-KUD; cf. a Neo-Assyrian list Takultu,
Nr. 236; dii-mu ) is interpreted by him as a
trait of Aramaic influence in Mesopotamia.
It is possible to interpret 'day' as well as
‘night’ as a relic of the concept of ^Olden
Gods who are often found in pairs. In the
lists of deities in the Hurro-Hittite treaties
after the twelve (or nine) ‘olden gods’
various pairs of elements from the natural
order are listed: Mountains and Rivers,
Springs and Great Sca, -*Heaven and Earth
(Cross 1976). In the Aramaic treaty, a com-
parable pattem seems to have been fol-
lowed: after cleven pairs of deities with
proper names, three pairs of deified elements
from the natural order are invoked: Heaven
and Earth; Abyss and Springs; Day and
Night.
In Greek religion, nuépa, ‘day’, rarely
occurs as deified or personified. An interest-
ing exception is found in Hesiod, Theogony
123-124, where it is stated that Night and
Desert—seen as divine—are the parents of
Aither and Hemera/Day. The sequence
Night - Day might indicate progress (WEST
1966).
III. In the OT yóm generally is used as a
common noun denoting a part of timc.
‘Day’ can be used to refer to a period of 24
hours, from sunset to sunset, or to the period
of daylight as well, from dawn to sunset.
The noun occurs in different constructions
each referring to a specific time or period:
hayyém, ‘today’; ‘ad hayyém hazzeh, ‘until
this day’ (e.g. S. J. DE Vries, Yesterday,
Today and Tomorrow [Grand Rapids 1975]).
In the construction yóm yhwh, ‘the day of
the LonD', a forthcoming period of change
and ordeal is indicated. In the creation story
222
DAY STAR — DEAD
(Gen 1:5) the day is interpreted as a created
element (VON SODEN, BERGMAN & SAEBO
1982).
A personified ‘day’ is found at Ps 19:3;
Jer 20:14 and Job 3. In the first textual unit
of Ps 19 it reads “A day relates it to the
(next) day; a night announces knowledge to
the (next) night". Since Ps 19 might be
interpreted as a polemic against the cult of
the sun-god (HOUTMAN 1993), the mythol-
ogical background of ‘Day’ and ‘Night’,
who like ‘Heaven’ (v 2), play a part in the
announcement of divine majesty, adds a
touch of piquancy to the poem. In Jer 20:14
and Job 3:1-10 the birthday of a sorrowful
man is lamented presenting the ‘day’ in a
way similar to the poetic personification in
the Mesopotamian texts discussed above
(JACOBSEN & NIELSEN 1992:192-204).
IV. Bibliography
T. BinGer, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit,
Israel and the Old Testament (JSOT Sup
212; Sheffield 1994); F. M. Cross, The
‘Olden Gods’ in Ancient Near Eastern Cre-
ation Myths, Magnalia Dei (FS G. E.
Wright; ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke & P.
D. Miller; Garden City 1976) 329-338; C.
Houman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament
(OTS 30; Leiden 1993) 164-167; T. Jacos-
SEN & K. NIELSEN, Cursing the day, SJOT
6 (1992) 187-204; W. von SopeEn, J. BERG-
MAN & M. SarB6, jóm, TWAT 5 (1982)
559-586; M. L. West, Hesiod Theogony
(Oxford 1966) 197; F. A. M.
WIGGERMANN, Babylonian Prophylactic
Figures (Amsterdam 1986); R. ZADOK, On
the historical Background of the Sefire
Treaty, AION 44 (1984) 529-538.
B. BECKING
DAY STAR ~ HELEL
DEAD OCM / TD
I. The Hebrew Bible uses the word
mét/métim to refer to the dead as well as the
related term répá'ím —'Rephaim'. Several
words (nepe3 meét, nepe$ "ádàm, peger,
géwivyá, nébélá, mappelá, gípá) are used to
refer to the corpses of humans and/or ani-
mals. On occasions, the word ’éléhim, lit-
erally ‘gods’, is used to denote the pretermna-
tural character of the dead (cf. 1 Sam 28:13;
Lewis 1989:115-116). Shades of the dead
are referred to by such terms as 'ób/óbót
(^Spirt of the dead) and yiddéGni/
yiddé'*ónim (‘knowing ones'?) (-*Wizard).
The exact etymologies of these two terms
are unclear although the ‘knowing’ aspect of
yiddé*ónim may suggest a special knowledge
which the dead were presumed to have.
Ugaritic refers to the dead with the simi-
lar terms mt, rpu (cf. KTU 1.161; KTU 1.6
vi:45-49); and, on occasions i] and ilnyrm (cf.
KTU 1.113; KTU 1.6 vi:45-49). ilib is used
in numerous pantheon lists and sacrificial
lists to designate the paternal ghost (LEwis
1989:56). In Akkadian, mitu refers to dead
people as well as to the spirit/ghost of the
dead (cf. CAD M1 140-142). More com-
mon, however, is the use of the term
etemmu to refer to one's ghost (CAD E 397-
401; -*Etemmu). Akk also uses ilu, literally
'god', to designate the spirits of the dead
(Lewis 1989:49-51). A dead person is
called mt in Egypt. The word ntr, ‘god’, is
also used to denote the deceased (usually a
king) (E. HoRNUNG, Conceptions of God in
Ancient Egypt [Ithaca 1982] 58-59). Yet the
primary terms for referring to the various
aspects of the dead are ka, ba, and ah. The
concepts underlying this terminology arc
difficult to recover. These terms also seem
to have been used in various ways through-
out Egyptian history.
II. Ancient Near Eastern literature and
cultic implements attest a fascination with
the mysteries of death. What happened to
the life force which once inhabited the
flesh? Is there an afterlife? Where do the
dead reside; and do they have a patron deity
in whose charge they are placed? Is their
state one of weakness or vitality? Do the
dead have knowledge and/or abilities be-
yond those of the living so that they may be
petitioned for favors? Or are the dead ma-
levolent creatures who have to be accorded
the proper funerary rites lest they harm the
living with all sorts of discases?
The various ancient Near Eastern cultures
223
DEAD
came up with different answers to these
questions. All of these societies held beliefs
which were very complex and even plural-
istic. It is typical to find treatments which,
due to their brevity, describe these cultures
as if they were all monolithic and uniform
throughout time. It is more accurate to
underscore the complex nature of these civi-
lizations which were not static through time.
One should also underscore our inability to
succeed in giving anything more than a rudi-
mentary account of an ancient Near Eastern
comparative thanatology.
Egypt. Egyptian practices varied through
time and social class. A complete under-
standing of the Egyptian view of the dead is
hampered by the elusive nature of the con-
cepts of the ka, the ba, and the ah which
depict various modes or forms of existence
in which the deceased continued to abide
(cf. H. BRUNNER, Grundzüge der altügyp-
tischen Religion [Darmstadt 1983] 143);
ZABKAR (1968:113) has argued that “though
the ancient Egyptian was thought to live
after'death in a multiplicity of forms, cach
of these forms was the full man himself". In
contrast to this emphasis on monism, other
scholars maintain that some kind of plural-
ism remains in these three components
which together made up the human person-
ality after death (J. G. Grirrirus, JEA 56
[1970] 228).
The ka, which is portrayed by two raised
arms, has been thought to represent the vi-
tality of a person although it is also associ-
ated with protection and embracing. The ka
is created alongside of a person at birth. In
the early period, only the king had a ka.
When one dies he ‘goes to his ka’ which
survives the death of the body. In the tomb,
it is the ka which receives the food and
drink offerings through the false door of the
mastaba tomb. The 6a is represented as a
human-headed bird (occasionally with arms
and hands); thus symbolizing movement and
perhaps the notion of human freedom: even
after death. The term ba is used to describe
the substance and vitality of the gods as
well as a living force which animates inani-
mate images. Similarly, the ba of the dead
in some way represents the manifestation of
the power of the deceased (but not an
external ‘soul’ as some have argued). It has
been described as the personification of a
person’s vital forces or even, as Zabkar
remarks, the personified ‘alter ego of the
deceased’ (ZABKAR 1968:113, 160). It func-
tions primarily after death where it is seen
going in and out of the tomb door in order
to perform duties for the dead (e.g. bringing
food and drink offerings). It can also leave
the tomb to travel with the Sun God. In the
Coffin Texts, the ba is seen as the agent of
sexual activity after death, a motif which
was used to depict a pleasant afterlife
(ŽABKAR 1968:101). The ah has been
described as representing the transfigured or
effective spirit which came into being only
in the next world. While one’s ait is usually
beneficial in nature, on occasion it can refer
to evil spirits (see below). Compare also the
‘Antef Song’ which protests the efficacy of
the mortuary cult by advising one to be an
ah on earth. In other words, one should
enjoy earthly pleasures in one’s lifetime
because tombs (and perhaps the dead?)
crumble and become non-existent (M. V.
Fox, The Song of Songs and the Egyptian
Love Songs [Madison 1985] 346-347).
The Egyptian evidence presents an equal-
ly complex picture when it comes to view-
ing the existence of the dead in the next
world. On the one hand, we have contracts
hiring ka-priests to continue providing offer-
ings because of the fear of hunger and thirst
in the afterlife. On numerous occasions we
read in the Book of the Dead of the fear of
being reduced to eating and drinking one’s
own excrement. Prayers were offered (often
to Osiris and Nut) to ensure good cuisine
in the afterlife. Spells were invoked to ward
off suffering from lack of provisions. One
could also compare the various amulets
fashioned for apotropaic purposes. ZANDEE
has illustrated other aspects of death which
the Egyptians saw as quite frightening (1960).
On the other hand, we have numerous
descriptions of death as an idyllic existence
where food and drink were supplied in
abundance in a utopian place called the
224
DEAD
Field of Offerings or Reeds. Royalty could
even enjoy the prospects of joining the sun
god as he sailed across the sky in his solar
barque. Upon death royalty, and non-royalty
as time passed, were identified with Osiris,
who was the primary god of the netherworld
(J. G. Grirritus, The Origins of Osiris and
His Cult {Leiden 1980}). Similarly, mummi-
fication, the extremely intricate (almost
‘scientific’) practice of preserving the body
itself for the next world, was extended be-
yond royalty after the Old Kingdom. In
short, the Egyptian view of the afterlife held
both these optimistic and pessimistic views
together. One could be optimistic about the
afterlife: yet also realistic about the dangers
of the hereafter (and hence one should plan
accordingly).
Provisions were sometimes given to the
dead in order to secure favors from them. In
the ‘letters to the dead’ (written by the
living) we read of people promising to de-
posit offerings (or pour out water) for a
deceased relative if he/she will remove an
infirmity from or fight on behalf of the
living. In the Paheri mortuary text we read
of the dead promising favors to the living in
exchange for food: “The dead is a father to
him who acts for him, he does not forget
him who libates for him.” The dead were
not usually thought to have an evil disposi-
tion toward the living; although some letters
refer to their malevolence. The term ah can
refer to an evil spirit (cf. the Coptic cognate
which refers to a ‘demon’). The Bentresh
stela mentions an ill woman who was ‘in the
condition of one under the Akhs' (ZABKAR
1968:88).
Mesopotamia. To say the least, people
living in ancient Mesopotamia were not very
optimistic when it came to dcath. They were
acutely aware that death is human destiny.
A well known passage from the Gilgamesh
Epic informs us that, at the time of creation,
the gods allotted death to humans. Utna-
pishtim, the hero of the flood story who
receives immortality, is an exception to the
rule. The gods kept immortality for them-
selves (gods can be ‘killed’ of course by
other deities; but, in theory, they are immor-
tal and never die a human death). Elsewhere
Gilgamesh acknowledges human mortality
by quoting a well known proverb about how
humans (‘even the tallest’) cannot scale
heaven for their days are numbered (cf. J.
TiGAY, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic
[Philadelphia 1982] 164-165).
Mesopotamian societies did not develop
the claborate funerary industry of Egypt
complete with professionals skilled in all
matters of interment including mummi-
fication. Nor did the ancient Mesopotamians
develop the Egyptians’ notion of an idyllic
afterlife full of pleasures untold. Nonethe-
less, the ancient Mesopotamians were just as
much preoccupied with death (cf. SPRONK
1986:96-124). They chose, however, to con-
centrate on the horrors and difficulties of
death: such as the arduous and dangerous
journey to ‘the land-of-no-return’. This land
(ki, ergetu) was the domain of —Nergal and
Ereshkigal. the king and queen of the
netherworld, Shamash (on Shamash's role in
the underworld, see LEwis 1989:35-42), the
Anunnaki, and Gilgamesh not to mention a
host of minor deities and demons (See also
Tammuz). The dead were depicted as living
in darkness eating mud and filth and drink-
ing foul water (cf. Ishtar’s Descent to the
Netherworld, Borréro 1992:276-277). In
addition to providing the dead with proper
burial rites, the living (primarily a caretaker
called a págidu or sáhiru) were also respon-
sible for offering the proper Kíspu cult which
followed the initial interment. This included
providing food offerings (kispa Kasàpu),
pouring water (mé naqíá), and invoking the
name of the dead (3iuma zakáru) (BavLiss
1973:116). These meals underscored and
reinforced family/clan solidarity among the
living and their dead ancestors. It was also
thought that by offering the proper death
cult one could possibly reccive favors from
the dead. We read of kings providing kispu
meals for their deceased ancestors with the
plea that they will bless the current reign.
On other occasions, we hear of the dead
interceding for the living before the council
of the Anunnaki. Necromancy also allowed
one to obtain information about the future
225
DEAD
from the deceased which would not other-
wise be known to the living (FINKEL 1983-
1984:1-17). Yet, much more often we find
that proper services were rendered to placate
the dead so that they might not act malevo-
lently.
The existence of malevolent ghosts
(efenunu; Sum gidim -*Etemmu) who haunt
and harm the living is ubiquitous. The pri-
mary reasons for a ghost to be angry were a
violent death, lack of burial, or the lack of
funerary offerings. SCURLOCK (1988:93-94)
has also documented numerous other reas-
ons which cause ghosts to be malevolent: a
strange ghost; a relative’s ghost; a forgotten
ghost; a ghost from the distant past; a ghost
who was not invoked by name; a ghost who
had to roam the steppe-lands; a ghost who
died as a result of a sin against a god or an
offence against the King. Often even an ir-
regular death, not necessarily a violent
death, could explain the presence of a ma-
levolent ghost. Malevolent ghosts may be
the result of people who died in water, in a
river, in a well, from a chill, from being
thrown in a ditch, from physical hunger,
from thirst, etc. Sometimes exorcism was
needed for ghosts of those who have simply
died of natural causes.
Exorcistic rituals were developed to ward
off the effects of malevolent ghosts. Some-
times these involved funerary (kispu) offer-
ings to satisfy the hunger and thirst of the
dead. Other rituals for expelling malevolent
ghosts involved intricate incantations involv-
ing donkey urine, groat water, ditch water,
ashes, camelthorn, and other such 'cye-of-
newt’ ingredients (SCURLOCK 1988:271-
273). These are not offerings to the ghosts
but rather spells to ward off their perceived
evil (cf. namburbi apotropaic rituals). Other
exorcistic texts describe throwing substitute
ghost statues into a river, providing a proper
burial, drawing magic circles, knotting red
and white wool together, etc. All of this was
a part of the cult of the dead aimed at con-
trolling the dead so that they would return
once again to the land-of-no-return (note the
logical inconsistency).
Canaan. Understanding the Canaanite
view of the dead is more difficult because of
a paucity of evidence both literary and
archaeological. The Ugaritic tablets have
increased our knowledge considerably, yet
even they give a window into just one of the
civilizations associated with Canaanite relig-
ion. (For an introduction to the Phoenician
view of death, see S. Moscari, The Phoeni-
cians [Milan 1988] 123-124). In addition,
due to the poor state of preservation of the
texts, as well as the lack of vowel indi-
cators, many alternative readings and recon-
structions arc possible. In short, when it
comes to defining many crucial aspects of
Ugaritic religion, differing opinions are
commonplace.
Ugaritic refers to the dead with the terms
mt Imtm ('the dead"), rpu/rpum (the 'Rapi'u-
ma') and, on occasions i/ /ilm and ilnym,
two terms which may reflect the preternatur-
al character of the deceased. KTU 1.6 vi:45-
49 seems to present all four of these terms
as roughly parallel (cf. also the expressions
ilm ars and rpu ars, where ars most certain-
ly refers to the netherworld, similar to Akk
ergetu and Heb ’eres). np§ may refer to the
life force which departs at death like a gust
of wind or a whiff of smoke (KTU 1.18
iv:25, 36; but cf. the invocation of the nb§
in a death banquet in KA/ 214). ilib is used
in numerous Ugaritic pantheon lists and
sacrificial lists to designate the paternal
ghost (-?Ilib).
One of the major concepts used in con-
nection with the dead (rpi/rpum) is shroud-
ed in debate. Scholars are of divided opinion
when it comes to deciding to what degree
the Ugaritic rpum are identical to the
Hebrew -*Rephaim. The majority of scho-
lars would see the term referring to the dead
or, more accurately, the the denizens of the
underworld. Both the Phoenician rpm and
the Hebrew répa’im amply attest this usage
in unambiguous contexts. Some would re-
strict the term to refer only to the privileged
dead: primarily to deceased kings. Far less
likely is the view of some scholars who
would deny any connection to the dead pre-
ferring to see the rpum as either lower dei-
ties or simply heroic warriors (cf. B. B.
226
DEAD
ScHMIDT, Israel's Beneficent Dead [diss.
Oxford 1991] 124-161). The Ugaritic texts
describe the rpum with bird imagery, a
notion which is found frequently throughout
the ancient Near East (SPRONK 1986:167;
VAN DER TOORN 1988:211).
The etymology of rpum has occasioned
an equal amount of discussion. In the past it
has been connected with the Hebrew root
rph, ‘to sink, relax’, assuming that this was
the condition of the dead (cf. Isa 14:10).
Few scholars would embrace this etymology
today (but cf. J. C. p—E Moon, ZAW 88
[1976] 340-341 who sees the biblical vocali-
zation as a deliberate misreading) and, as
will be seen below, the rpum are anything
but inactive. More recently, some scholars
have translated rpum as ‘healers’ (vocalizing
rdpiüma as an active participle) while
others translate — 'heroes' — (vocalizing
rapi'üma as a stative with the connotation
hale, hearty, robust) similar to the usage of
hérós in Greek funeral games and the cult of
heroes.
The publication of the so-called Ugaritic
Funerary Text (KTU 1.161) gives us one of
our clearest pictures of the Ugaritic rpum. If
the term. rpum refers to the dead (which
seems likely), then this text describes a rit-
ual in which a new king (Ammurapi) invok-
es (cf. the Mesopotamian death cult rite of
invoking the name mentioned above) the
presence of deceased royal ancestors (called
PN, the rp’) in order to partake in the fu-
nerary ceremony of the recently deceased
king (Niqmaddu Ill). After offering the
proper sacrifices, the new ruler then besee-
ches these ‘rpwn of old’ (also called the
‘rpum of the underworld’) to bless his cur-
rent administration with well-being (sir). In
short, this text demonstrates that the dead
were not simply cut off from the living.
Rather, they continued to exist in the under-
world and, with proper invocation, could be
beseeched to grant favors to the living. To
what degree this was a royal prerogative
only remains to be understood.
The ‘land* (ars = netherworld) in which
the dead reside is described as an abode of
ooze (hmry), decay (mk), and slime (hh).
Yet, on occasions, it is also described as dbr
I} šd šhlmmt. These terms are difficult to
interpret, but they seem to refer to the desert
steppe: thus illustrating the forces of death
and drought. The underworld is ruled by the
deity ->Mot (‘Death’) who is described as
having a voracious appetite which cannot be
quenched. Elsewhere we have a description
of Mot eating with both hands (Lewis, ABD
4, 922-924). The insatiable appetite of Death
reflects the Ugaritic notion that all humans
must die. Even King Keret who is described
as El’s son must die. Mot/Death can be con-
quered by Baal and Anat; but the texts at
our disposal fall far short of supporting
Spronk’s claim that there was a_ periodic
revivification of the dead (VAN DER TOORN,
1991:40-66).
Occasionally the term ilu, ‘god’, is used
to refer to the dead. We have evidence of a
divine determinative (iJ) used with royal
names in the so-called Ugaritic King List
(KTU 1.113) [cf. the usage of ilu in Akkad-
ian to refer to the dead]. The term ilm
'gods' also seems to occur parallel to rtm
‘the dead’ in KTU 1.6 vi:48-49. This so-
called 'deification of the dead' may have
been due to Egyptian influence. Yet Ugaritic
beliefs did not ascribe immortality to their
dead (cf. Keret) such as was the case with
the Egyptian pharaoh. By choosing the term
ilu *god" to describe the dead, the Ugaritians
were probably trying to describe some type
of transcendent character, perhaps what we
would call pretematural (cf. the use of
*élóhim in the Hebrew Bible below).
Additional deities intimately connected to
the dead include Shapshu; a deity called rpu
mlk ‘Im probably referring to Milku; and
ilib, a term used to refer to the patemal
ghost.
Ugaritic contains the idioms ‘to reach the
sunset’ and ‘to enter the host of the sun’ to
signify death. Underlying these idioms was
the assumption that the goddess Shapshu
was intimately connected to the deceased (as
was her male counterpart Shamash in the
Mesopotamian sphere). Shapshu figures pro-
minently in the Ugaritic Funerary Text
(KTU 1.161). Her exact role is somewhat
227
DEAD
debated, however. Some have her buming
brightly while others have her escorting the
dead king or the ghost throne of the king
down to the netherworld. The latter is con-
gruent with the notion that the sun deity
descends into the underworld each night and
thus is the proper deity to escort the dead to
their final abode. The end of the Baal cycle
(KTU 1.6 vi:45-49) describes Shapshu as
presiding over (some scholars would trans-
late ‘ruling’ or ‘judging’) the dead.
Another chthonic deity goes by the name
rpu mik ‘Im, (KTU 1.108). This deity would
seem to be the eponymous patron deity of
the rpum; but, once again, scholars are of
differing opinion when it comes to his ident-
ity. Suggestions range from an independent
god named Rapiu to -*El, -^Baal, -^Mot,
—Resheph, and Milku (cf. -^Molech; sec
PARDEE, Textes para-mythologiques [Paris
1988] 85-90). The Rephaim texts (KTU
1.20-22) are extremely relevant for our
reconstruction of the Ugaritic dead, yet their
poor state of preservation prevents us from
drawing many conclusions with any certain-
ty. If we are talking about references to the
dead and not human warriors as some would
assert, then the dead are described as quite
active. The Ugaritic rpum hitch up horses,
gallop on stallions, and ride for three days.
They also sit down to a banquet set for them
presumably by the god El (cf. KTU 1.114).
Some scholars (Pore 1981:176) have argued
that this banquet (mrz'/mrzh) was 'a feast
for and with the departed ancestors, corre-
sponding to the Mesopotamian kispu'.
Others (e.g. Lewis 1989:80-94; ABD 1,
581-582) have argued that the mrz/: was pri-
marily a drinking club which was only
secondarily associated with funerary
customs.
Attention must also be given to the deity
ilib who occurs frequently in the Ugaritic
epic texts, sacrificial and offering lists, and
pantheon lists. The latter categorize deities
in order of importance and it is quite
remarkable that ilib is consistently ranked at
the top. Though this deity has also been the
subject of much speculation (especially
because of its supposed relation to the bibli-
cal ‘god of the fathers’), it seems most
reasonable to suppose that ilib refers to the
spirit of the dead ancestor (see -*Ilib). This
is supported both on etymological as well as
comparative grounds (cf. the Hurrian equiv-
alent en atn).
Finally, a word should be said about the
use of archaeology to understand the treat-
ment of the Ugaritic dead. Ever since C.
Schaeffer's archaeological reports, various
Ugaritic funerary installations (notably ce-
ramic pipes and gutters, so-called ‘libation
pits’, and windows and holes in ceilings)
have been used to support the notion that an
essential part of the Ugaritic cult of the
dead, like the Mesopotamian practices men-
tioned above, was the duty to provide the
dead with libations. New analyses of the
archacological material has overturned these
conclusions. PrrarD (fc. has recently
shown how Schaeffer misinterpreted the
data (mistaking the harbor town for a necro-
polis) and that the archaeological installa-
tions are of the mundane variety (e.g. water
gutters, latrines). Pitard concludes that there
is simply no archaeological evidence for a
regular, ongoing ritual of providing food
and libations for the deceased at Ugarit.
III. The two main words used in the
Hebrew Bible for the dead are mét/nétim
and répa’im. These two terms occur parallel
to each other in Ps 88:11 (‘Do you work
wonders for the dead, do the shades rise to
praise you?') and Isa 26:14 ("The dead do
not live, the shades do not rise’; cf. 26:19).
The meaning of met/métim is not in doubt
and refers to the dead regardless of the man-
ner of death. Thus it can refer to a person
who dies by the sword or famine (Jer 11:22)
or even a stillborn (Num 12:12). When met
refers to the corpse, the masculine form may
be used for both genders (Gen 23:3-4).
In contrast to mét/nétim, the exact conno-
tations of répd@’im remain in doubt. A full
treatment will be presented elsewhere
(7 Rephaim). It should be noted, meanwhile,
that the term répd?im is used to represent the
dead (Ps 88:11; Prov 2:18; 21:16; Isa 26:14;
Job 26:5) as well as an ancient people some-
times referred to as ~giants (Gen 14:5; cf.
228
DEAD
Deut 2:10; Num 13:33). Scholars have long
debated the degree to which these two clas-
sifications are related. Perhaps the oldest
substratum of the term referred to an ancient
people, especially the royal heroes of old
(cf. Isa 14:9 and the Ugaritic cognate
[rapi’tima} referring to the royal dead). As
time went on, the term perhaps became
democratized to refer to the dead in general.
The abode of the dead (-'Sheol) is
described with pervasive, negative imagery
as a place of dust and silence with imprison-
ing bars and gates (Lewis, ABD 2 101-105).
Sheol is also personified as the chthonic
power behind death (parallel to the power of
Mot). Even the etymology of Sheol seems to
underscore that it was viewed as anything
but idyllic. Rather, it was a place of interro-
gation, judgment, and punishment. Another
poetic name for the underworld, -» Abaddon,
means ‘(place of) Destruction’. Thus it is
most difficult to equate the Israclite concep-
tion of the underworld with the Egyptian
Field of Offerings. The comment in Job 7:9
that ‘he who goes down to Sheol does not
come up' (yóred $261 Io’ ya‘aleh) echoes
the Mesopotamian description of the nether-
world as, ‘the land of no return’ (mát la
tári) more than anything Egyptian.
Even though the Hebrew Bible uses
'üádám and nepe$ as rough synonyms refer-
ring to a person of either sex (J. MILGROM,
Leviticus 1-16 [AB; New York 1991] 178-
179), it also speaks of a person ('adàm)
being animated by a life force which is
termed either a nésamd (cf. nifmat hayyim
in Gen 2:7) or a riiah (cf. rûah hayyîm in
Gen 6:17; nismat rüah hayyim in Gen 7:22).
This life force comes from God and, upon
death, retums back to God (Job 34:14; Eccl
12:7). Upon animation, an 'àdàm becomes a
living creature (nepes hayyá; cf. Gen 2:7).
The departure of the life force (= biological
death) is described as the ‘going out’ of the
nepes or rüah (Gen 35:18; Ps 146:4). Once
this life force departs, one is a nepes mét
(‘dead person’), an expression which refers
to the corpse itself (Lev 21:11; Num 6:6; cf.
M. SELIGSON, The Meaning of nepes mét in
the Old Testament (Helsinki 1951]) as does
nepes ’adam (Num 9:6.7; Ezek 44:25).
Sometimes nepes alone is used to designate
the dead (e.g. the characteristic usage by the
Holiness Code and P: Lev 19:28; 21:1; Num
5:2: 6:11; 9:10). Both peger and géwiyyá
can refer either to a living or a dead body (a
carcass or corpse; cf. also Adldl ‘slain’ and
napal ‘to fall (= to die)’; cf. népilim,
*-Nephilim' (= fallen heroic dead?) which
are equated with the Rephaim in Deut 2:11
(cf. R. HENDEL, JBL 106 [1987] 21-22; cf.
mappéla ‘carcass’ only in Judg 14:8). Twice
peger is modified by the word métim (2 Kgs
19:35; Isa 37:36). peger refers exclusively to
the human corpse except for Gen 15:11.
géwiyyd (cf. gûpâ | Chr 10:12 // 1 Sam
31:12) can refer to a human corpse (Saul in
| Sam 31:10.12) or an animal corpse (Judg
14:8-9). nébélá can also refer to the corpse
of either an animal or a person, yet it is
never used for a living body. In the Hebrew
Bible, bones are known for their defiling
property (cf. Num 19:16.18; 2 Kgs 23:20). 2
Kgs 13:20-21 shows that bones (at least
Elisha's) were not viewed merely as skeletal
remains, but rather could have healing
powers. In this pericope, a corpse is revived
when it comes into contact with Elisha's
bones which still possess the healing powers
that the prophet exhibited in his lifetime.
Ancient Israel possessed a strong notion
of clan solidarity which is reflected in the
description of the dead joining their ances-
tors in the underworld. According to P's
characteristic vocabulary, when one dies he
is said to ‘be gathered to his kin’ ne’ésap ’el
‘ammayw (Gen 25:8.17; 35:29; 49:29.33;
Num 20:24.26; 27:13; 31:2). A variant of
this formula stemming from the Deuter-
onomistic tradition is 'to be gathered to
one's fathers’ (Judg 2:10; 2 Kgs 22:20 = 2
Chr 34:28). The Deuteronomistic tradition
also has its own distinctive vocabulary of
‘resting with one’s fathers’ Sdakab ‘im
'übótàyw (Lewis 1989:164 n.11).
Shades of the dead are denoted by the
terms ’6b/obét (Spirit of the dead) and
yiddé*óni/yiddé*ónim (‘knowing — ones'?)
(Wizard). The exact etymologies of these
words are unclear; though the ‘knowing’
229
DEAD
aspect may suggest a special knowledge
which the dead were perceived to have. The
two terms are most often found together and
may have functioned as a hendiadys. Both
of these words can be used elliptically to
refer to necromancers. In one instance (Isa
19:3), ghosts are referred to by the term
"iffim which, although hapax legomenon in
Hebrew, is certainly to be equated with the
AkK efemmu 'spirit of the dead’ (see above)
despite the double f. The biblical material is
more like the Egyptian than the Mesopot-
amian in its gencral silence about the ma-
levolent dead. The presence of amulets for
apotropaic purposes at various burial sites
(cf. BLocu-SwrrH 1992:83-85) suggests that
we are not getting the whole story (but sce
below on the wisdom tradition).
Was there a cult of the dead in ancient
Israel? The Deuteronomistic legal material
in the Hebrew Bible reveals restrictions
against consulting the dead (Deut 18:9-11):
presumably presenting offerings to the dead
(Deut 26:14), and engaging in certain prac-
tices associated with death rituals such as
self-laceration (Deut 14:1; but cf. Jer 16:6;
41:5) which seem to have been typical of
Canaanite death cult practice. The Holiness
Code also contains categorical prohibitions
against people who turn to necromancy and
demands the death penalty for any mediums
or necromancers (Lev 20:6, 27). From such
laws we may safely infer that cults of the
dead existed and flourished in ancient Pales-
tine to the extent that they were considered
a threat to what eventually emerged as nor-
mative Yahwism. This seems to be sup-
ported by references to Manasseh's necro-
mancy (2 Kgs 21:6) and Josiah’s eradication
of it (2 Kgs 23:24) however the Deuter-
onomist may be using stereotypical lists (or
catalogues) of sins and reforms. Lastly,
specific death cult vocabulary seems to
underlie Absalom’s erection of a funerary
monument as well as Jezebel's burial
(Lewis 1989:118-122).
Two passages in the Hebrew Bible
confirm the existence of the well known
marzéah banquet (see above). In Amos 6:7,
the marzéah banquet is described as revelry
without any tics to death cult practices. Yet
in Jer 16:5 the marzéah has clear funerary
connections. The context is one of mourning
and bereavement. As with the Ugaritic mrzh,
some scholars see the raison d'être for the
marzéah to be a banquet with the dead.
Other scholars describe its primary function
to be that of a drinking banquet which
could, on occasions, be associated with
funerary feasts. Another subject of debate is
whether post-interment funerary offerings
were presented to the dead in ancient Israel.
Most scholars see hints of long term offer-
ings of some kind behind such passages as
Deut 26:14 (‘I have not offered any of it
[i.c. sacred food] to the dead’); Ps 106:28
(‘they ate the sacrifices of the dead’) and Isa
57:6-8 (‘Even to them [the dead] have you
poured out libations and brought offerings").
Funerary offerings of food and libations are
well attested in the archaeological data
(BLOCH-SMITH 1992:25-62, 106-108) yet it
is difficult to determine whether this was
solely at the time of interment or whether
such a practice was on-going as a part of a
regular cult of the dead.
Due to the Deuteronomistic polemic
against death cult practices, it is surprising
that we have an account of a necromantic
ritual preserved in the Deuteronomistic His-
tory. In | Sam 28 king Saul uses a necro-
mancer at En-Dor to conjure up the dead
Samuel from the netherworld whose preter-
natural character is described as an "élólhitm
(literally ‘god’; sec above). Even the effi-
cacy of the conjuring is left intact by the
editor. Unlike Mesopotamian texts which
describe necromantic procedures in detail
(cf. FiNKEL 1983-1984:1-17), the En-Dor
episode is remarkably brief about describing
for us what was entailed in such an episode.
Nonetheless, the narrative in 1 Sam 28
shows us that necromancy was well known
in ancicnt Israelite religion despite efforts by
Deuteronomists and those of like mind to
eradicate the practice.
Necromancy was also criticized by cer-
tain biblical prophets. Isa 8:19 mocks the
practice by comparing it to chirping and
muttering (cf. Isa 29:4). Necromantic prac-
230
DEATH —
DEBER
tices are similarly ridiculed in Isa 19:3
which describes the Egyptians’ resorting to
necromancy because of their lack of any
capacity to reason. This is ironic due to the
virtual lack of necromancy attested in
ancient Egypt. VAN DER ToonN (1988:199-
218) has also elucidated how communi-
cation with the dead lies behind Isa 28:7-22,
a passage replete with death cult vocabulary
(e.g. those making ‘a covenant with Death
... à pact with Sheol’). In short, contrary to
1 Sam 28, no efficacy is ascribed to necro-
mancy by these texts. The amount of litera-
ture against the practice of necromancy
shows that many people in ancient Israelite
society (including priestly and prophetic el-
ements) felt that it was a legitimate form of
divining the will of Yahweh. Other
prophetic denunciations of death cult prac-
tices may be found in Ezek 43:7-9; Isa
45:18-19; 57:6; 65:4.
The traditions reflected in the wisdom
literature expand the Deuteronomistic and
prophetic polemic against necromancy to a
new level. In Job 14:21 the dead are de-
scribed as having no knowledge about the
affairs of humans. Likewise, Eccl 9:4-6.10
says quite bluntly that the dead know no-
thing, for ‘there is no work or reason or
knowledge in Sheol’. Both of these views
are strikingly different from the one in 1
Sam 28 in their appraisal of the ability of
the deceased. A similar polemic against
ascribing any power to the dead may be
found in Ps 88:11 ‘Do the shades rise up to
praise you?’ Whereas the Ugaritic Rapi'uma
are very active (see above), we have very
few descriptions of the Israelite denizens of
the underworld in an active role. The most
activity is found in Isa 14:9 where the Reph-
aim are roused to greet the king of Babylon.
For the most part, the biblical: Rephaim are
stripped of any power, malevolent or ben-
evolent (cf. Isa 26:14).
IV. Bibliography
M. C. Astour, The Netherworld and Its
Denizens at Ugarit, Death in Mesopotamia
(ed. B. Alster; Mesopotamia 8; Copenhagen
1980) 227-238; L. R. BaiLEY, Biblical Per-
spectives on Death (Philadelphia 1979); M.
Bavuiss, The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria
and Babylonia, /raq 35 (1973) 115-125; E.
BLocu-SuirH, Judahite Burial Practices
and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123;
Sheffield 1992); J. BorréÉno, The Mythol-
ogy of Death, Mesopotamia: Writing,
Reasoning, and the Gods (Chicago 1992)
268-286; I. L. FINKEL, Necromancy in
Ancient Mesopotamia, AfO 29-30 (1983-
1984) 1-17; T. J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead
in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39;
Atlanta 1989); W. T. Prrarp, The ‘Libation
Installations’ of the Tombs at Ugarit, BA
(forthcoming); M. H. Pore, The Cult of the
Dead at Ugarit, Ugarit in Retrospect (ed. G.
D. Young; Winona Lake 1981) 159-179; J.
A. ScurLock, Magical Means of Dealing
with Ghosts in Ancient Mesopotamia (diss.
Chicago 1988); K. SPRONK, Beatific After-
life in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East (AOAT 219; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1986); K. VAN DER Toorn, Echoes of
Judacan Necromancy in Isaiah 28, 7-22,
ZAW 100 (1988) 199-218; VAN DER TOORN,
Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in
Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48
(1991) 40-66; L. V. ŽABKAR, A Study of the
Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts
(Chicago 1968); J. ZANDEE, Death as an
Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Con-
ceptions (Leiden 1960).
T. J. Lewis
DEATH -> MOT; THANATOS
DEBER “27
I. The accepted meaning ‘pestilence’
may be a specific Hebrew development with
scarce support from other Semitic languages
(cf. Ug dbr ‘pestilence’ [?], Ar dabr ‘death’,
dabara ‘ulcer’); Akk dibiru ‘misfortune,
calamity’ is probably a Sumerian word,
having no connexion with Hebr deber (CAD
D 134-135). Deber is one of the three prov-
erbial causes of death on a wide scale. It is
attested some 50 times in the Bible along
with war (sword, blood) and famine (mainly
in Jer and Ez). Besides this empirical mean-
ing, it seems to be used a number of times
231
DEDAN
in a personified sense as a demon or evil
deity (Hab 3:5; Ps 91:3, 6; cf. Hos 13:14).
II. In Mesopotamia the representation of
illnesses as demons is very common (E.
EBELING RIA 2 [1938] 112; EDZARD WbMyth
I 47), as well as among the Hittites (VON
ScuuLER WbMyth I 161). In this connexion
the Ugaritic text KTU 1.5 vi:6 & par. can
offer some support. It speaks in a parallelist-
ic way of the ars dbr//5d 3hlmmt. But the
personification can only be assumed here if
Shimmt is construed as ‘the lion of Mametu'
(WUS, no 2589), which is rather unlikely.
The empirical meanings ‘pestilence’ or
‘steppe’ are more suitable (cf. VAN ZUL
1972:172-175; DE Moor 1971:186 for the
various interpretations).
IIL More cogent is the parallelism with
—Resheph in Hab 3:14, given the presence
of this deity in the Ugaritic texts as a god of
destruction (KTU 1.14 I 18-19; 1.82:3; DE
Moor & Spronk 1984:239). The eschatol-
ogical hymn in Hab 3 presents Deber and
Resheph marching at —Yahweh's side as
His helpers. This follows the ancient Mes-
opotamian tradition according to which
*plague' and 'pestilence' are present in the
entourage of the great god -*Marduk (DE
Moor 1990:134). On the other hand, in Ps
91:6 it is Yahweh who liberates his faithful
from the fear of this nocturnal demon
Deber, in parallel this time with -*Qeteb,
another awesome destructive demon. Echoes
of this representation can also be heard in
Hos 13:14 (ANDERSEN & FREEDMAN 1980:
640).
IV. Bibliography
F. I; ANDERSEN & D. N. FREEDMAN,
Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AB 24; Garden City,
New York 1980); A. Caquor, Sur quelques
démons de l'Ancien Testament, Semitica 6
(1956) 53-68; J. C. bE Moor, The Seasonal
Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba‘alu
(AOAT 16; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn
1971); pe Moor, The Rise of Yahwism. The
Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BETL 91;
Leuven 1990), 128-136; J. C. DE Moor &
K. SpRONK, More on Demons in Ugarit, UF
16 (1984), 237-240; P. J. VAN ZUL, Baal. A
Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the
Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10; Kevelaer/Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1972).
G. DEL OLMO LETE
DEDAN ji
I. Dedan is one of the ancestors of the
royal families of Ugarit and Assyria.
According to Ugaritic texts he was deified.
In both Ugaritic and Akkadian texts he is
also named Datan or Ditan. This name can
be related to Akk ditànu, didànu, ‘bison’
(AHW 173) or to Akk datnu, ‘warlike’. It
also appears as a personal name in the OT,
viz. datan (Num 16:1; Deut 11:6; Ps
106:17).
Il. Didanu, Ditanu, or also Tidanu, is the
name of a tribe living in the western part of
ancient Mesopotamia first mentioned at the
end of the third millennium BCE. The name
Ditanu appears as a component in personal
names in the second millennium BCE; cf. the
names of two kings of the First Dynasty of
Babylon: Ammiditana, ‘headman of Ditanu’
and Samsuditana, ‘sun of Ditanu'. Here it
seems to indicate the tribe of that name. It is
also mentioned as the name of one of the
royal ancestors in the list of the Amorite
dynasty of Hammurabi and with the spelling
Didanu in the Assyrian King list (FINKEL-
STEIN 1966:98; ScHMIDT 1994:75-78).
Apparently this name was now regarded as
an eponym, the name of the tribe having
been derived from the king's name. It is not
certain whether a king with this name actu-
ally existed. If so, he links the dynasties of
Babylon, Assur, and Ugarit (KITCHEN
1977:142). This status, be it historical or
mythical, accords well with the prominent
place he takes in some Ugaritic ritual texts
related to the cult of the dead. In KTU?
1.161 the spirits of the royal ancestors (‘the
Rephaim of the earth’) are called ‘the
assembly of Dedan’. The parallelism
between 'Rephaim of the earth (ie. the
nethenvorld)' and 'the assembly of Dedan'
indicates that Dedan was regarded as the
first of the deified royal ancestors (SCHMIDT
1994:82 only wants to speak of commemo-
232
DEMETER
ration. not deification). In this text the
names of the deceased kings are called one
by one to receive sacrifices. In return they
are asked to hail the living king and his city.
This assembly also occurs in the Ugaritic
legend of Keret. Here it is called ‘assembly
of Ditan’ (KTU? 1.15.11I:2-4.13-15). King
Keret is said to have been exalted to this
assembly after he received the promise of
being blessed with the offspring he had been
longing for. According to KTU* 1.124 Ditan
could be called upon to help a sick child.
His ‘judgement’ consists of precise indica-
tions for the medicines to be used.
HI. Bibliography
J. J. FINKELSTEIN, The Genealogy of the
Hammurapi Dynasty, JCS 20 (1966) 95-118;
K. A. KITCHEN, The King List of Ugarit,
UF 9 (1977) 131-142; B. A. LEvINE & J. -
M. DE TARRAGON, Dead Kings and Reph-
aim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty,
JAOS 104 (1984) 649-659; E. LiPINSKI,
DITANU, Studies in Bible and the Ancient
Near East Presented to S.E. Loewenstamm
(ed. Y. Avishur & J. Blau; Jerusalem 1978)
91-110; B. B. Scumipt, /srael’s Beneficent
Dead (FAT 11; Tiibingen 1994).
K. SPRONK
DEMETER Anuńmp
I. Demeter is the Greek deity known
and worshipped for her power over grain
and thus the fertility of the earth, the food
supply for human beings, and mystery rites
that provide a happy afterlife. Acts 19:24,38
refers to a man named after her, Demetrius,
a craftsman who made shrines of -*Artemis;
another Demetrius is mentioned in 3 John
1:12 as a reliable Christian.
II. Daughter of Kronos and Rhea, sister
of -*Zeus, and mother of Kore-Persephone,
Demeter was often called the Corn Goddess.
Through her close relation to Persephone,
Demeter has strong connections with the
underworld; the two are frequently men-
tioned simply as the Two Goddesses. Kore-
Persephone was the young daughter of
Demeter as well as the wife of Aidoneus or
-*Hades, and thus the queen of the dead.
The myth of Demeter is related in the
well-known Homeric Hymn to Demeter, a
poem of 495 lines and dating to the seventh
century BCE. It was not the only version
known to the ancient Greeks, however. An
early reference to Persephone’s abduction
by Aidoneus in Hesiod that suggests the
myth was known already in the eighth cen-
tury (Theogony 913-14). Pausanias mentions
a hymn by Pamphos that he considers pre-
Homeric as well as a version he traced to
Sicily (7.21.9, 8.37.9; 9.31.9), and Apollo-
dorus provides a summary of the myth by
drawing upon several versions (1.5). A num-
ber of poets were reputed to have written
hymns to Demeter, including Archilochus,
Lasus, Bacchylides, Pindar, and Aeschylus,
although little is known for certain about the
poems. The Parian Chronicle refers to an
Orphic version of the myth of Demeter
(KERN 1922: test. 221), and Pausanias men-
tions that Musacus wrote about characters
who figure in the myth (1.14.3), but most
likely these versions reflect the Eleusinian
account. In any case, the variants demon-
strate that the myth of Demeter was widely
known in ancient Greece, and vase paintings
also testify to its popularity. Two other
legends were related about Demeter. In the
first, she loved Iasion and made love with
him in a field that had lain fallow but was
ploughed three times; the offspring of this
union was Plutos, or rich harvests as the
wealth of the earth (Homer, Odyssey 5.125-
128: Hesiod, Theogony 969-975; Apollo-
dorus 3.138). According to the second, a
Thessalian named Erysichthon cut down the
trees of a grove sacred to Demeter in order
to build a palace. Although Demeter herself
took the form of her priestess to urge him
not to commit such impiety, he would not
listen. She indicated that he would need a
large hall for banquets, but he became so
hungry that although he continually ate, he
could not satisfy his hunger; eventually he
was reduced to begging (Callimachos, Hymn
6. 24-119; Ovid, Metam. 8.738-878).
Of all the versions, the Homeric Hymn to
Demeter is the most complete. It tells how
Persephone was taken away by Aidoneus or
233
DEMETER
Hades when she was picking flowers with
her friends: as the young woman reached
down to pluck a flower, the carth opened up
and, with the consent of his brother Zeus,
Hades carried her off to his underground
realm. A crisis ensued. Demeter heard her
abducted daughter crying for help and for-
sook the company of her fellow Olympians
to search the cosmos for her daughter. In her
grief and anger, and disguised as an old
woman, Demeter went to Eleusis. At the
well of the city she offered her services as
nurse or housekeeper to the daughters of
King Celeus; they informed their mother,
Metaneira, whose new son, Demophon,
needed looking after. On entering the
palace, Demeter was charmed from her
depression by lambe's jesting and Meta-
neira's cup of red wine, water, mcal, and
mint. As nurse to the young Demophon,
Demeter was beyond comparison, for she
anointed him with ambrosia and placed him
in the fire to make him immortal. When
interrupted by Metaneira, however, Demeter
rebuked her for the foolishness that pre-
vented Demophon from being immortalized.
Demeter also revealed hersclf as the deity
she was, whereupon the Eleusinians built
her a temple and an altar. Rather than return
to -Olympus, Demeter secluded herself
within her temple and caused a famine
which threatened human existence and
would eventually deprive the gods of the
honor rendered to them by sacrifices. Zeus
sent Iris and other gods to persuade Demeter
to relent, but only when Hermes was dis-
patched to Hades to reclaim Persephone
would Demeter acquiesce. Promising his
wife honors, rights, and gifts among the
gods and in the underworld as well, Hades
gave her a pomegranate seed, which meant
that she would spend part of each year in
the earth. The reunion between mother and
daughter was joyful, and Demeter accepted
the terms Zeus established, with Persephone
to spend one-third of the year in Hades and
two-thirds on Olympus with her mother.
Before departing from Eleusis for Olympus,
Demeter taught humans her rites and mys-
teries which gave happiness to initiates, both
while alive and after death.
The cosmology of this myth displays a
world in crisis. The tensions are many. One
consists of the conflicts that divide the gods:
Demeter insists that her daughter is returned
to her, no matter what the cost; Hades must
retain his bride, even if deceiving her is the
price; Zeus will continue to govern the cos-
mos, even if compromising with his sister
Demeter and his brother Hades is necessary.
Another is seen in the way humans depend
on the gods for life and livelihood as dis-
tinct from the way gods command honour
and worship, although the absence of wor-
ship comes perilously close to threatening
the existence of the gods. Demeter conceals
herself, too, from humans at the same time
that she acts in a most motherly fashion to
Demophon, her ‘second child’, but then
reveals herself to be one of the august dei-
ties whose power over the food supply ren-
ders gods and humans vulnerable to her
unless her motherly demands for her
daughter are met. In both the human and the
divine realms, the power of males is as-
sumed and females are identified by thcir
relation to male values, for as kings and
their sons rule, females nurse and serve; in
the divine world, the parallel to the gender
division is the male privilege of marriage, as
seen in Hades’ abduction of Persephone
which provoked the crisis, and Demeter's
demands which prepared the way for resolu-
tion while restricting her identity to that of
mother. The resolution of the crisis returned
the cosmos to order, although the new order
recognized the increased power of Demeter
and Persephone and gave humans a new
hope in an afterlife through the mystery rites
of Demeter.
The celebration of the mystery rites of
Demeter took place at many locations in
Greece. Pausanias, who travelled in Greece
around 150 cE, reported that more than 50
cities had temples of Demeter, demon-
strating that both the cult and the myth of
Demeter were widespread in ancient Greece.
It was also kept secret, although architectur-
al and iconographic as well as literary ma-
terials afford sufficient evidence to allow a
general picture of the events as well as their
meaning. Offerings of food and the sacrifice
234
DEMON
of pigs, and fasting and feasting. processions
and bathing, sacred chests and torches at
night were all part of the ceremonies. The
many local variations could emphasize one
or another of the aspects of the worship of
Demeter. Some cultic practices excluded
men but others made room for them, and
some focused on clan membership but
others on initiation; an interest in the life of
women, in seed and the food supply and in
an afterlife are general traits. In Hellenistic
and Roman times, the mysteries, particularly
those of Eleusis, gained in prestige as
people came from many places to be initi-
ated. In 395 cE the sanctuary was destroyed
by the Goths.
The festivals—the Thesmophoria and
Stenia in the fall, the Skira at the time of
cutting and threshing grain, and the famous
Mysteria of Athens and Eleusis—linked the
fertility of humans and particularly women
to the fertility of the earth. By linking the
mother-daughter relationship together with
its anguish over separation and jov upon
reunion with the divine world of conflict and
resolution, the human needs and emotions
connected with marriage, food, birth, and
death were brought together. (Tammuz)
III. Bibliography
L. BEscui, L/MC IV.1 (1988) 844-892; J.
BREMMER, Greek Religion (Oxford 1994)
18-19; W. BURKERT, Ancient Mystery Cults
(Cambridge, Mass. 1987); L. R. FARNELL,
The Cults of the Greek States, vol. 3
(Oxford 1907) 1-279; O. KERN, Orphicorum
Fragmenta (Berlin 1922); G. E. MYLONAS,
Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries
(Princeton 1961); H. W. PARKE, Festivals
of the Athenians (Ithaca NY 1977), esp. 55-
72, 95-103, 156-169; N. J. RICHARDSON,
The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford
1974).
L. J. ALDERINK
DEMON Aaipov, Aaipoviov
I. The term ‘demon’ is the rendering of
the cognate Greek words daipwv and its
substantivized neuter adjective daipoviov:
post-classical Latin borrowed the words in
the forms daemon and daemonium. The
original meaning of the term daipav from
the time of Homer onward was ‘divinity’,
denoting either an individual god or goddess
(of Aphrodite in /l. 3.420), or the Deity as
an unspecified unity (Od. 3.27 “the Deity
will put it in your mind”). Aevodaipovia
means ‘reverence for the Divinity’, or
simply ‘religion’ (Acts 25:19; cf. 17:22).
Plato derived the word from the near homo-
nym Sanpov, meaning ‘knowing’ (Crat.
398b, from the root *Sdaw, ‘to know"); Euse-
bius rejected this conjecture and instead
derived the term from Seipaivery, ‘to fear’
(Praep. Ev. 4.5.142). The etymology more
likely stems from the root Saia,‘to divide
(destinies)’. Thus the word could designate
one’s ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’, or the spirit con-
trolling one’s fate, one’s ‘genius’. Common-
ly the word designated the class of lesser
divinities arranged below the Olympian
gods, the daimones. Hesiod describes them
as the souls of those who lived in the Gol-
den Age. who now invisibly watch over
human affairs (Erga 122-124).
As nearly all deities in the classical
period were morally ambiguous, the
daimones could be described as either good
or evil, and the same daimon could bring
both good or ill according to one’s piety or
fate. Not until post-Exilic times in intertes-
tamental literature, with the rise of dualism
and the concept of the -*Devil, did the word
begin to display the meaning ‘evil demon in
league with the Devil' and take on an entire-
ly negative connotation (c. g. 1 Cor 10:20;
cf. LXX Ps 105:37). Christian writers use it
almost exclusively in this later sense. The
related term. 8aiióviov. in the classical
period meant similarly ‘the divine power’ or
‘the Divinity’ (Plato, Rep. 382e; cf. Acts
17:18). It could also mean the class of lower
divine beings ‘between gods and mortals’
who mediated between the human and di-
vine spheres (Plato, Sym. 202e) So it
designated the famous daimonion of So-
crates (Plato, Apol. 24b, 40a). Again after
the Exile and the rise of dualism it came to
be used for 'Satanic demons', especially
among Jewish and Christian writers and in
non-Christian magical texts.
Two verbs from this root are important in
235
DEMON
Biblical and related literature: Sa1povaw and
Saipovifopat. Both originally meant ‘to be
under the power of a god or daimon’, which
condition was often a blessing, producing
prophetic utterance or heroic behavior; it
‘could also be a curse, and the words could
mean ‘to be insane’. In later authors, es-
pecially Jewish and Christian, they came to
mean ‘to be possessed by a demon’ which
caused bodily infirmity or insanity; in the
sense ‘to be insane’ it was used pejoratively
of the ‘ravings’ (= ‘doctrines’) of heretics
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.31.1 of Mani).
Aatwpovifopat is found once in the New
Testament as a verb in the phrase “cruelly
tormented by a demon” (Matt 15:22): all
other of the dozen further occurrences are of
the participle meaning ‘one who is demon-
ized’, ‘a demoniac’ (e. g., Mark 1:32).
H. The word and concept ‘demon’
underwent fundamental change in antiquity
caused by the rise of dualism in the essen-
tially monistic cultures of the Near East.
These monistic cultures viewed the universe
as a unified system in which each member,
divine and human, had its proper domain
and function above, upon, or below the
canh. There was (as yet) no arch-enemy
Devil, nor a rival camp of Satanic demons
tempting and deceiving humans into sin and
blasphemy, eventually to be cast into cternal
hell at the final end of the present age.
Humans also had their function in this di-
verse but unified system: to serve the gods
and obey their dictates, their Law, for which
they received their rewards while alive.
After death all humans descended into the
underworld from which there was no return;
there was no Last Judgment, and no hope of
resurrection.
Every occurrence in the world of the
ancients had a spiritual as well as physical
cause, determined by the gods. To enforce
divine Law, to regulate the balance of bless-
ing and curse in the human realm, and to
ensurc human mortality, the gods employed,
among other means, the daimones (cf.
Hesiod, Erga 252-255). Just as evdaipovia
meant ‘prosperity, good fortune, happiness’,
and depended on the activity of a benevolent
spirit, so xaxodatpovia, ‘ill fortune’, was
caused by some dark but legitimate power.
The latter were the spirits of calamity and
death who performed the will of the greater
gods. In 1 Sam 16:14, for example, an
Evil Spirit from the Lorp torments Saul;
in 1 Kgs 22:19-23 Yahweh sends a lying
spirit of false prophecy to Ahab; in Ex
12:23, to kill the firstborn of Egypt, Yahweh
sends the ->Destroyer, an agent of the Lord
mentioned again in | Cor 10:10 and perhaps
as —Abaddon / Apollyon in Rev 8:11 (cf.
the Erinyes, Greek spirits of retribution, in
Il, 9.571). The Mesopotamian story of
Atrahasis shows that the demon Pashittu, a
baby snatcher, was created by the gods to
keep down human population (Arr. III vii 3-
4). Sir 39:28-29 speaks of spirits created by
the LonD for vengeance: fire, hail, famine
and pestilence. Such spirits were often the
offspring of the greater gods themselves
(JACOBSEN 1976:13).
These spirits occupied the dangerous
places: the desert, the lonely wastes, the
deserted by-ways. -*Rabisu, for example,
the Croucher of horrible aspect, lay in wait
in dark comers and alleys (cf. Gen 4:7). The
scapegoat was sent to -*Azazel, a desert
demon, on the day of Atonement (Lev 16:8-
28). They held power during dangerous
situations and times: chiefly at night, during
sleep, during a wind storm or an eclipse or
the heat of mid-day, and especially in child-
birth. —Lilith, a lascivious female demon,
haunted a man in his dreams. The desert
storm winds were thought to bring calamity
and disease (cf. the Babylonian Pazuzu, king
of the wind demons). The seven evil gods
(cf. Deut 28:22) attacked the moon and
caused the eclipse, after which “they swept
over the land like a hurricane" (SAGGS
1962:291). The -*Midday demon attacked
the unwary with various ills at the height of
the sun. Lamashtu, a terrifying spectre,
threatened. women and newborns during
childbirth and stole suckling infants (cf. the
Lamia and Gello in Greece). She was later
identified with Lilith, who was the child-
stealer in later Jewish folklore. They were
often personifications of dire situations,
236
DEMON
especially plague (cf. in Greece “Atm,
Delusion, and Népeoug, Divine Retribution).
Namtar (Fate), the plague demon, was hen-
chman of -Nergal the king of the Mesopo-
tamian Underworld. ~Resheph (‘Flame’, the
Canaanite plague demon) and Deber (‘Pesti-
lence) accompany Yahweh as attendants as
he descends in wrath against the earth (Hab
3:5). One of their main activities was to
bring death (JACOBSEN 1976:13).
In contrast to the gods of the upper
world, these spirits were often not in human
form. The shedu’s of Babylon and Assyria
(cf. Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37) were depicted as
winged bulls. In Isa 34:14 Lilith as a carrion
bird finds a nest in the desert wastes, and is
joined by wild desert animals, owls and
kites. Resheph is also conceived as a carrion
bird (cf. LXX Deut 32:24). The —Devil,
ruler of the demons, is called the Serpent
and -*Dragon (e. g., Rev 12:9), recalling the
serpent in the Garden (Gen 3:1) and the
Dragon in the Sea (Leviathan; Isa 27:1).
Jesus gave his disciples "authority to tread
on snakes and scorpions" (Luke 10:19),
referring to demons. The book of Revelation
describes three demons as "unclean spirits
like frogs" (Rev 16:13). They were often
envisioned as composite beings, made up of
the frightening aspects of animals, some-
times including human faces or bodies. T.
Sol. 18.1-2 speaks of demons "with heads
like formless dogs, ... [others] in the form
of humans or of bulls or of dragons with
faces like birds or beasts or the sphinx".
Pazuzu, the wind demon of Mesopotamia,
was a horrifying winged creature with
human-like face (cf. the Sirens of Greece).
Revelation also describes the (demonic)
‘locusts’ from the abyss, armed as battle-
horses, with human faces (Rev 9:7).
Demons could not only attack but also in-
dwell humans and cause many types of ills:
epilepsy, insanity, disability. Against them
one protected oneself by prayer, incantation
and magic. A magician was called in for
exorcism, to diagnose the problem and recite
the appropriate incantation. Incantations
often took the form of an invocation to the
higher gods and a verbal command to exhort
evil forces to go away, and might be accom-
panied by magical aids or acts. Josephus
tells of a magic root which drove out
demons when applied to the sufferer (Bel.
Jud. 7.185). Solomon, in Jewish, Christian
and Muslim lore, is said to have had “the
skill against the demons for help and
healing" (Josephus, Ant. 8.45), and com-
posed incantations and rituals of exorcism:
in Josephus' own day, exorcism was per-
formed in Solomon's name with a ring con-
taining a magic root (Ant. 8.47). They could
be exorcised by providing a substitute host
body, usually an animal, but also a figurine
or even a reed of the same size as the
human sufferer (SAGGS 1962:300). That a
demon needed a host is an idea found also
in the New Testament: demons cast out of
the Gerasene demoniac ask to enter a herd
of swine lest, apparently, they be left home-
less (Mark 5:12; cf. Matt 12:43-45).
III. In the Bible, old meanings and asso-
ciations of the terms daimon and daimonion
survived alongside the post-Exilic revalu-
ation. The original neutral sense of ‘divinity’
is found in Acts 17:18, where Paul is
described by pagan Athenians as a preacher
of ‘foreign deities’ (daimonia). The Septua-
gint uses daimonion several times in the
ancient Near Eastern sense of the spirits of
the desert: it translates the Hebrew $e'írím
(wild goats, -*satyrs, goat demons; Isa
13:21), and siyyim (desert dwelling wild
beasts; Isa 34:14), where desert spirits arc
said to inhabit cities laid waste (cf. also Bar
4:35). The book of Revelation describes the
(future) fallen city of "Babylon" (2 Rome)
as "a dwelling place of demons and a haunt
of every unclean spirit and a haunt of every
unclean and hateful bird" (18:2), recalling
the oracle of desert waste in Isa 13 against
Mesopotamian Babylon. One of the major
functions of such spirits was to bring fatal
calamity: so daimon is used to designate a
spirit of "famine and disease" (Sib. Or.
3.331). This inheritance explains the appar-
ent anomaly that the main activity of
demons in the New Testament ministry of
Jesus is not to tempt to sin but to cause dis-
ability, disease and insanity: even though
237
DEMON
they are clearly associated with the activity
of the Devil.
During the intertestamental period and the
rise of Jewish literature in Greek, the terms
daimon and daimonion began to assume
among Jews the negative connotation of
‘demon in league with the Devil’. The inspi-
ration for this shift in meaning was the
encounter during the Exile and later with
Zoroastrian dualism. This cosmology postu-
lated two warring spiritual camps controlled
by their leaders, the Zoroastrian God and
Devil, and commanded by archangels and
archdemons and their descending ranks of
lesser spirits. They fought over the loyalty
of humans, loyalty expressed in righteous or
unrighteous behavior and eventuating in
eternal life or fiery destruction. The old gods
of the nations and their servant divinities,
the lesser spirits of nature and cosmos, were
‘demonized’, demoted to the class of wicked
spirits, tempting humans to sin and enticing
them from the true faith by the false
doctrines of other religions. Eventually,
however, there would be an End. a victory
by God, a savior to bring the opposing
powers to destruction, a Last Judgment, and
a New Age. Circles within Judaism used
this framework to revalue older myths and
produced after the Exile the dualistic strains
of Judaism visible in post-exilic and inter-
testamental literature and in Christianity.
As the gods of the nations were demon-
ized. so ‘demon’ in the dualistic sense is
found in the Septuagint (LXX) as a designa-
tion of pagan deities and spirits: in LXX Ps
95:5 the national deities of other peoples,
said to be idols (elilim) in Hebrew, become
"demons" ("All the gods of the nations are
demons"); in LXX Deut 32:17, the foreign
divinities whom Israel worshipped, properly
described in the Hebrew text as Sédim (tute-
lary spirits), are again called "demons"
(“They sacrificed to demons and not to
God”; cf. LXX Ps 105:37; Bar. 4:7); in
LXX Isa 65:11 daimon renders the Hebrew
name of the pagan god of Fortune (-*Gad),
where the Israelites are said to have been
"preparing a table for the demon". This con-
ception of table fellowship with pagan gods
who are in reality demons carries over into
the New Testament: Paul warns the Corinth-
ian Church that they may not cat sacrificial
meals in pagan temples, for “that which the
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons",
meaning, for Corinth, the Greek gods
Asklepios, Sarapis, and especially --Demeter.
So Paul sets in opposition "the table of the
Lord and the table of demons" (1 Cor
10:20-21). Likewise, the author of Revel-
ation identifies the worship of idols with the
worship of demons (Rev 9:20). In the inter-
testamental literature. one finds "the evil
demon -*Asmodeus" (Tob 3:8, 17; the name
may be derived from the Persian aeshma
daeva, ‘demon of wrath’). Demons become
tempters who lead one into—and are even
the personifications of—various sins: one
finds the Seven Spirits of deceit (7. Reub.
2.1; 3.2ff.) which are named after and cause
various sins; "demons of deceit" and "spirit
of error" (T. Jud. 23.1; 20.1; cf. the “spirit
of falsehood” in 1 QS 4.9ff.) connected with
licentiousness, idolatry, and witchcraft; the
"spirit of anger" (T. Dan 1-2) and "spirit of
envy" (T. Sim. 4.7).
One ancient theory of the origin of the
demons was that they were the souls of the
dead who, having been unjustly treated or
killed, sought retribution (as perhaps were
the Erinyes; cf. the Biblical Rephaim; also
Tertullian, De Anima 57). Another concep-
tion was that they were the ghosts of the
wicked dead (Josephus, Bel. Jud. 7.185:
"demons [are] the spirits of wicked people
who enter and kill the living"). Origen tells
us that the Church had no clearly defined
teaching on their genesis; his view was that
the Devil, after becoming apostate, induced
many of the angels to fall away with him;
these fallen angels were the demons (De
Princ. pref. 6; Tatian, Adv. Gr. 20; cf. Rev
12:4). The most popular myth, however, is
found in the Bible, intertestamental litera-
ture, the rabbis and the Church fathers:
demons are the souls of the offspring of
angels who cohabited with humans. Accord-
ing to this story, a group of angels descend-
ed from heaven and mated with human
women, producing as offspring a race of
238
DEMON
wicked ->giants who conquered and defiled
the earth with violence and bloodshed. To
destroy them, God caused the Flood. The
spirits of the drowned giants, neither angelic
nor human, were trapped in the regions of
the air which they haunt as demons, seeking
host bodies to inhabit (cf. “the power of the
air” Eph 2:2; and Eusebius, Praep. Ev.
4.5.142: [Greek theologians] assigned "the
atmosphere to demons"). According to
Justin Martyr, "the angels ... were capti-
vated by love of women and engendered
children who are called demons" (2 Apol. 5;
cf. Gen 6:1-4; 1 Enoch 6-21; Jub. 4:22;
5:1ff.; Jude 6).
In the New Testament the word daimon
occurs but once (Matt 8:31). The parallel
passage in Luke 8:27 uses daimonion, a
word found more than fifty times (but for
Acts 17:18) for a wicked demonic spirit.
Mark 5 describes the Gerasene demoniac as
having an “unclean spirit” (nveðpa a-
'Ká8aptov) The phrase is found twenty
times in the NT (cf. also LXX Zech 13:2, of
the spirit of false prophecy; T. Ben. 5.2).
“Evil spirit” (zveðpa rovnpóv) is used for
daimonion in Luke 8:2. From these passages
one learns the nature and function of
demons in the New Testament era: to defile
and bring to evil their human subjects and
hosts, in both physical and spiritual ways.
Demons sought to indwell humans and
were able to do so in large numbers: the
Gerasene demoniac was indwelt, as he said,
by “Legion, for we are many" (Mark 5:9).
Mary Magdalene was said to have been
healed of seven demons (Luke 8:2: cf.
11:24-26). This indwelling is described by
the Biblical writers with the phrase “to have
a demon" (čev daipoviov) or “to be
demonized“ (dSaipovitec8ar). The in-
dwelling spirit seems nevertheless to 'pos-
sess’ the host, speaking through and casting
the sufferer about as though animating a
puppet from inside (Mark 1:24; 9:26). The
main effect of demons on the host in the
Synoptic writers was to cause physical and
mental suffering, and anti-social behavior:
the violent Gerasene demoniac lives in
tombs and deserted places, is periodically
bound and chained. continually crying out
and gashing himself with stones (Mark 5:2-
6). While demonization was often differen-
tiated from debility and disease (Matt 4:24,
Mark 1:32), demons also caused dumbness
(Matt 9:32), blindness (Matt 12:22), deaf-
ness (Mark 9:17-29), epilepsy (Matt 17:18;
lit. "being moonstruck"), and apparently
fever and other diseases (Luke 4:39; 8:2). Its
chief manifestation, however, was insanity:
the Gerasene demoniac, when healed, is said
to "be in his right mind" (Mark 5:15). So
common was this idca that it was a popular
calumny to claim that one with whom one
disagreed was ‘insane’: so John the Baptist
was slandered as demonized (= ‘insane’;
Luke 7:33), as was Jesus (John 8:48; cf.
10:20 “he has a demon and is insane").
Jesus, according to the New Testament,
cast demons out (ExPaAAetv) with a word of
command (Matt 8:16; in 8:32 the word is
Uxdyete, "Go away!") He gave his dis-
ciples authority to cast out demons in his
name, which they did with remarkable suc-
cess for centuries (Luke 10:17; Tertullian,
Apol. 23.15-18; however, cf. Mark 9:18-19).
The point of exorcism in the ministry of
Jesus and the early Church was not only the
relief of suffering, but the clash of the King-
dom of God and the Kingdom of the Devil.
This evil kingdom was conceptualized as an
army organized under the Devil with ranks
of officers of various levels (cf. Luke 11:18,
26; Eph 6:12). When Jesus was accused of
casting out demons by their ruler Beelzebul
(a name for the Devil; Baal-zebub), he
replied that his mission was to “enter the
strong man's house and carry off his prop-
erty” (Mark 3:27), to enter the kingdom of
the Devil and rescue those who were
oppressed; this he did by “binding the strong
man”, which was exorcism of demons by
the Spirit of God (Matt 12:28). The demons
apparently recognized Jesus on sight, often
shouting, “I know who you are, the holy one
of God" (Mark 1:24; cf. 1:34). They seemed
terrified (cf. Jas 2:19), knowing of their
coming judgment and that Jesus would bring
their demise; so they cried out “Have you
come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24), or, “Have
239
DEREK — DESTROYER
you come to torment us before the time?”
(Matt 8:29; cf. Matt 25:41 “the eternal fire
which has been prepared for the Devil and
his angels"). In Luke 8:31, the Gerasene
demons entreated Jesus not to send them
into the abyss. which may refer to the desert
prison of the fallen angels (cf. the “pits of
darkness" to which the angels are assigned
in 2 Pet 2:4; also cf. Rev 9:1-11).
For Paul and the Pauline school, the
battle of the two kingdoms was more clearly
a battle between cosmic powers and relig-
ious loyalties. The competing gods of the
Greeks are demons (1 Cor 10:20-21; cf 1
Cor 12:2), and Christians were once under
the spiritual powers of the "elements" (z the
stars and signs of the Zodiac; Gal 4:3, 8-9;
Col 2:8, 20; cf. T. Sol. 18.3: "the heavenly
bodies, the world rulers of the darkness of
this age"). Maybe they include the demonic
"rulers of this age" who crucified Jesus in
their ignorance (1 Cor 2:8). Nevertheless
God disarmed the demonic rulers and auth-
orities through —Christ (Col 2:15), and
Christ at his resurrection was given mastery
over all angelic and demonic "rule and auth-
ority and power and dominion" (Eph 1:21;
cf 1 Cor 15:24-25); so Christians onc day
will sit in judgment over the (evil) angels (1
Cor 6:3). The demonic forces attack the
Church: such ~-*angels, principalities
(-*Archai), and powers try, but will fail, to
separate believers from God's love (Rom
8:38); false Christian apostles, servants of
Satan, attempted to deceive the Corinthians
with false doctrines (2 Cor 11:13-15); an
angel of Satan even torments Paul (2 Cor
12:7); the writer of the Pastoral epistles pre-
dicts that in the last days the unwary would
follow "deceitful spirits" and "doctrines of
demons", which included food taboos and
the forbidding of marriage (1 Tim 4:1-3).
IV. Bibliography
G. A. BARTON, The Origin of the Names of
Angels and Demons in the Extra-Canonical
Apocalyptic Literature to 100 A. D., JBL 31
(1912) 156-167; W. CanR, Angels and Prin-
cipalities: The Background, Meaning and
Development of the Pauline Phrase hai
archai kai hai exousiai (Cambridge 1981); S.
Errrem, Some Notes on the Demonology of
the New Testament (Uppsala 1966); N.
FonsvrH, The Old Enemy: Satan and the
Combat Myth (Princeton 1987); *T. H.
GASTER, Demon, Demonology. IDB 1
(1962) 817-824; T. JACOBSEN, The Treas-
ures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotam-
ian Religion (New Haven 1976); H. A.
KELLy, Towards the Death of Satan: The
Growth and Decline of Christian Demonol-
ogy (London 1968) H. B. KuHN, The
Angelology of the Non-Canonical Jewish
Apocalypses, JBL 67 (1948) 217-232; *E.
LANGTON, Essentials of Demonology: A
Study of Jewish and Christian Doctrine, Its
Origin and Development (London 1949); J.
Y. Lee, Interpreting the Demonic Powers in
Pauline Thought, NT 12 (1970) 54-69; *E.
C. E. Owen, Aaipwv and Cognate Words,
JTS 32 (1931) 133-53; H. W. F. SacGs,
The Greatness That Was Babylon (New
York 1962) 288-314.
G. J. RiLEY
DEREK > WAY
DESTROYER nun
I. ‘Destroyer’ is the designation of a
supernatural envoy from -*God assigned the
task of annihilating large numbers of people,
typically by means of a plague. The noun is
a hiphil participle of the root Sur which is
not attested in the OT in the gal. When the
root appears in the hiphil, hophal, piel, and
niphal stems, it describes the deterioration,
marring. disfiguring, damaging and destruc-
tion of people and things, such as textiles
Qer 13:7), pots (Jer 18:4), vineyards (Jer
12:10), trees (Deut 20:19), cities (Gen
13:10) and buildings (Lam 2:6). It repre-
sents the kind of activity performed by plun-
dering thieves (Jer 49:9). Deities in other
ancient Near Eastern cultures who annihilate
populations are identified by personal names
that may reflect their function or devastating
character (e.g. Namtar, 'Fate', —Resheph,
‘Flame’, ‘lightning bolt’).
II. The Destroyer must be distinguished
from those supernatural figures who, in their
240
DESTROYER
capacity as angels/messengers of death, visit
all men and terminate the lives of single
individuals. In the Bible, the Destroyer does
not kill all humans, nor is he dispatched by
God to kill isolated individuals. Further-
more, unlike the angels of death who bring
death of any sort (both natural and prema-
ture), the Destroyer brings specifically a pre-
mature and agonizing death.
It is true that in neighbouring cultures,
almost any deity could conceivably deci-
mate large populations: the god who afflicts
is characteristically the same god who
brings relief. But there were nevertheless
certain deities whose specific expertise lay
in their ability to exterminate humans en
masse. The Erra Epic depicts Erra as a ruth-
less killer in an irrational and uncontrollable
lust for war, death and destruction, ultimate-
ly calmed only by his aid Ishum. Erra was
“everywhere a god of destruction” (LAM-
BERT 1973:356) and became identified with
--Nergal, a god of war and sudden death,
and the ruler of the realm of the dead (cf.
his epithets “Great King of the Abyss”
lugal-gal-abzu and “King of the Dreadful
Sword" lugal-gir-trr-ra; AKKGE 390). When
Enlil, in council with the other gods in
Atrahasis, wishes to thin the world’s popu-
lation with a plague, it is Namtar, the god of
plague, who goes to work. The north-west
semitic deity Resheph reflects the same
profile, and he was indeed identified by the
ancients with Nergal (Ugaritica V [1968]
45).
It is a feature of these deities that they do
not discriminate between the innocent and
the guilty, and that extreme measures are
required to stop them before complete anni-
hilation occurs. Erra’s fury is calmed only
by his assistant Ishum (“you killed the
upright, you killed the one who is not
upright", Erra IV 104-105), and after his
rampage, Erra acknowledges that "like one
who plunders a land, | do not discriminate
between the upright and the wicked" (Erra
V.10). Namtar stopped his plague only
because the people's cultic attentions toward
him shamed him into backing down (Arr. I
viii).
III. The Hebrew word maShit, explicitly
describing a supernatural creature commis-
sioned by God to exterminate large groups
of people, appears in only two contexts in
the Bible (Exod 12:23; 2 Sam 24:16 // 1 Chr
21:15). The activity of such a creature can
be further detected in at least four other pas-
sages. even though it is not there explicitly
identified as a mashít (Num 17:11-15[16:46-
50]; 2 Kgs 19:35 // Isa 37:36; Ezek 9; Rev
9:11).
The death of the firstborn in Egypt, in
concert with all of the other plagues, is pri-
marily attributed to the activity of Yahweh
throughout the Bible: "I will kill Cäānökî
hórég) your first-born" (Exod 4:23; cf. 11:4-
5; 12:12-13.23a.27.29; Ps 78:51; 105:36).
Nevertheless, Yahweh's involvement is fur-
ther qualificd in one passage: “Yahweh will
pass through to strike down the Egyptians;
when he sees the blood on the lintel and on
the two doorposts, Yahweh will pass over
the door and will not allow the destroyer
(hammašhît) to enter your houses to strike
you down” (Exod 12:23).
The relationship between Yahweh and the
Destroyer in this passage is hardly extraordi-
nary in the context of the ancient Near East.
One is to picture Yahweh, accompanied by
a retinue of assistants, going against his ene-
mies in judgment (MILLER 1973). Both
Yahweh and his entourage can be depicted
as active in the same conflict, and if
Yahweh decides to restrain his weapons, he
must also give orders to desist to the super-
natural warriors that accompany him. In
Exodus 12, therefore, Yahweh and at least
One supernatural assistant are responsible for
the deaths of the Egyptian first-born (cf. Ps
78:49); when Yahweh sees lamb's blood on
door-posts, not only does he not kill, but he
gives orders to the accompanying Destroyer
to exercise similar restraint (biblical and
later sources affirm that a number of plague
and destroying angels do God's work; cf. Ps
78:49; ] Enoch 53:3; 56:1; 66:1; 1QS 4.12).
The means by which the Destroyer slew
the Egyptian first-born is not immediately
obvious, although the Hebrew term and its
translation in the early versions point to a
241
DESTROYER
violent or painful death (Vg percussorem;
LXX ton olothreuonta, Syriac and Targums
employ the root /ibl). This is confirmed by
the statement that the Destroyer must be re-
strained from “smiting”, lingép (Exod
12:23), a verb whose root is identical to the
root for the word ‘plague’ or ‘pestilence’
(negep Num_ 17:11-12[16:46-47]; Josh 22:
17; maggépá Num 17:13-15[16:48-50]; 25:
8-9.18-19; 1 Sam 6:4; Zech 14:12.18). The
word translated ‘plague’, negep, is used in
connection with the death of the first-born
(Exod 12:13), as maggépd describes the
other ‘plagues’ (Exod 9:14). There can be
little question, therefore, that the Destroyer
in Exod 12:23 belongs to the class of plague
deities broadly attested in the ancient Near
East.
The plague associations with the De-
stroyer are even more pronounced in 2
Samuel 24 (paralleled in a slightly different
and more expansive version in 1 Chronicles
21) where Yahweh sends -*'Deber' (Pesti-
lence) at David's request (vv 13.15; cf.
maggépá vv 21.25). In contrast to Exodus
12, the Destroyer, here called “the
Destroying Angel” (lammal'àk hammashit, v
16; 1 Chr 21:15 [20 Syriac}; cf. Pal. Tgs.
Exod 12:23), is depicted in considerable
detail: he is of gigantic proportions (1 Chr
21:16) and visible to humans (v 17; cf. 1
Chr 21:16.20), with a hand (2 Sam 24:16; !
Chr 21:15) holding a sword (1 Chr 21:
16.30; cf. "sword of Yahweh" v 12) which
he replaces in its sheath when hc is done
with his destructive task (1 Chr 21:27). The
Destroying Angel in this passage is also
described as an -*"angel of Yahweh" (2
Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:16.30), the "smiting
angel” (hammal’Gk hammakkeh, 2 Sam
24:17), and a “destroying angel of Yahweh”
(maľak YHWH mašhît; | Chr 21:12). As in
Exodus 12, he takes orders from Yahweh
who once again bids the Destroying Angel
not to destroy all the people (1 Chr
21:15.27). Unlike Exodus 12, Yahweh is not
described as participating in the slaughter,
for he sends the Destroyer in his place (1
Chr 21:15).
The more expansive passage in Chron-
icles presents one peculiarity that is not
characteristic of the Destroyer (and indeed is
not found in the parallel passage in 2
Samuel). According to 2 Sam 24:18-19, Gad
received from Yahweh directions for David
to obey. 1 Chr 21:18-19 specifies that it is
the Destroyer, called here the "angel of
Yahweh”, who gives this information to
Gad. The syntax, vocabulary, and use of
indirect discourse in the Chronicles passage
point to a later formulation that could not
have been in the Samuel text in this form.
The Destroyer is otherwise a creature who
specializes in mass slaughter (not verbal
communication) and who does not act inde-
pendently but only at the specific command
of Yahweh. The present verse compromises
both of these characteristics, and probably
represents the later breakdown of the archaic
perception of the Destroyer in the face of
the developing angelology of the Second
Temple period.
It has been common to seek an origin for
the Destroyer in early or pre-Israelite cult
traditions, but the association of Yahweh
with plague and destruction is pervasive in
the Bible, making the theory unnecessary.
The imagery of a god destroying popula-
tions with a retinue of divine assistants (or
envoys dispatched in the god’s place) is so
common in the Bible and the Near East as
to moot the question of cultural or cultic
borrowing.
Although these two passages (one of
which appears in two parallel accounts) are
the only places in the Bible where the
Hebrew mashit, “Destroyer”, is explicitly
applied to a supernatural being, there is
good cause to see such a figure at work
elsewhere in the Bible. In Numbers 17
God's wrath against the Israelites in the wil-
derness once again prompts a plague (negep,
Num 17:11.12[16:46.47]; maggéepá, Num
17:13.14.15 [16:48.49.50]). This plague,
described as "restrained" (vv 13.15) and as
"wrath gone forth from Yahweh" (v 11),
may be a personification (cf. Tg. Ps.-J. v
12). Like the preceding two stories (cf. also
Namtar in Arr.) this destruction can be
checked by a cultic act (blood on the door-
242
DESTROYER
posts, building an altar, offering incense).
Also like the other two accounts, the
destruction is indiscriminate in the annihila-
tion of wicked and upright alike unless they
are somehow formally distinguished (blood
on door-posts, physical separation [Num
17:10(16:45))).
In any case, the earliest traditions avail-
able to us interpret the story in Numbers 17
as the work of the Destroyer. The same term
used to translate mashít in the LXX of
Exodus 12 and | Chronicles 21 resurfaces in
the NT and the Apocrypha to describe the
creature who brings this plague in Numbers
17: “they were destroyed by the Destroyer”
(apólonto hypo tou olethreutou, | Cor
10:10), “the Destroyer” (ho olethreuón, Wis
18:25). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan inserts the
same Aramaic term in Num 17:11(16:36]
(“Destroyer”, mhbl’) that was used to trans-
late Hebrew mashít elsewhere. Although dif-
ferent terms appear in 4 Macc 7:11, once
again a divine emissary—"the fiery angel",
ton empyristén ... aggelon—is pictured as
bringing the plague in Numbers 17.
The term "Destroyer" does not appear in
2 Kgs 19:35 (// Isa 37:36) when the "angel
of the Lord went out and struck 185,000 in
the Assyrian camp” by night. However,
early interpretations of this destruction
describe it as a plague: maggépd in Sir 48:
21(24) appears in Vg LXX as "his angel";
Josephus sees a plague in Anr. X.21 but "an
angel of the Lord" in B.J. V.388; Ramael is
the angel who "burned their bodies within"
in 2 Bar 63:6-8 (cf. Herodotus 11.141). Since
one of the tasks of God's angels in general
can be destruction, one cannot be confident
that the specific angel in view here is the
Destroyer, even though the early interpre-
tative tradition moved in that direction.
None of the angelic figures who slaughter
Jerusalemites in Ezekiel 9 are called "Dc-
stroyer", even though the word does appear
as part of their commission (/émashit, v 6).
Nevertheless, the imagery is suggestive of
the Destroyer’s activity elsewhere, for those
who destroy do not act independently but
must follow God’s orders (vv 4.11), and the
destruction is indiscriminate, arrested only if
one has an external sign (“a mark on the
forcheads", v 4).
In the NT, at least two texts reflect the
influence of OT and ancient Near Eastern
imagery associated with the Destroyer. Rev
9:11 gives the name "Destroyer" (Apollyón)
to the "angel of the abyss” (-Abaddon; cf.
the epithet of —^Nergal). Like the Destroyer
in the OT, affliction is indiscriminate and
overtakes all who are not distinguished in
some external fashion (“seal of God on their
foreheads”, Rev 9:4), and the affliction is
bodily pain (Rev 9:5.10). It is therefore
possible that the imagery of Rev 19:11-15
also reflects features of the Destroyer.
IV. Without the imagery of the Near Eas-
tem deity in conflict, the relationship
between Yahweh and the Destroyer in Exod
12 can be problematic, for a less poetic
analysis of the passage may insist that it
cannot be both Yahweh and the Destroyer
who together slay the Egyptian first-born (as
source critical analysis has affirmed.
Fossum 1985:225-226), or that the De-
stroyer is identical to Yahweh (Gray 1899).
When the NT with precision employs the
same word found in the LXX of Exod 12:23
to refer to the Destroyer, it refrains from
clarifying whether the Destroyer is God or
an angel (ho olethreuôn; Heb 11:28); pre-
sumably the latter is intended, but the for-
mer is possible. Some interpreters simply
ignore the presence of the Destroyer
(Josephus Ant. 11.313). Early rabbinic
sources move in this direction, insisting that
God himself was directly involved in the
slaying of the firstborn, but later literature
affirms that it was performed by an angel
(GOLDIN 1968; GINZBERG, Legends V 433-
434). Among those sources that distance
God from the actual slaying, the Wisdom of
Solomon expansively describes the De-
stroyer as God's personified Logos (cf. the
Memra of Yahweh in Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 12:29)
that came as a gigantic warrior from God's
throne, holding God’s “unambiguous decree
as a sharp sword” (18:15-16). Jub. 49:2-4
goes further in multiplying the number of
destroyers so that, following God's direc-
tions, "all of the powers of -*Mastemah"
243
DESTRUCTION — DEVIL
(the chicf demonic figure) pass over the
Israelites and kill the Egyptian first-born (cf.
"10,000 destroying angels” in Pal. Tgs.
Exod 12:12). Ezekiel the Tragedian speaks
of “the fearsome angel” (159) and “death”
(187) that passed by. Maimonides nuances
the passage so that God does the killing in
the Egyptian community, while the De-
stroyer is the one who passes through the
Israelite community.
It was emphasized above that there was
originally a distinction between the angel of
death who comes to an individual at the
time appointed for him to die and the
Destroyer who massacres entire populations
with premature and violent deaths. Later tra-
ditions, however, fuse the two conceptions.
Thus, “Destroying Angel” in 2 Samuel 24 is
translated in Syriac as the “Angel of Death”,
an equation also made in later Judaism. In
the Hebrew text of Exod 4:24-25 where it is
Yahweh who tries to kill Moses, the Pal.
Tgs. preserve traditions to the effect that it is
the “Destroying Angel” or the “Angel of
Death”.
V. Bibliography
J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985);
J. GOLDIN, Not By Means of an Angel and
Not By Means of a Messenger, Religions in
Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin
Ramsdell Goodenough (ed. J. Neusner; Lei-
den 1968) 412-24; G. B. Gray, Destroyer,
Encyclopaedia Biblica I (ed. T. K. Cheyne
& J. S. Black; New York 1899) 1078; W.
G. LAMBERT, Studies in Nergal, BiOr 30
(1973) 355-363; P. D. MILLER, The Divine
Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge 1973).
S. A. MEIER
DESTRUCTION -> QETEB
DEVIL A:áfoAXoc
I. The term ‘devil’ is a rendering of the
Greek word d:1GBoA0¢, used as a loan word
by Latin Christian writers as diabolus. As a
proper noun in intertestamental Jewish texts
and Christian writers the word denotes the
great Adversary of God and rightcousness,
the Devil. It is so used in the Septuagint as a
translation for the Hebrew $§dfdn (-*Satan)
(e. g. Job ] and 2; 1 Chr 21:1), and appears
often with this meaning in the New Testa-
ment (e.g. Matt 4:1). In ancient Greek
usage, however, 5:aPoAog was an adjective
gencrally denoting something or someone
‘slanderous’ and ‘defamatory’. So Aristo-
phanes speaks of a ‘most slanderous slave’
(81apoAótatog Eq. 45), and Plutarch views
the word as one function of the "whisperer'
(vi8upos Mor. 727d) and 'flatterer' (xóXaE5
Mor. 61c). The Pastoral Epistles admonish
women not to be ‘evil gossips' (61apóXouc
] Tim 3:11; Tit 2:3; cf. 2 Tim 3:3). Socrates
describes the reason for his condemnation at
his trial as the ‘slanders’ (S:aBoAai) which
had for long years been spoken against him
(Plato, Apol. 37b). This noun (&1apoAn)
could also mean 'enmity' or 'quarrel', and
the verb d1aBaAAw (meaning literally ‘to
throw across’ or ‘to cross over’) could mean
‘to be at variance’, ‘to attack’, and ‘to accuse’
(cf. Luke 16:1), as well as ‘to slander’. So
the Septuagint used the verb (£v)6tafxA ei
of the -*Angel of the LorpD who ‘opposed’
Balaam (LXX Num 22:22), and the noun
SiaBoAos to mean ‘enemy’ (for the Hebrew
sorér in LXX Est 8:1) and ‘adversary’ (for
Satan LXX Ps 108:6). It is in this sense that
the Septuagint used the word d:GBoA0¢ to
render the Hebrew Safan, the super-human
Adversary of God.
Il. The Biblical idea that God and the
righteous angels confronted the opposition
of a great spiritual enemy, the Devil backed
by the army of the demons, had a long his-
tory and development in the ancient world.
Very old stories of conflict among the gods
are found in cach of the cultures which
influenced the Biblical tradition, and these
stories (known among scholars as the Com-
bat Myth), coupled with dualism encounter-
ed during and after the Exile, contributed to
the concept of the Devil. To cite but two
examples, in the Babylonian story Enuma
Elish, Marduk combats the forces of
-Chaos in -*Tiamat, the great primeval sca,
244
DEVIL
conceived of as a monstrous sea serpent or
dragon. Tiamat is defeated, and out of her
body Marduk creates the cosmos. In similar
though not identical fashion, the Canaanite
storm god -*Baal, son and agent of the
highest god >El, facing opposition in the
council of the gods, is forced to battle Yam
(the Sea). He defeats Yam (and also Lotan
[~>Leviathan], the dragon in the sea), and
obtains a palace from which he thunders
forth against his enemies in the council and
on earth. Next he faces -*Mot (Death), the
ruler of the Underworld, a monster with a
huge mouth and appetite who swallows the
dead, swallowing even Baal for a time. He
is nevertheless rescued from Mot and gains
supremacy. The stories of Yahweh in pre-
exilic Israel draw upon these and other
myths (cf. the battles of Zeus) to describe
the conflicts against his enemies, both divine
and human, and his gaining of sovercignty
over the other gods of the nations in the
council (Yahweh and the council: Deut
32:8-9; Pss 29:1; 82:1; 89:5-8; his mountain
palace: Pss 18:6-15; 68; 29; 48:1-2; Yahweh
and the Sea: Ps 74:13-17; Isa 51:9-10; cf.
especially Cross 1973 and SmitH 1990).
The great enemies of the gods had been
defeated in the mythic past and the human
present was at (relative) peace. The world
was conceived as a unified whole, with cach
member, divine and human, fulfilling a pro-
per function. There was as yet no Devil, and
the lesser spirits fulfilled their appointed
roles. -**Demons' were terrifying but legiti-
mate spirits of calamity, disease, and death,
who served the will of the greater gods.
During and after the Babylonian Exile,
however, Israel was influenced by the cos-
mological dualism of Persian Zoroastrian-
ism. This system posited two warring camps
of spiritual beings headed by twin but op-
posing siblings, the Zoroastrian God and
Devil, who fought for the loyalty of humans
in deadly combat. To assist in the battle the
two had produced armies of lesser spirits,
the angels and the demons. In one important
text, ‘the Evil One’ declares to God: “I shall
destroy you and your creatures forever and
ever. And I shall persuade all your creatures
to hate you and to love me” (BOYCE
1990:46). Creation was their battlefield and
the present age was the time of spiritual
warfare. At the end of this age of conflict,
there would be a final battle in which the
Devil and his hosts would be defeated and
destroyed in a fiery Hell, and a new creation
and new age would begin in righteousness.
The value of this complex dualism and
eschatology for some factions of post-exilic
Judaism was that it provided an explanation
for the sufferings of the Exile among a
people who saw themselves as (relatively)
righteous and undeserving of their plight (cf.
Ps 44:17; Jer 31:29-30; Ezek 18:25): it was
the Devil who persecuted the innocent and
brought disaster as a trial of faith and char-
acter, attempting to turn them from God and
goodness.
Such ideas were developed in differing
ways in post-Exilic texts and intertesta-
mental literature. Two types of Zoroastrian-
ism of the period had postulated different
myths of origin for the great Spirits of Light
and Darkness: the first held that the two
were co-eternal twins without source, essen-
tially two opposite gods; the second claimed
that Time (Zervan) as source had generated
the two in eternity past as opposing aspects
of the original and ambiguous -*Onc. The
latter concept of an original One melded
most favorably with developing ideas of
monotheism and the sovereignty of the God
in Israel. The eternal dualism of the former
view is explicitly rejected by Second Isaiah
(Isa 45:5 “I am the Lord and there is no
other; besides me there is no God"), and the
God of Israel is seen as was Zervan, the
source of both opposites: "I form light and I
create darkness; I make wholeness and I cre-
ate evil" (Isa 45:7). This idea that God cre-
ated two divine spirits, good and evil, is
clearly expressed in texts from Qumran (cf.
IQS 3:25 "[God] created the spirits of Light
and Darkness").
That God should be the source of evil.
however, or was in competition with another
power, was difficult given the old view of
God as sovereign and righteous (cf. Deut
32:4; ] John 1:5). Other creative thinkers
245
DEVIL
produced an alternate view which melded
dualism with old traditions of the Combat
Myth and Yahweh as -El, head of a
heavenly council. In all versions of the
Combat Myth and Zoroastrian doctrine, the
upper world forces of Light ultimately de-
feat the forces of Darkness: the Enemies,
though formidable, were weaker and lesser
beings. Thus the one God, the God of Israel,
could stand as the sovereign God of Light,
presiding over the lesser divine beings of the
heavenly council (the angels), some of
whom were righteous, and others of whom
(as Baal's enemies in El's council) by their
own choice were the sources of evil. This
allowed the origin of evil in heaven to bc
removed one stage from God: evil was the
result of some failing in the lesser divine
beings. These were led by a great opponent
similar to the great enemies in the Combat
Myth, the Devil. viewed as a rebellious
angel followed by his hosts of demons, who
assumed characteristics of the great mythic
opponents of the heavenly gods, destined for
defeat. He could be opposed by a great
champion of righteousness, the ~Angel of
the LonD (cf. Zech 3:1; Jub. 17:15-18:16),
or -*Michael the archangel (cf. Jude 9), or
in later Christian thought, by —-Jesus.
III. More than one account of the origin
of the Devil and fall of the angels is found
in post-Exilic and subsequent literature. A
very old and popular story was that certain
of the ->*sons of God" (angels) descended
from heaven and mated with human women,
giving birth to a race of -*giants which was
drowned by the flood (/ Enoch 6-16; Gen
6:1-4; Jude 6; 2 Pet 2:4); their disembodied
souls became the demons. The leader of this
band of fallen angels, -*Azazel, although a
messenger of Satan in / Enoch 54:6, was
identified as the Devil (Jub. 10:1-11) and as
the serpent who deccived Adam and -*Eve
(Apoc. Abr. 23). He is also called -*Baal-
zebub, the Prince of the demons, who was
formerly ‘the highest ranking angel in
heaven’ (T. Sol. 6:1-2). Two other stories
relate the Devil to Adam: Adam was made
in the image of God, and “through the
Devil's envy, death entered the world” (Wis
2:24). Again, when God created Adam on
the earth. the angels were commanded to
reverence him as being the image of God;
the angel who was to become the Devil
refused on the grounds that he was both
greater and older than Adam, and he was
followed in his rebellion by the angels in his
charge (Adam and Eve 13-15; Tertullian, De
Patientia 5; Quran 15:26-35). Another
account was inspired by the oracles against
the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4-20) and the
king of Tyre (Ezek 28:11-19): on the second
day of creation, one of the archangels, in
fact the highest archangel of all, had through
pride attempted to set himself up to be
worshipped as an equal to God (2 Enoch
29.4-5; cf. 1 John 3:8). The Latin translation
of Isa 14:12 names this individual "Lucifer".
Intertestamental and later Jewish texts
ascribe to the Devil a variety of names and
activities. In Jubilees ‘the chief of the [evil]
spirits’ is ->Mastemah (‘Hateful One’, Heb
T2209, lit. ‘animosity’) and Satan, who
accuses Israel before God, ensnares and cor-
rupts them that they be destroyed (1:20). In
the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the leader of the
hosts of evil is called Sammacl (‘Blind god’
1:8, 11; 2:1; 5:15), Melkira (= ‘King of
Evil’; 1:8), Satan (2:2, 7: 5:16), and es-
pecially Beliar (a by-form of -**Belial’ =
‘Useless’; 1:8; 2:4; 3:11). He is ‘the Angel
of Iniquity who rules this world’ and causes
apostasy, sin, magic, and the persecution of
the righteous, ‘dwelling in the hearts’ of the
rulers of Israel (2:4-11); in the last days thc
children of Israel will abandon the Lord and
ally themselves with him (T. /ss. 6). He
rules the soul of the one perturbed by anger
and falsehood, but flees from one who
avoids wrath and hates lying (T. Dan 4:7-
5:1). Beliar causes the righteous to stumble
by promiscuity (7. Reub. 4:7-11), and sexual
sin is also a failing of the Devil himself: the
role of progenitor of -*Cain was assigned to
him, which later authors thought he accom-
plished by union with Eve in the garden (cf.
4 Macc. 18:8 "the seducing and defiling ser-
pent”; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 4:1; Pirke de R. El.
21; Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 40.5.3). The
‘Prince of Error’ blinded Simcon's mind so
246
DEVIL
as to sell -*Joseph into slavery (T. Sim. 2:7),
and caused Judah to go astray by love of
money (T. Jud. 19:4). The 'Prince of the
Demons' is Beelzebul, who causes wars,
tyranny, demon worship, violence and lust,
and resides in the evening star (T. Sol. 6:1-
7). The Devil “inhabits as his own instru-
ment” one who does evil (7. Naph. 8:6).
The ‘wild old Lion’ is the father of the
Egyptian gods and persecutes Aseneth for
tuming away from him to God and
destroying her family idols (Jos. et As. 12:9;
10:12). This enmity for escaping and attack-
ing the Devil's power is the basis for the
plot of the Testament of Job: Job destroys
an idol temple and brings on himself the
retributive wrath of the Devil (7T. Job 4:4).
Whatever the activity of the Devil, however,
it is performed by permission of God and
according to divine plan to test the righteous
and demonstrate which among humanity are
evil (Jub. 10:8-12; T. Job 8:2-3; 20:1-3; Rev
13:5, 7; cf. 1 Cor 11:19).
IV. In the Hebrew Bible, one finds the
concept of the 'adversary' (Heb. $árán) in
two senses: that of any (usually human)
opponent, and that of Satan, the Devil, the
opponent of the righteous. In the first sense,
Hadad the Edomite acts as a §dfdn to
Solomon (1 Kgs 11:14; cf. also 11:23, 25; 1
Sam 29:4); Haman is the ‘enemy’ of the
Jews (Est 8:1); and even the Angel of the
LoRD acts as a fatan to Balaam (Num 22:
22). In each of these cases, the §dfan is an
‘opponent’ in such public activities as poli-
tics, war, etc. In texts composed after the
Exile, however, the concept manifests the
growing changes brought about by influence
of dualism: the Safdn becomes the Devil
(rendered by diabolos in LXX), the arch-
enemy of God at war over the loyalty of
humanity: the Devil attacks the bond
between humanity and God, leading them to
sin (cf. 1 Chr 21:1) and blasphemy in an
attempt to destroy their allegiance to God.
So the Devil in Job (lit. ‘the £aràn' or better
‘the Adversary’) is a divine figure, classed
with the ‘sons of the gods’, who slanders
and attacks Job in an attempt to cause him
to ‘curse’ God ‘to his face’ (Job 1:11; 2:5).
This is not the action of a mere heavenly
prosecutor in the divine council, appointed
by God to accuse the defendant of sin (cf.
Zech 3:1-2); no prosecutor destroys the
property of the defendant, then kills his
children and destroys his health, in order to
bring about hatred for the Judge. God and
the Devil in Job are competing for Job's
loyalty, which the Adversary calls into
question. To settle the issue, God delivers
Job over into the power of Satan for testing,
“leading him into temptation” and “deliver-
ing him over to the Evil One" as God would
later do with Jesus and his followers accord-
ing to the New Testament (cf. Matt 6:13).
The Devil in the New Testament is whol-
ly the enemy of God and righteousness. He
is called by several different names,
reflecting the several traditions which were
melded to construct the concept of the Devil
in the intertestamental period. In one
remarkable passage we find “the great
Dragon, ... the Serpent of old who is called
the Devil and Satan" (Rev 12:9). The names
‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are used interchangeably
without apparent difference in meaning (cf.
Luke 8:12 and Mark 4:15). The -Dragon
clearly recalls Leviathan, the great "dragon
that is in the sea" (Isa 27:1; cf. Tiamat and
Yamm), while the Serpent is also the "ser-
pent [who] deceived Eve by his craftiness"
(2 Cor 11:3; cf. Gen 3:1-15). Here, as in the
intertestamental literature, images and names
of the great opponents of the gods of heaven
in the Combat Myth are used of the Devil.
While Death (-Mot) is an enemy separate
from the Devil in some texts (1 Cor 15:26;
Rev 20:14), it is the Devil who has the
power of death in Heb 2:14. The antithesis
of Christ is Belial (2 Cor 6:15), and the
spirit which he combats is Beelzebul (Mark
3:22). The Devil is the Tempter (ó xetpa-
Cwv Mt 4:3), the Evil One (Matt 6:13), the
Enemy (Matt 13:39), the Accuser (Rev
12:10), and the Ruler of this world (John
12:31).
The single most important function of the
Devil in the New Testament is to rule the
Kingdom of Darkness which opposes the
Kingdom of God. The Devil is the chief of a
247
DEVIL
host of wicked spirits (Luke 11:18) ranging
from lesser indwelling demons who cause
disease, disability, and insanity by ‘posses-
sion’ (e.g. Mark 1:34; 3:22; 5:1-20), to the
great “world powers of this darkness” and
“spiritual forces of wickedness in the
heavens” (Eph 6:12; 1:21; Col 2:15). The
latter are the angelic astral forces, ‘the Devil
and his angels’ (cf. Matt 25:41; Rev 12:7,
9), who rule the stars and astral ‘elements’
(Gal 4:3, 9), and have access into the very
heaven of God (Rev 12:10; Luke 10:18).
The hosts occupy not only the heavens, but
especially the air, and thus the Devil is the
"ruler of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2), for
in the air are trapped the lesser demonic
spirits of the drowned giants from the Flood,
offspring of the fallen angels and humans
(cf. Jub. 10:4-11; 1 Enoch 6-10; Eusebius,
Praep. Ev. 4.5.142: [Greek theologians]
assigned “the atmosphere to demons”). The
Kingdom of Darkness includes the entire
‘world’, the very cosmos itself and apparent-
ly everything in it: “the whole world lies in
{the power of] the Evil One” (1 John 5:19;
cf. Luke 4:6). So the Devil is the “ruler of
this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), and
the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4). As
inhabitants of this Kingdom, all humans
before encountering the true God are also
under the “dominion of Satan” (Acts 26:18)
and “authority of Darkness” (Col 1:13),
living "according to the spirit which works
in the children of disobedience” (Eph 2:1-2).
He blinds their minds to the light of the gos-
pel (2 Cor 4:4), for the Devil “deceives the
whole world” (Rev 12:9). To do so he even
“disguises himself as an angel of light” (2
Cor 11:14, which he had done when tempt-
ing Eve: Adam and Eve 9; cf. 2 Cor 11:3).
This Kingdom of Darkness was invaded
by Jesus as champion of the Kingdom of
God. In fact, “the Son of God appeared for
this purpose, that he might destroy the
works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8). He was
led into the desert to be tested by the Devil
(Mark 1:9-13; Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13);
soon he began casting out demons (Mark
1:21-28). This he describes as attacking and
overpowering the Strong Man, “entering the
Strong Man’s house and carrying off his
property” (Matt 12:28-29; Luke 11:20-22).
The Strong Man is the Devil and the prop-
erty which is plundered are the humans for-
merly subjected to demonic oppression. So
when his disciples also begin casting out
demons in his name, he watches “Satan fall
from heaven like lightning” (Luke 10:17-
18), and predicts that “the ruler of this world
shall be cast out" (John 12:31). Jesus is the
Sower who sows the word of the Kingdom,
while Satan steals away the seed from the
hearts of the unreceptive lest they be saved
(Luke 8:12). Jesus is the Sower of Good
Seed, who sows the seed of the children of
the Kingdom in the field of the world, while
the Devil sows tares, the children of the Evil
One (Matt 13:36-40). The devil is able to
influence the minds or indwell individuals
whom he uses as his instruments: he so uses
Peter (Mark 8:33), the opposing Jewish
authorities (John 8:44), and finally Judas
Iscariot (John 6:70; 13:2, 27) to accomplish
the crucifixion of Jesus (Luke 22:53).
Nevertheless, it is through this death, which
the evil powers had brought about in ignor-
ance (1 Cor 2:8), that the Devil would be
“rendered powerless” (Heb 2:14).
After the ascension of Jesus, the disciples
are left behind in the world, which is ar-
rayed against them as it was against Jesus
(John 15:18-19). He prayed that they be
kept from the Evil One (John 17:15), and
taught them to pray that God does not “lead
them into temptation” as he had their
Master, but “deliver them from the Evil
One” (Matt 6:13). Satan nevertheless de-
manded that he “sift” Jesus’ disciples “like
wheat”, which caused them to abandon him
in his last hour; yet he prayed for Peter that
his faith should not fail (Luke 22:31-32). It
is their loyalty (Greek zious, 'faith") which
is tested by persecution and temptation to
sin. So it is that by "the shield of faith" that
one extinguishes "the flaming missiles of the
Evil One" (Eph 6:16). The Devil accuses the
righteous "night and day" before God for
their sins, attempting to prove that they
belong to him (Rev 12:10; cf. Zech 3:1-5;
Jude 9); yet they have an Advocate, a de-
248
DEW
fense attorney, in Jesus (1 John 2:1).
During the present age the Devil uses
many stratagems against the Church. He
“prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking
someone to devour’; they are to “resist him,
firm in their faith" (1 Pet 5:8-9), for if they
"resist the devil, he will flee" (Jam 4:7). He
raises enemies from without, as Elymas the
magician who contradicts the preaching of
Paul (Acts 13:10). He prevents Paul from
visiting the Thessalonians (using Roman
officials?, 1 Thess 2:10). He instigates per-
secutions and imprisonments that they “may
be tested" (Rev 2:10), and apparently is
enthroned in the Roman government (Rev
2:13; 17:9). He also attacks individual
Christians, leading them to lie (Acts 5:3),
using sexual temptation to lead into sin (1
Cor 7:5; 1 Tim 5:15 ?), slander to destroy
one’s reputation (1 Tim 3:7), and physical
disease to harm and humble the sufferer (cf.
Paul's thom in the flesh: 2 Cor 12:7). So
authorities in the Church may "deliver" the
unruly "over to Satan", which bodily suffer-
ing, it is hoped, will produce repentance (1
Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20). Far more insidious,
however, are the Devil's agents within the
Church: he inspires false apostles who travel
to Paul's churches and contradict his mess-
age (2 Cor 11:13-15), and heretical teachers
are said to be in "the snare of the Devil,
held captive to do his will" (2 Tim 2:26; cf.
Rom 16:17-20). The final stratagem of the
Devil at the end of the age will be to raise
up the —Anti-Christ, who in competition
with God will claim the religious loyalty of
all on the earth (2 Thess 2:3-4; Rev 13).
Nevertheless both the Devil and his hosts
will be defeated at the parousia of the LORD
in a great battle (2 Thess 2:8). According to
Revelation, he will be bound for a thousand
years and then released for one final combat,
finally to be thrown into the lake of fire
(Rev 20:7-10; cf. Matt 25:41).
V. Bibliography
W. BousseET, The Antichrist Legend (New
York 1896); M. Boyce, Textual Sources for
the Study of Zoroastrianism (Chicago 1990);
F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic (Cambridge MA 1973); B. DE Jesus-
MARIE, Satan (New York 1952); S. EITREM,
Some Notes on the Demonology of the New
Testament (Uppsala 1966); N. Fonsvru,
The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat
Myth (Princeton 1987); L. JUNG, Fallen
Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohamme-
dan Literature (New York 1974); J.
KaLLas, Jesus and the Power of Satan
(Philadelphia 1968); *E. LANGTON, Essen-
tials of Demonology: A Study of Jewish and
Christian Doctrine, Its Origin and Develop-
ment (London 1949); R. Scuámr, Die
Gestalt des Satans im Alten Testament
(Zürich 1948); M. SMITH, The Early History
of God (San Francisco 1990).
G. J. RILEY
DEW 5c
I. ‘Dew’ (which, for the ancients,
included very fine rain and mist and even
exudations on leaves and was caused by the
stars; cf. ARTU 7-8, note 38; Isa 26:19) has
a special significance as a prerequisite of
fertility in areas of the Middle East where
rain is limited and there is no possibility of
river-irrigation. It is especially important in
the summer on the Palestinian coastal plain
and nearby sea-facing slopes. Some specific
crops depend on it. The withdrawal of rain
and dew leads to drought (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 17:
1; Hag 1:10).
The normal Hebrew word for ‘dew’ is
tal. This has cognates in other Semitic lan-
guages, including Ugaritic, where ¢/ is re-
garded as 'dew of the heavens' (t/] 5mm) and
commonly associated with rain (KTU 1.19
i:41, 44; 1.3 11:39, 40 etc.). There is a corre-
sponding denominative verb in Ugaritic and
in post-biblical Hebrew. More importantly
from a mythological point of view, Ugaritic
tl has generated a derivative epithet, a femi-
nine noun-formation, fly (Tallay), meaning
‘Dewy One’, which is the title of one of
~Baal’s daughters.
IIl. Ugaritic Tallay is always described
as bt rb, ‘the girl of fine rain’ or ‘mist’
(ARTU 4; cf. Hebrew rébibim) and she ap-
pears alongside Ba‘al’s other daughters,
Pidray and Arsay (ATU 1.3 1:24, iii:7; iv:51;
249
DIABOLOS — DIKE
v:42; 1.4 1:17; iv:56; vill; 1.5 v:6-11; v 7:
23[rest.]). Pidray and Arsay appear in the
Ugaritic ‘pantheon’ list (KTU 1.47 etc.), but
Talay does not. She may be subsumed
under the name of some other goddess. In
KTU 1.101:5 she appears to play a more
independent role, grooming (delousing?) her
father, Ba‘al. That the three are daughters of
Ba‘al rather than his wives (ARTU 4, note
18; pace, e.g.. U. Cassuto, The Goddess
Anath (Jerusalem 1971] 113) is clear from
the reference to Pidray as daughter of Ba‘al
in KTU 1.24:26-27.
In Ugaritic tradition dew and rain come
from the god Ba‘al (sce especially KTU 1.19
1:38-46) and the daughters of Ba‘al seem to
represent types of mist or dew. GORDON
(1965:406-407), in rejecting the seasonal
interpretation of the Ba‘al mythology, notes
that dew is a year-round phenomenon. DE
Moor (1971:188), on the other hand, argues
that Arsay, unlike her sisters, is specifically
the summer dew which does not disappear
when Ba‘al disappears to the underworld in
accordance with the seasonal pattern of the
Ba‘al mythology. This is suggested by KTU
1.5 v:10-11. Tallay may have been wor-
shipped at ybrd(m) (ARTU on KTU 1.24:29).
She also appears in the personal name ffá-
la-ia (RS 16.156:8, 17—PRU III, 61).
III. This deity does not appear in any
Biblical source, though fal is frequently
treated as a special gift of God (e.g. Prov 3:
20; Zech 9:12) and is sometimes associated
with other common nouns which may have
mythological overtones. Thus in Gen 27:28
(cf. also 39) we find in Isaac’s blessing on
Jacob: “May God give you the dew of
heaven, and of the oil [= rain] of the earth,
and plenty of grain and winc". Here ‘grain’
is dagan (-*Dagon) and ‘-*wine’ is tirds
both of which might have mythological
overtones, while the parallel phrases fal
has§dmayim and Sémanné há'üreg are also
found in Ugaritic literature (t! 3mm //5mn
ars: KTU 1.3 ii:39-40; iv:43). The associa-
tion of dew with the heavens is found in a
number of Biblical Hebrew texts (e.g. Zech
9:12; Hag 1:10).
In Job 38:28 the denial that rain and dew
have a father might have polemical force in
the context of Ba‘al’s paternity of the dew
and rain. Other texts which may have dew
in some sort of magical or mythological role
include Isa 18:4; 26:19 (both rather obscure
and unconvincing) and Ps 110:3 (perhaps
"like Dew I have begotten you”, though the
text is very difficult; cf. especially OTZEN
1982:349-350). Otherwise dew and rain ap-
pear together frequently (Deut 32:2; 2 Sam
1:21), with fal parallel to mafar, ‘rain’,
rébibim, ‘showers, fine rain’, etc. It is poss-
ible that the feminine personal name Abital
Cábítal: 2 Sam 3:4; 1 Chr 3:3) means ‘my
father is dew’ and there is also the feminine
name fdmiital (2 Kgs 23:31; Jer 52:1),
which is of unclear meaning, but both are
often taken to be Aramaized forms related to
sél ‘shadow’.
IV. Bibliography
A. Caquot, Textes Ougaritiques I. Mythes
et légendes (Paris 1974); F. S. Frick, ABD
5 (1992) 124-125; C. H. Gorpon, Ugaritic
Textbook (AnBib 38; Rome 1965) 406-407;
P. HUMBERT, La rosée tombe en Israël, TAZ
13 (1957) 487-493; O. LonETZ, "Wasser-
und Tauschópfen" als Bezeichnung für
Regenmagie in KTU 1.19 II 1-3A, UF 17
(1986) 95-98; LonETZ. Ugarit und die Bibel
(Darmstadt 1990) 161-166; J. C. DE Moor,
The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth
of Ba'lu (AOAT 16; Neukrichen-Vluyn
1971) 188; B. OTZEN, 20, TWAT 3 (1982)
344-352.
J. F. HEALEY
DIABOLOS ~> DEYIL
DIKE Aixn
I. Diké (originally ‘customary behav-
iour’, later *justice') is the Greek deity of
justice and occurs as a divine name in the
Bible in Acts 28:4 and as a metaphor for a
heavenly being in Wis 1:8-9 and 11:20. The
personification of abstract concepts in the
form of deities occurs in Greek literature as
early as the second half of the eighth cen-
tury BCE. Personifications appear first in
poetry, then move into the visual arts (see
250
DIKE
e.g. Pausanias 5, 18, 2; further HAMDORF
1964:52-53, 110 ct passim), and finally find
their way into the realm of the cult.
Il. The didactic poet Hesiod was the
first to personify Diké (Homer, liad 16:
387-8, is a dubious instance and probably an
interpolation based upon Hesiod's Erga).
Hesiod transforms Diké into a daughter of
>Zeus and Themis (Themis is the per-
sonification of everything that is right and
proper in nature and society) and a sister of
Eunomia and Eirene (the three of them are
the Hórai). Highly respected by the gods of
- Olympus, she immediately reports to Zeus
all the unrighteous deeds of mankind so that
people will have to pay for their crimes.
Whenever they injure her, their lives will
end up in disaster (Theog. 901-3, Op. 213-
285). This image of Diké as the favourite
daughter of Zeus, even as the one who
shares his throne and is his assessor or ad-
viser (parhedros), recurs very frequently in
Greek authors from Hesiod until the end of
antiquity (especially in the great tragedians;
sec the large collection of quotations in
Stobaeus! chapter on Dike in his Eclogae I
3). Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Pindar,
Bakchylides, Solon, Parmenides, Heraclitus,
[Orpheus] Hymn 62, Plato, Aratus, Plutarch,
Aulus Gellius, Athenaeus, Julian, Libanius,
and many others (also Latin writers like
Ovid and Virgil) give testimony to this
(numerous references in HimzEr 1907,
Waser 1905, and HaAMponr 1964). Some
authors identify her with Parthenos, i.c. the
constellation Virgo (sec esp. Aratus, Phae-
nomena 96-136, and Virgil, Georgica 1V).
In the course of the centuries, Dikē,
having originally only the positive charac-
teristics of a goddess who watches over jus-
tice, gradually assumed the more negative
aspects of the Erinyes, goddesses of punish-
ment and revenge, as well (e.g. Sophocles.
Ajax 1390). The original distinction between
Diké and such demonic deities became more
and more blurred as Diké progressively
changed from an accuser or plaintiff into a
mighty and relentless deity who wrathfully
wiclded the weapons of revenge. This en-
tailed that her natural habitat also moved
away gradually from the lofty Olympus to
the netherworld (where the Erinyes had their
residence as well), a process which was
facilitated by the change in the image of
Hades from a place of mere vengeance and
torment to a place of pure administration of
justice. The development of a belicf in
judgement after death among the Greeks
played an important role in this process.
Thus Diké became a goddess of the nether-
world with power over life and death (e.g.
Sophocles, Electra 528, Antigone 450-1).
Pythagoreans even developed an idea of tri-
parite justice: Themis wielded the scepter
of justice in heaven, -*Nomos on carth, and
Dike in the netherworld (lamblichus, De vita
Pyth. 46). So, in the course of time, Diké
ultimately became a goddess of death, a
development in her character which was
never shared by her mother Themis.
The existence of a cult of Diké is not
strongly attested—something which Diké
shares with the Erinyes. Athenacus explicit-
ly states that it is only from a few people
that Diké received sacrifices and worship
(Deipnosophistae 12:546b). Although some
literary sources refer to altars (Aeschylus,
Agam. 383-4, Eum. 539; Demosthenes, Con-
tra Aristog. 35) and temples (Pausanias 2,
20, 5) dedicated to Diké, little unambiguous
archacological evidence for the existence of
such cultic sites has been found (FARNELL
1909:475 n. 227). But, from the Roman
period, statues and altars for Justitia have
been preserved, and Augustus erected a
temple in her honour, probably after Greek
models. In art, Diké is often represented as
bearing a sword or some other weapon.
IH. In the Bible, Diké, as belonging to a
polytheistic system, inevitably plays only a
very limited role (in spite of possible Orien-
tal antecedents in the form of a personified
Righteousness, -*Zedeq; see ROSENBERG
1965 and BAUMGARTEN 1979). The author
of the Wisdom of Solomon mentions a more
or less personified Justice without, however,
implying that she was a deity. When he says
that Justice the accuser will not pass by any-
one who celebrates injustice because a
report of his words will come before the
251
DIONYSUS
Lon» (1:8-9, and cf. 11:20), he only uses a
metaphor, also employed by his two con-
temporary coreligionists and compatriots,
Philo (Conf. 118: God's minister Justice will
punish men for their audacity; Mur. 194: the
name Dinah is by interpretation Justice, the
assessor [parhedros] of God; Jos. 48: even
if no one denounces us, we should have fear
or respect for Justice, the assessor of God,
she who surveys all our doings; cf. Jos. 170;
Decal. 95; Spec. leg. 4:201; Prob. 89) and
Pseudo-Phocylides (77: leave vengeance to
Justice). By this formulation the author of
the Wisdom of Solomon does not want to
deify Justice, although his concept of Wis-
dom as a parhedros of God (9:4) may have
facilitated for him the notion of a female
heavenly power separate from God. (Com-
pare the way in which the author of 4 Macc
speaks about the anger of divine justice [or
Justice?, he always uses the formula hé
theia diké}, 4:21, or about the eternal tor-
ment inflicted by divine justice, 9:9 and
12:12; at the end of the book, at 18:22, he
has divine justice pursue the accursed tyrant;
also Josephus’ use of diké/Diké is heavily
influenced by his classical models: see Bell.
7:34; Ant. 6:305).
In Acts 28:4 we have quite a different
case. Here the pagan inhabitants of Melité
(Malta or Kephallenia?), after the shipwreck
and rescue of Paul and his fellow travellers,
react to Paul's being bitten by a venomous
snake by saying: "No doubt this man is a
murderer. Though he has escaped from the
sea, Diké has not allowed him to live"
(RSV). Here we can clearly perceive the
later Greek concept of Diké as the goddess
who pursues the wrongdoer and takes re-
venge for crimes that have gone undetected
and unpunished by human judges. The
people described by Luke as barbaroi (28:2)
evidently draw from the fact that Paul was
attacked by a deadly poisonous reptile the
conclusion that the goddess of justice has
finally caught up with him. Luke again turns
out to be well informed about pagan con-
cepts and beliefs of his time (cf. Acts 14:8-
13; 17:22-23; 19:23-41; etc.).
IV. Bibliography
J. M. BAUMGARTEN, The Heavenly Tribunal
and the Personification of Sedeq in Jewish
Apocalyptic, ANRW II 19,1 (Berlin-New
York 1979) 219-239; W. BURKERT, Greek
Religion (Cambridge, Mass. 1985) 184-186,
249; V. EHRENBERG, Die Rechtsidee im
frühen Griechentum (Leipzig 1921) 54-102;
L. R. FARNELL, The Cults of the Greek
States 5 (Oxford 1909) 443-447, 475; H.
VON GEISAU, Dike, KP 2 (1975) 24-26; W.
K. C. GUTHRIE, The Greeks and Their Gods
(London 1950) 123-127; *F. W. HAMDORF,
Griechische Kultpersonifikationen der vor-
hellenistischen Zeit (Mainz 1964) 51-53,
110; *R. HinzEL, Themis, Dike und Ver-
wandtes (Leipzig 1907) esp. 138-158; K.
LATTE, Römische Religionsgeschichte (Min-
chen 1960) 300; M. P. NiLSSON, Geschichte
der griechischen Religion, 2 vols. (München
1955-1961) s.v.; L. PETERSEN, Zur Ge-
schichte der Personifikation in griechischer
Dichtung und bildender Kunst (diss. Würz-
burg 1939); R. A. ROSENBERG, The God
Sedeq, HUCA 36 (1965) 161-177; G.
QuEsLL & G. SCHRENK, TWAT 2 (1935)
180-183: C. Spica, Notes de lexicographie
néotestamentaire. Supplément (OBO 22,3;
Fribourg 1982) 120-122; *O. Waser, Dike,
PW 5 (1905) 574-578.
P. W. vaN DER Horst
DIONYSUS Atdvucog
I. Dionysos, the Greek god of ecstasy,
bears a name of uncertain etymology, al-
though resembling the usual Greck types of
anthroponyms (e.g. Dio-doros, “gift from
Zeus”). Accordingly, ancient authors agree
to see the name of Zeus (gen. A165) in the
first half; some understood -vucog as a
foreign word for son ("Son of Zeus"), others
derived it from the mythical place of his
upbringing, Nysa (“Zeus from Nysa”).
These etymologies are linguistically value-
less, but reflect the god’s status with regard
to Zeus, whom mythology makes his father.
At the same time, Greek myth regularly
tells of Dionysos’ arrival from abroad, espe-
cially from those foreign places, where Nysa
was located (Stephanus Byz. gives a list of
ten places, from Asia Minor to Ethiopia and
India). By reading these myths historically,
252
DIONYSUS
insisting on Dionysos’ non-Gk characteris-
tics, and pointing out his absence from
Homer, moder historians of religion, from
N. Fréret and E. Rohde to M. P. Nilsson
theorized that Dyonysos was a god of
foreign origin and had arrived from Thrace
or Phrygia (or from both) during the Archaic
age (sce McGinty 1978); others protested,
notably MEuL: (1975), Orro (1933) and
KERÉNvi (1976). The dispute has been
settled by the decipherment of the Mycenac-
an (so called Linear B) documents: like
other later Olympians, Dionvsos is present
in the pantheon of Mycenaean Greece, and a
recent text from Mycenaean Chania in Crete
is witness to a cult together with Zeus
(HALLAGER 1992).
Dionysos was equated with several gods
of surrounding civilizations—with the Thrac-
ian Sabazios, the Etruscan Fufluns, the
Roman Liber (for both see -*Bacchus), but
also with the Egyptian Osiris (Herodotus,
72, 42) and the Jewish -*Yahweh (see
below II).
In the Bible, Dionysos is mentioned in 2
Macc 6:7; 14:33 and 3 Macc 2:29 in the
context of anti-Jewish undertakings of the
kings Antiochos IV, Demetrios l and
Ptolemy IV.
Il. Dominant among the traits of Dio-
nysos is his anti-structural character. In cult,
he is associated with rituals and festivals of
reversal; myths tell of his foreign origin and
surround him with his own crowd of menads
and satyrs, ecstatic women and ithyphallic.
sexually aroused and frequently drunk ani-
mal-like males, free from the bonds of ordi-
nary behaviour of the genders in Greek
society; already in late Archaic times, he
had become the divinity of mystery cults
who in turn break away from the polis order
(BURKERT 1987).
Dionysiac festivals usually take place in
winter or early spring: they reenact the
periodical disruption of order through the
intrusion of the god and his forces. The two
main types are the nearly Panhellenic Agrio-
nia and the Athenian and Ionian Anthesteria.
Both are widespread on both sides of the
Aegean which points to their pre-migration,
i.c. Bronze Age origin.
The Agrionia festival lent its name to
several local month names. It was celebrated
in a wide variety of local rituals (BURKERT
1972:189-200). It seems common to split
society into its two gender halves which
sometimes clash in a potentially violent
way. In Boeotian Orchomenos, Plutarch
(Quaest. Graec. 38) tells of two groups,
black-clad men and white-clad women; the
priest of Dionysos chased the women with a
sword and had originally had the freedom to
kill them. In other places, the disruption of
elementary social life was enacted more
peacefully: in Chaeroncia, the women went
to seek the baby Dionysos, dined together,
and gave themselves to ritual joking (Plut-
arch, Quaest. symp. 717 A). Aetiological
myths explain the ritual by stories of how
the women resisted Dionysos on his first
arrival and were struck with madness from
the god; they ran wild, killed their children,
and left town for the wilderness (MEULI
1975:1018-1021).
An even more violent expression of Dio-
nysiac otherness lies behind rituals whose
origins go back to human sacrifice. They
mostly belong to a closely circumscribed
area of North Eastern Aegaeis and to a Dio-
nysos, whose epithets are Oradios ("Raw,
ie. Wild onc", on the island of Chios),
Oméstés ("Raw-Eater', on neighbouring
Lesbos) or Anthroporrhaistes ("Ripper of
Humans", on the island of Tenedos). Prc-
sumably, they preserve older forms of an
Agrionia festival (GRAF 1985:74-80).
The Anthesteria are well known only
from Athens (DEUBNER 1932:93-123;
HAMILTON 1992); the Ionian cults are
important as pointing to a Bronze Age ori-
gin of the festival. The Athenian festival,
celebrated in the month Anthesterion
(February-March), consisted of three days,
Pithoigia (“Opening of the Barrel”), Choes
(“Jugs”), and Chytroi (“Pots”). The main
event of the first day was the opening of the
barrels with the new wine; it was ritually
done in the Limnaion, a sanctuary of the
god “In the Swamps”. Wine is not harmless;
Dionysos’ first arrival with the wine, accord-
ing to an Attic myth, brought death to his
host, Ikarios, and his daughter Mestra, and
253
DIONYSUS
only after men had learned how to mix it
with water, did it lose some of its dangers
(FLOCKIGER-GUGGENHEIM 1984). The se-
cond day saw the arrival of the god in his
ship cart, followed by the satyrs; the para-
dox of a ship on land, attested also for the
Anthesteria of lonia, depicts the anomaly of
Dionysos’ festival; the implication is that
the god arrived from beyond the sea, from
the outer margins of the world. The main
event of the day was a drinking competition
among the Athenian men which inverted
ordinary symposiastic rules: every man
drank in isolation, in utter silence, and not
from a common mixing bowl but from his
own jug (which gave the day its designa-
tion). A sacred marriage between the god
and the “Queen”, the wife of the main
sacred official, archōn basileus, on the even-
ing of the day led back to community and
felicity. On the third day, pots (chutroi) with
a primeval meal were offered to Hermes as
a commemoration of the Flood, and the
Kares (barbarian Carians, said also to be
former inhabitants of Attica) or Keres (souls
of the dead, according to some, but see
BREMMER 1983:113-118), those uncanny
powers whose presence had marked the fes-
tival, were chased away; characteristically,
the arrival of Dionysos went together not
only with the arrival of the new wine, but
also of uncanny powers.
The Athenian Anthesteria were part of a
wider cycle of Dionysiac festivals which
extended from the Rural Dionysia in
Posideon (December-January) via Lenaia (in
Gamelion, January-February) and Anthes-
teria to the City Dionysia in Elaphebolion
(March-April). Every festival projected its
own image of Dionysiac epiphany. The
Rural Dionysia were characterized by male
sexuality; its main rite being a phallic pro-
cession. Aristophanes reenacts the rite in his
Acharnenses; the choral song to Phales, the
deified phallos (263-279), indicates that the
phallic ritual was associated with male sex-
ual pleasure and violence, not with fertility.
The Lenaia (Dionysia on the Lenaion) are
but imperfectly known; they featured Dio-
nysiac dancing, the Lenaion being a dancing
floor on the Agora (SHAPIRO 1989:85-87).
The City Dionysia, the most recent festival,
again displayed a phallic procession; but
their main event, from the early Sth century
onward, was the staging of tragedies on the
three successive days of the festival, as
comedies were staged at the Lenaia. Already
ancient authors noted the absence of Dio-
nysian subjects in tragedy (BiERL 1991).
The relationship between god and tragedy
lies on another level. On the one hand, Dio-
nysiac ritual with its masks, dancing and
singing had formed a nucleus from which
dramatic representations grew; on the other
hand, the atmosphere of Dionysian othemess
and ambiguity provided the background for
the sort of self-reflexion about the polis
Athens, its values and its traditions which is
fundamental to Athenian drama. By the Hel-
lenistic age, dramatic performances had
emancipated from Athens and from its citi-
zen choirs, but not from Dionysos; the asso-
ciation of Dionysian fechnitai, a "trade
union" of the performers of drama which
organized itself around the cult of Dionysos,
had become important: one of their foremost
centres was the sanctuary of Dionysos in
Teos (PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE 1968:279-321).
Hellenistic Dionysia (and, to a certain
degree, those of the Imperial epoch) thus
were characterized by the splendour of the-
atrical performances: a really Greek town
has to have a theatre, and very often the
Dionysia are used also for the display of
civic honours. Besides the theatre, Dionys-
iac processions were another occasion for
display; their fantastic and picturesque el-
ements (ship cart, satyrs and menads, phal-
loi) caught the imagination of Hellenistic
rulers. We still have the description of such
a procession in Alexandria under Ptolemy II,
written by Kallixeinos of Rhodes (FGH 627
F I).
The god’s most conspicuous worshippers
are the ecstatic women, the maenads (con-
nected with the Gk mania, “madness”, and
mainesthai, “to be mad") (HENRICHS 1978).
As the satyrs are a mythical image of the
male human worshipers of Dionysos, the
maenads are an image of the ecstatic
254
DIONYSUS
women; but while mythical satyrs are clear-
ly differentiated from real men by their
pointed animal cars and horse tails
(HEDREEN 1992), there exists no compar-
able differentiation between mythical and
historical maenads. The prominence of
women in Dionysos' cult is another sign of
his otherness, as is ecstasy; both enact the
radical disruption of societal borders—for
which Euripides’ Bacchai are the most
powerful literary expression; besides this
symbolic value, the rituals of purely femi-
nine groups, leaving their usual confinement
in house and town, may have a socio-psy-
chological function as well (JEANMAIRE
1951; KRAEMER 1979). Dionysos’ connec-
tion with women does not necessarily in-
clude ecstasy; in a rite from Elis, a group of
women calls the god from the sca in the
shape of a bull (Plutarch, Quaest. graec.
36), and the Athenian sacred marriage is the
affair of another ritual group of women
(AvAGIANOU 1991:177-197). On the other
hand, male ecstatic followers of Dionysos
are attested as early as the beginning of the
5th cent BCE (Herodotus 2,79), and a promi-
nent epiclesis of Dionysos, Bakchos, also
designates his male ecstatic follower, the
male equivalent of a Bakché or maenad.
Maenads, however, are known already to the
poet of the Fiad (who is otherwise reticent
as regards Dionysos, for poetological, not
historical reasons); from the late 6th cent.
onwards, they are attested in different Greek
cities as regular part of the city’s cultic ac-
tivities (see e.g. the epigram for a Milesian
priestess (HENRICHS 1969) or the inscription
from Magnesia-on-the-Meander recording
the institution of three local thiasoi after a
miracle had occurred, (Inschriften von Mag-
nesia no. 215). Maenadic ritual comprises
the leaving of the town in order to go into
forest or mountain (oreibasia—meaning real
physical exertion e.g. when the Athenian
maenads walked to and climbed Mt.
Kithairon near Delphi), where the women
(or, at least in later times, mixed private
thiasoi as well) danced and performed
sacrifices; the myths talk also about the kil-
ling of live animals and of cating their raw
flesh (ómophagia); there are no indications
as to the corresponding ritual behaviour.
The ritual of private thiasoi, which had
grown very numerous by Hellenistic times,
shades into Bacchic mystery cults. Ecstatic
groups which perform openly in the streets
but which are confined to initiated members
are first attested in Olbia at the Northern
shore of the Black Sea at the beginning of
the Sth cent. BCE (Herodotus 4,72); later in
the century, in the same town, enigmatic
inscriptions connect Dionysos with Orpheus
or Orphica (West 1982), and the same
Herodotus equates eschatological believes of
Bacchic and Orphic mystery cults with
Pythagorean and Egyptian ritual (2,81). At
the turn of the fifth to the fourth century,
there are the first of a series of hexametrical
texts on gold leaves; they all come from
graves and hold out eschatological promises
to the buried; their Bacchic context has
become clear from more recent finds (GRAF
1993). Their distribution in time and space
demonstrate the importance of Dionysiac
mystery cults: the dates range from late 5th
cent. BCE to the imperial Age, with a peak in
the 4th and 3d cent. BCE; they were found
especially in the margins of the Greek
world, Northern Greece (where two late 4th
cent. graves of Derveni contained a papyrus
book with verses of Orpheus and a crater
with Dionysiac scenes), Crete and Southern
Italy; in Italian Cumae, an inscription from
the mid-fifth century BCE delimits a grave-
yard for a closed group of bakchoi (TURCAN
1986). From Southern Italy, Dionysiac mys-
teries entered Rome at the outset of the 2nd
cent. BCE (Bottini 1992).
It would be wrong to expect a closed sys-
tem of beliefs in all these mystery groups:
the popularity of Dionysiac associations in
the Hellenistic and Imperial epoch was
based not on theology but on the fact that
they offered security and religious identity
in an open and rapidly changing society. But
even in the more open groups, some ves-
tiges of the disruptive character of the god
could be preserved; the cult place often was
an (artificial) grotto (LAVAGNE 1976), fe-
male participants donned the costume of the
255
DIONYSUS
menads (with its association of wilderness),
male ones could be called boukoloi, shep-
herds (with similar associations); use of the
drug alcohol and heightened sexual tensions
must have been present. When introduced
into Rome, these features were enough to
trigger, in 186 BCE, the Bacchanalia scandal
which led to severe restrictions in the frce-
dom of cult (-*Bacchus); in Ptolemaic
Egypt, Ptolemy IV controlled the sacred
books of the Bacchic mysteries which must
have contained both myths and ritual regula-
tions (SB 7266). Such sacred books existed
more widely, and they provided a very loose
doctrinal coherence at least among the mys-
tery groups.
This also explains why, despite wide
variations, some features were very wide-
spread. Many mystery groups, at least those
of the gold leaves, believed in a blessed
existence after death as a consequence of the
initiation; to some, this went together with
the belief in an original divine nature of the
soul (or the entire person); metempsychosis,
however, belongs only to a smaller group.
An impressive series of iconographical
documents from late Hellenistic-early Im-
perial times (Villa Farnese in Rome, Villa
dei Misteri in Pompeii, MATZ 1963) gives
insight into ideology and initiation rituals.
Prominent among the rituals and often
represented is the confrontation with male
sexuality, ritualized as an encounter with the
phallos (BURKERT 1987:95-96); the Pom-
peian fresco also confirms the key role of
sacred books well attested in Greek Dionys-
iac (Orphic) ritual and features a unique
flagellation scene which might be read lit-
erally or symbolically.
These features of his cult reflect them-
selves not only in local aetiological myths,
but also in the greater Panhellenic ones.
Already Hesiod tells of Dionysos’ birth
from the union of Zeus and the mortal prin-
cess Semele (Theog. 942); by the Sth cent.
BCE, the rest of this myth is well attested—
how Semele died when seeing Zeus as light-
ning, how the god saved the yet unborn and
carried it in his thigh till its birth; a first
birth from a dead woman, a second one
from a man underscore Dionysos’ position
between categories, as does the deification
of someone bom from a mortal woman,
Late archaic and classical ages were more
interested in his ecstatic qualities as shown
by the myth of how he fetched back He-
phaestos to Olympus, a myth very often
depicted on Attic vases. When the Greek
world opened to the East. the arrival of Dio-
nysos from the fabulous margins of the
world became prominent; like a prefigura-
tion of Alexander, Dionysos conquered the
East with his forces and brought the wine
before, finally, coming back to Greece and
introducing there his cult and his gifts.
HI. In the Bible, Dionysos plays no
direct role, besides the occurrence of the
very common theophoric names Dionysius
(Areopagita) in Acts 17:34 and Bakchides in
| Macc 7:8-19 and three references to the
god in 2 and 3 Macc, two in relation to
Jerusalem, one to the Jews of Egypt. Ac-
cording to 2 Macc 6, in 168 BcE Antiochos
IV Epiphanes pressed the Hellenization of
Jerusalem by dedicating the Temple to Zeus
(Olympios), replacing sabbath by the month-
ly birthday of the king and compelling the
Jews to celebrate the Dionysia with a pro-
cession of ivy (2 Macc 6:7). When, after his
victory over Antiochos’ son Antiochos V,
Demetrios I Soter wished the extradition of
Judas Maccabee, his governor threatened to
destroy the Temple and to build a sanctuary
of Dionysos in its place (2 Macc 14:33). As
to the Egyptian Jews, Ptolemy IV threatened
to stigmatise them with the brandmark of
“the ivy-leaf sign of Dionysos” (3 Macc
2:29).
In all cases, Dionysos could simply repre-
sent one of most popular Greek gods whose
public cult offered Hellenistic kings an
occasion for the display of luxury, and
Ptolemy IV had anyway a peculiar interest
in Dionysos. But at least 2 Macc 14:33 and
3 Macc 2:29 point to a closer connection
between Dionysos and Yahweh. Greek and
Roman authors currently identified the two;
the arguments are collected in Plutarch
(Quaest. conv. 4,6) and Tacitus (Hist. 5,5)
(FAUTH & HEUBNER 1982:87-90). Both base
256
DIONYSUS
the identification on details of Jewish cult;
Plutarch insists on the Dionysiac character
of the Feast of Tabernacles and of Hannukah,
and on a series of Dionysiac features in the
Temple cult, but also on the association of
sabbath with Sabazios and sabos, which in
tum had been identified with the ecstatic
Dionysos and his followers; Claudius Iolaus
(FGH 788 F 4) then derived the /oudaioi
from Oudaios, a follower of Dionysos. At
least in these writers, it seems a learned way
to classify Jewish religion according to the
rules of interpretatio Graeca. But the identi-
fication contains polemical potentialities,
given the contrast between Dionysiac li-
cence and Jewish morality which was
exploited by Tacitus and which could have
been used already by the Hellenistic kings.
IV. Under the influence both of neo-
platonic spiritualisation of Orphic writings
and perhaps of Christian soteriology, in later
antiquity Dionysos could develop into a
saviour figure whose reign, following the
one of Zeus (Orpheus, frg.101 KERN, from
Proclus, but already Orph. frg. 14, Plato,
Phlb.66 C), would bring back a new age of
happiness. The best expression of these
hopes are images like the mosaics from a
villa in Nea Paphos on Cyprus from the first
half of the 4th cent. CE (DASZEWSKI 1985);
but the importance of the god is shown also
in the huge poem Dionysiaka by the Chris-
tian Nonnos of Panopolis, written in the Sth
cent. CE (for the relationship between
Nonnos’ Christian faith and the poem on a
pagan subject see WILLERS 1992).
V. Bibliography
A. AVAGIANOU, Sacred Marriage in the
Rituals of Greek Religion (Bern 1991); J. N.
BREMMER, The Early Greek Concept of the
Soul (Princeton 1983); A. F. H. BIERL, Dio-
nysos und die griechische Tragódie (Clas-
sica Monacensia 1]; Tübingen 1991); A.
Bottini, Archeologia della salvezza.
L'escatologia greca nelle testimonianze
archeologiche (Milan 1992); W. BURKERT,
Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgrie-
chischer Opferriten und Mythen (RGVV 32;
Berlin and New York 1972); BURKERT,
Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Mass.
1987); W. A. DASZEWSKI, Dionysos der
Erlóser (Mainz 1985); L. DEUBNER, Ar-
tische Feste (Berlin 1932); W. FAUTH & H.
HEUBNER, P. Cornelius Tacitus. Die Histo-
rien. Kommentar, vol. 5 (Heidelberg 1982);
D. FLÜCKIGER-GUGGENHEIM, Göttliche
Gäste. Die Einkehr von Göttern und Heroen
in der griechischen Mythologie (Bern 1984);
F. Gnar, Nordionische Kulte. Religions-
geschichtliche und epigraphische Unter-
suchungen zu den Kulten von Chios,
Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia (Rome
1985); Graf, Dionysian and Orphic Escha-
tology. New Texts and Old Questions,
Masks of Dionysos (eds. T. Carpenter & C.
A. Faraone; Ithaca N.Y. 1993) 239-258; E.
HALLAGER et al., New Linear B Tablets
from Khania, Kadmos 31 (1992) 61-87; R.
HAMILTON, Choes and Anthesteria. Athenian
Iconography and Ritual (Ann Arbor 1992);
G. M. HEDREEN, Silens in Attic Black-
Figure Vase-Painting. Myth and Perform-
ance (Ann Arbor 1992); A. HENRICHS, Die
Minaden von Milet, ZPE 4 (1969) 223-341;
A. HENRICHS, Greck Menadism from Olym-
pias to Messalina, HSCP 82 (Cambridge
Mass. 1978) 121-160; H. JEANMAIRE, Dio-
nysos. Histoire du culte de Bacchus (Paris
1951); C. KERÉNvI, Dionysos. Archetypal
Image of Indestructible Life (Bollingen
series LXV: 2, Princeton 1976); R. S.
KRAEMER, Ecstasy and Possession. The
Attraction of Women to the Cult of Dio-
nysos, HTR 72 (1979) 55-80; H. LAVAGNE,
Operosa antra. Recherches sur la grotte a
Rome de Sylla à Hadrien (Rome/Paris
1976); P. McGINTY, Interpretation and Dio-
nysos. Method in the Study of a God (Den
Haag 1978); F. Matz, Atovuotaxn Teher.
Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Dio-
nysoskult in hellenistischer und römischer
Zeit (Abh. Mainz 1963:15, Wiesbaden
1963); K. MEULI, Gesammelte Schriften (ed.
T. Gelzer; Basel 1975); M. P. NILSSON, The
Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and
Roman Age (Lund 1957); W. F. Orro, Dio-
nysos. Mythos und Kultus (Frankfurt 1933);
A. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, The Dramatic Fes-
tivals of Athens, 2nd edition (Oxford 1968):
E. ROHDE, Psyche. Seelencuit und Unsterb-
DIOSKOUROI
lichkeitsglaube der Griechen, 2nd ed. (Frei-
burg i.B/Leipzig/Tiibingen 1898); H. A.
SHAPIRO, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in
Athens (Mainz 1989); R. Turcan, Bacchoi
ou bacchants? De la dissidence des vivants à
la ségrégation des morts, L'association dio-
nysiaque dans les sociétés anciennes (ed. O.
De Cazanove; Rome 1986) 227-246; M. L.
WEST, The Orphics of Olbia, ZPE 45 (1982)
17-29; D. WiLLERS, Dionysos und Christus -
ein archüologisches Zeugnis zur 'Konfes-
sionsangehürigkcit des Nonnos, MusHelv
49 (1992) 141-151.
F. GRAF
DIOSKOUROI A:doxovpor
I. The Dioskouroi, twin heroes and
brothers of Helen, occur as the mascot or
ensign of the ship in which Paul and his fel-
low-travellers reach Syracuse after their
shipwreck on Malta (Acts 28:11). They pre-
sumably also lend their name to the month
Dioskoros at 2 Macc 11:21.
IL. ‘Dios-kouroi’ (‘youths of Zeus’) in
mythology is the title of the Tyndarids (sons
of Tyndareus) at Sparta, namely Kastor and
Polydeukes (in Latin, via Etruscan, Castor
and Pollux). The Greeks inherited these
horsemen twins from Indo-European times,
as congeners in Sanskrit (the Asvins) and
Latvian show (Warp 1968: ch. ii) In
mythology they rescue their sister Helen
(from Theseus or from a Spartan called
Enarsphoros) who in the Indo-European
myth (cf. Menelaos) had surely been thcir
wife too. Wife-snatching in Greek mythol-
ogy is transferred to their ‘Rape of the
Leukippides’, the daughters of Leukippos,
—Phoebe and Hilaeira—themselves wor-
shipped in Sparta with (nubile?) maidens as
priestesses (Pausanias 3, 16, 1). The end
comes when the mortal twin Kastor is killed
as they rustle cattle from the two sons of
Aphareus, Idas and keen-sighted Lynkeus;
but Polydeukes strikes a deal and they live
alternate days (Apollodoros 3, 11,2), whether
in rotation or together.
In Greece, they are associated with Sparta
(and its double kingship), where they re-
ceive some cult (Wine 1893:315), and with
warriors, particularly lending their assistance
in battle; such assistance, in a cavalry battle
of 499 sce, led to their adoption in Rome
too, clearly in the wake of considerable
popularity in the Greek towns of Italy (Livy
2, 20, 12 and e.g. BURKERT 1985:213). But
the Dioskouroi did not just rescue cavalry or
soldiers: they also specialised in the rescue
of sailors in distress, appearing as St Elmo’s
fire—electricity discharged from the mast-
head, hence their appearance as the ensign
of Paul's ship.
Such rescue took on a_ metaphorical,
metaphysical dimension, as they were initi-
ated at the Mysteries at Eleusis (a model to
humanity seeking a pagan solution to the
problem of death) and were immortalised as
stars. They had, after all, overcome their
own deaths and symbolised in perpetuity the
contrast between mortality and immortality:
"ils passent tour à tour des ténèbres subter-
restres à la gloire de l'empyrée. à laquelle
ne cessent plus de participer, avec eux, les
deux filles de Leucippe qu'ils ont épousées:
Phoibe, brillante comme le soleil, ct Hilacira,
dont le nom garde, en grec, la caresse d'un
rayon de lune" (CaRCOPINO 1927:111). This
resonance may be a factor in the author of
Acts choosing to mention the ensign (it was
not just the name of the ship. as the Revised
English Bible might lead one to believe). It
also explains the depiction of the Dioskouroi
on the main vault of the mystic *Pythagor-
ean' basilica at the Porta Maggiore in Rome
(ca. 50 CE), and on sarcophagi (NILSSON
1974: II 495)—where Carcopino (1927:
111) and CuMOonrt (1942) thought of the two
hemispheres, of subterranean darkness and
of life, a Dioscuric symbolism going back, it
seems, to the Pythagoreans and a common-
place in later mysticism (e.g. Sextus Emp.,
Adv. Math. 9:37, Cumont 1942:68-69).
Their abduction of the Leukippides too
could represent the raising of the human
soul to the heavens (CUMONT 1942:99-103).
The conceptual space of the Dioskouroi
was enhanced by their progressive associa-
tion with other plural and obscure gods—the
Anak(t)es (‘Lords’), the Great Gods, the
258
DIVINE BEINGS — DOD
Kabeiroi (maybe Phoenician in origin),
Kouretes and Korybantes (Nitsson 1974: I
406-7; BURKERT 1985:212).
II. The two young men who appear to
Heliodoros in the Temple at 2 Macc 3:26
were interpreted by Harris (1906:156-157)
as 'Dioscuric', but the term so used has
scant cash value (cf. idem 1906: 34: "we
cannot so easily affirm —Cain and -*Abel to
be Dioscuri, though there are some things
that look that way").
IV. Bibliography
E. Berne, Dioskuren, PW 5 (1905) 1087-
1123; W. BURKERT, Greek Religion,
Archaic and Classical, ET (Oxford 1985)
212-213; J. Carcopino, La basilique pytha-
goricienne de la porte majeure (Paris 1927,
repr. 1943); F. CUMONT, Recherches sur le
symbolisme funéraire des romains (Paris
1942) ch. 1 [though N.B. in general the cau-
tion expressed by R. Turcan, Les sarco-
phages romains et le probléme du symbo-
lisme funéraire, ANRW II 16, 2 (1978)
1700-35]; J. R. Harris, The Cult of the
Heavenly Twins (Cambridge 1906); G.
Kocn & H. SicHTERMANN, Rómische Sar-
kophage (München 1982) 144; M. P. NiLs-
SON, Geschichte der griechischen Religion,
2 vols. (3rd ed., München 1974) i, 406-11.
ii, 495; D. J. WARD, The Divine Twins: an
Indo-European myth in Germanic tradition
(Berkeley & Los Angeles 1968); M. L.
West, Immortal Helen (London 1975) 8-9;
S. WipE, Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig 1893)
304-325: N. Wyatr, Myths of Power: A
Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugari-
tic and Biblical Traditions (UBL 13; Mün-
ster 1996) 219-356.
K. DOWDEN
DIVINE BEINGS > SONS OF (THE)
GOD(S)
DOD ™
I. In the Hebrew Bible the word dwd
means ‘Beloved’, ‘Love’, ‘Uncle’ (father’s
brother). The etymology of the word is pro-
blematic (SANMARTIN-Ascaso 1977:153;
HALAT 206). The connection to the name
David has become rickety (STAMM 1960:
166-169). It has been assumed that Dod
serves in the Hebrew Bible as an epithet for
—Yahweh (e.g. VAN ZuL 1960:190).
II. In Akkadian one finds the word
dddu(m), ‘Beloved’, ‘Darling’, used of fam-
ily members, kings, and deities (CAD D
149). A distinction should be made between
the assumed Mesopotamian deities Dada,
Dadu, Dadudu, on the one hand, and the
kinship term *ddd (paternal uncle) used as a
theophoric element in personal names
(HurFMON 1965:181-182; Gers 1980:
17.574). The names of the former group can
probably all be related to the god Adad or
Hadad (cf. EBELING 1938). The use of
Dadu as theophoric element in anthrop-
onyms, on the other hand, is a case in point
of the deification of dead kin, also evi-
denced by the use of -*Father and ~ Brother
as theophoric elements.
Deities by the names of Dad and Dadat,
reconstructed from onomastic evidence, are
known from pre-classical North Arabic
inscriptions from around the middle of the
last millennium BCE (HórNER WbMyth 1/1
432; RAAM 369.371). The element dd also
appears in epigraphic Aramaic (HERR
1978:16 no. 13), and Palmyrene onomastics
(STARK 1971:14.83). In Ugaritic we do not
find dd as an element in theophoric names
(GRONDAHL 1967:122). However, divine
appellatives constructed with forms from the
root YDD are known, e.g. :nddb‘l, ‘Beloved
of Baal’ (GRONDAHL 1967:143).
In the discussion of dwd in the Hebrew
Bible some weight has been put on the
expression ’r! dwdh occurring in the
Mesha-inscription (KA/ 181:12). It has been
assumed that the word must have something
to do with a deity (KAZ IL p. 175); it has
even been speculated that the word served
as an epithet for Yahweh (Van ZuL 1960:
190). It is important to be aware of the fact
that this understanding is based purely on
guesswork, and it has been claimed recently
that “after one hundred years of study di-
rected at the M1 [= Mesha Inscription], it is
safe to say that an exact understanding of
these words is still a mystery” (JACKSON
259
DOD
1989:112). Since several words in the con-
text clearly have not been properly under-
stood, it seems advisable to conclude that
dwdh in the Mesha-inscription is best left
untranslated.
On the whole, the ancient Near Eastern
material apparently raises more problems
than it solves. When should dd in these texts
be rendered with ‘Beloved’ and when with
(paternal) ‘Uncle’? What is the semantic
(and etymological?) relationship between
names constructed with wdd/ydd and those
constructed with dd/dwd? We note that in
addition to the dd-names in ancient Arabic
mentioned above, pre-Islamic central Arabia
also knew a major deity by the name of
Wadd (‘Love’). In ancient South Arabian
religion Wadd was the official name for the
popular moon god (Hörner WbMyth 1/1
476-477, 549-550). Altogether, the ambi-
guity of the extra-biblical evidence compli-
cates its usefulness in relation to Hebrew
dwd (SANMARTIN-ASCASO 1977:154-156).
E. A. Knaur, A. DE Pury & T. ROMER
suggested to interpret bytdwd in line 9 of the
fragmentary Aramaic inscription from Tel
Dan as *bayt Dód. ‘temple of Déd’ (*Bayt-
Dawid ou *Bayt Déd? Une relecture de la
nouvelle inscription de Tel Dan, BN 72
[1994] 60-69; pace the editors of the
inscription: A. BIRAN & J. NAvEH, /EJ 43
[1993] 95-96) suggesting that Dod was
worshipped by the Aramaic inhabitants of
Dan in the ninth century BCE, whereas F. H.
Cryer (On the recently discovered "House
of David” inscription, SJOT 8 [1994] 3-19)
believes that we here find a reference to a
toponym or to the eponymous ancestor of
the lineage that ruled Judah. Future dis-
cussions on a possible deity Dod will have
to take also this new evidence, if it is, into
consideration (BARSTADT & BECKING 1995).
Ill. Given all the uncertainty concerning
the very existence of a deity dd/dwd in the
cultures surrounding ancient Israel, it is
understandable that the former view that a
deity dwd was also worshipped in ancient
Israel has been dwindling among scholars
over recent years. Today, the assumption
that a deity dwd is explicitly referred to in
the Bible, a view going back to the last cen-
tury, and based on the belief that a deity
dwd was widespread in the Semitic world,
in particular in Mesopotamia (BJÓRNDALEN
1986:258-259; AHLSTRÓM 1959:164-165),
has been replaced by a new consensus
where it is claimed that dwd is not a divine
name at all, hardly in the biblical Umwelt
and most certainly not in the Bible itself.
Rather, what we are dealing with in the
Hebrew Bible are occurrences of the word
dwd being used as a divine epithet for
Yahweh (SANMARTIN-ASCASO 1977; BJÓRN-
DALEN 1986; OLYAN 1991).
The most important biblical texts adduced
to show that Yahweh might be referred to as
dód are Isa 5, Am 8:14, Song of Songs, as
well as biblical names. The occurrence of
dwd in Song of Songs is unproblematic.
Whereas it was earlier assumed by some
scholars (AHLSTROM 1959:163-173) that the
references to dwd in Song of Songs were to
a vegetation and fertility god, consensus
today quite correctly regards these texts as
erotic poetry. The word dwd is used in this
text to refer to the darling lover par excel-
lence. This usage is close to Ugaritic dd,
and no mythology should be read into this
text. The term does not refer to Yahweh or
any other god.
Other references to dwd as a divine epi-
thet for YHWH are hardly more convincing.
Thus, the well-known emendation from drk
to ddk in Am 8:14 was created in a time
with a different mentality, and today there is
as little need to change the text to find a
deity Dod (‘your Dod’) in Am 8:14 (MuL-
ZER 1996). Today we should not only be
aware of the difficulties with a deity Dod,
but also of the fact that the drk of Am 8:14
may be explained otherwise (-*Way). The
reference to Isa 5 in support of the claim
that dwd may sometimes be used an an epit-
het of Yahweh is equally mistaken. The use
of dwd in this piece of poetry is strictly
metaphorical and not epithetical. The textual
basis for a deity or a divine epithet dwd in
ancient Israel is very meagre indeed. It
seems to have been based more on the
widespread belief in an ancient Near Eastern
260
DOD
deity dwd, rather than on a careful study of
the Hebrew texts themselves.
The only valid evidence for the claim that
dwd may be used as an epithet for Yahweh
in ancient Israel] appears to be onomastic.
Yet names in the Bible which may be com-
posed with dwd as one of the elements
(SANMARTIN-ASCASO 1977:160) are prob-
lematic. In 2 Chr 20:37 there appears the
name ddwhw. In commentaries the reading
dwdyhw has become common (mostly
following Notu /PN 240). That this reading
is not so simple may be seen from the com-
plex text history of this name, where such
different forms as dwdwyhw, dwdwhw,
dwdyhw, ddwhw, dwdhw, ddyhw, drwhw,
dwryhw, dwydwhw are witnessed (NORIN
1986:182 n. 61). We are hardly able to say any-
thing about the meaning of this name at all.
A seal in the Israel museum, of unknown
provenance, has been thought to contain the
name ddyhw (Davies 1991:330). Also this
reading is uncertain and most probably the
name should be read ‘dyhw, i.e. the popular
personal name Adayahu found in the Bible
and also on a seal from Beth-Shemesh and
on an Arad ostracon (HESTRIN & DAYAGI-
MENDELS 1979 no. 56).
Of interest, also, is the epigraphic
Hebrew name ddymi, which actually goes
against a divine understanding of the el-
ement dd. But this name, too, may be read
differently and can hardly be used decisively
in any way (LAYTON 1990:178).
Yet even if dwd should appear in theo-
phoric names which might be read as
‘Friend/Beloved of Yahweh’, or ‘Yahweh is
a friend’, or anything similar, this does not
imply that the word necessarily must func-
tion as a divine epithet. It is methodological-
ly unsound to classify all word elements
appearing in ‘theophoric’ names as epithets
of deities. Since names are constructed as
sentences, different ‘ordinary’ words may be
used in theophoric names. Not all predicates
are automatically ‘epithets’.
From the above we may conclude that
even if the occurrence of dwd/dd in names
appears to have been widespread in the
ancient Near East, there is little evidence to
support the existence of a deity Dod. Also,
there is no evidence in the Hebrew Bible
supporting the existence or worship of a
deity dwd. The word dwd may have been
used as an appellative or epithet of deities in
ancient Israel, including Yahweh, but the
evidence is far from conclusive.
IV. Bibliography
G. W. AHLSTROM, Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie
aus dem Ritual des leidenden Kónigs (Lund
1959); H. M. BaRsTADT & B. BECKiING,
Does the Stele from Tel-Dan refer to a
Deity Déd?, BN 77 (1995) 5-13; A. J.
BJORNDALEN, Untersuchungen zur allegori-
schen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja
(BZAW 165; Berlin 1986); G. I. Davies,
Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Corpus and
Concordance (Cambridge 1991); E. EBE-
LING, Dada, Dadu, Dádudu, RLA 2 (1938)
97.98; J. D. FowLEn, Theophoric Personal
Names in Ancient Hebrew. A Comparative
Study (JSOT SuppSer 49; Sheffield 1988); 1.
J. GELB, Computer-Aided Analysis of Amo-
rite (AS 21; Chicago 1980); F. GRÖNDAHL,
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit
(StP 1; Rome 1967); L. G. HERR, The
Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic
Inscriptions (HSM 18; Missoula 1978); R.
HEsTRIN & M. DavaGI-MENDELS, /nscri-
bed Seals. First Temple Period Hebrew,
Ammonite, Moabite Phoenician and Ara-
maic (Jerusalem 1979); M. HÖFNER, RAAM
(Stuttgart 1970) 233-402; H. B. HUFFMON,
Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts.
A Structural and Lexical Study (Baltimore
1965); K. P. JacKsoN, The Language of the
Mesha Inscription, Studies in the Mesha
Inscription and Moab (ed. A. Dearman;
Atlanta 1989) 96-130; K. A. KITCHEN, A
Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth
Century BCE, and Deity *Dod as Dead as a
Dodo, JSOT 76 (1997) 29-44; S. C.
Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite
Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible (HSM
47; Atlanta 1990); M. MULZER, Amos 8,14
in der LXX: Ein Einwurf in die Tel Dan-
Debatte, BN 84 (1996) 54-58; S. NORIN,
Sein Name allein ist hoch. Das Jhw-haltige
Suffix althebräischer Personennamen unter-
sucht mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der
261
DOMINION
alttestamentlichen Redaktionsgeschichte
(ConB OTS 24; Malmé 1986); *S. M.
OLYAN, The Oaths in Amos 8,14, Priest-
hood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A.
Anderson & S. M. Olyan; JSOT SupplSer
125; Sheffield 1991) 121-149; *J. SANMAR-
TIN-ASCASO, “i, TWAT 2 (1977) 152-167
[& lit}; J. J. Stamm, Der Name des Königs
David, Congress Volume Oxford 1959
(VTSup 7; Leiden 1960) 165-183; J. J.
Stark. Personal Names in Palmyrene
Inscriptions (Oxford 1971); A. VAN ZUL,
The Moabites (Leiden 1960).
H. M. BARSTAD
DOMINION «xvpiótng
I. The word xvptótng occurs 4 times in
the NT (not in the LXX), twice referring to
Jesus’ power or position as Lord (xúpioç)
and twice referring to members of a class of
angels (Eph 1:21; Col 1:16).
H. In extrabiblical literature, Kxupiómg
occurs only very rarely. When it does, it has
the meanings of ‘lordship, rule’ and ‘special
meaning’. It is only in writings influenced
by the NT that the term is used to refer to a
class of angels; see the many references in
LaMPE's PGL 788b. When in a fragment of
the originally Jewish Apocalypse of Zeph-
aniah the author is said to have been
brought up into the fifth heaven where he
saw "angels who are called lords” (ay-
yéAoug xaAoupnévoug xupioug. quoted by
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V 11,77,2), we
may have here a kind of Jewish precursor of
the Christian usage of xvpiótng. but the ori-
gin of this passage remains debated (contrast
the opinion of BIETENHARD 1951:105 n.2
with O. WINTERMUTE in OTP I 508 n.b).
although Acts 10:4 (xvpte said to an angel)
would seem to corroborate its Jewish char-
acter. The same uncertainty attaches to the
‘dominions’ mentioned as a class of angels
in the longer recension of 2 Enoch 20:1,
handed down only in an Old Church Slavo-
nic version, and to the ‘angels of dominions’
in 7 Enoch 61:10, preserved only in a
(Christian) Ethiopic translation (W. FOER-
STER, TWNT 2 568). Also the list of angelic
powers (among which xvpiómrteg) in the
originally Jewish prayer in the Apostolic
Constitutions VIIL 35,3 is suspect since it
may well derive from Col 1:16. The occur-
rence of ‘dominions’ in the angelic list of
Test. Adam 4:6 is not very helpful either
since it is found in only one manuscript of
the Syriac version. If (some of) these passa-
ges could be proved to be of Jewish origin,
the NT authors would reflect Jewish usage
here, as is also the case with the other
designations of angelic classes (BIETEN-
HARD 1951:105; for the use of abstract
instead of concrete nouns sce FOERSTER in
TWNT 3 1096). That these (evil?) angels
were originally regarded as powerful
‘Lords’ is apparent from this designation
(SCHROEGER 1981:821).
HI. In Eph 1:21 xvpiótng is part of an
enumeration of supernatural powers. The
author says that God has raised -*Jesus
~Christ from the dead and seated him at his
right hand in the heavenly places “far above
all rule and authority and power and domin-
ion and every name that is named" (Unep-
ávo ráong Gpxng xat £&ovoíag xai duva-
pu£og xai xupiórntoz xai xavtóc óvóyatog
óvouatopévov, Principalities | [-^Archai].
= Authorities, Power [Dynamis], Name).
Col 1:16 states that in Jesus Christ "all
things in heaven and on earth were created,
things visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominions or rulers or powers” (eite
0póvoi &ite xupiótnteg eite üpxal eite
£Eovoiai). In both instances the conviction
is clearly stated that all angelic (and demon-
ic) powers are completely subordinated to
Christ; being his own creatures, they are his
servants and hence no longer a threat to be
feared by God's children (see R. SCHNACK-
ENBURG, Der Brief an die Epheser [Ncu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1982] 77).
IV. Bibliography
H. BIETENHARD, Die himmlische Welt im
Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen
1951) 104-106; H. Scuuier, Mächte und
Gewalten im Neuen Testament (Freiburg
1958); F. ScHROEGER, xuptoms, EWNT Il
(1981) 820-821; Str-B III 581-584.
P. W. VAN DER Horst
262
DOVE
DOVE nepictepá
I. Although the derivation of the Greek
word from the (unattested) Semitic perah-
Istar, ‘bird of -*Ishtar', js probably mis-
taken, there can be no doubt that the dove in
the Eastern. Mediterranean world was the
bird of the mother- and love goddess
(Aphrodite) in various forms. That thc
dove also was regarded as soul-bird is
shown by dove-grottos in burial grounds
(GREEVEN 1968:65) and funerary inscrip-
tions, Jewish as well as Gentile (GREEVEN
1968:67). In Israel, turtledoves and pigeons
were the only birds offered for sacrifice
(Lev 1:14). Before the Mandean death-mass
(masigta), a dove named ba, the Egyptian
name of the soul-bird, is sacrificed as a sym-
bol of the soul attaining eternal life (E. S.
DROWER, The Secret Adam [Oxford 1960] 8,
32).
In the NT versions of the baptism of
Jesus, the dove plays an important part
(Mark 1:10; Matt 3:16; Luke 3:22; John
1:32). Mark, Matthew and John state that
the spirit descended "as/like a dove”. Behind
the former phrase we may be right in seeing
the. Aram b-dmuthàá d, which—although it
literally means ‘in the form of—may be
translated ‘as’ or ‘like’. Gos. Eb., which is
not simply based on the NT gospels, actual-
ly reads that the spirit descended “in the
form of a dove" (en eidei peristeras [apud
Epiphanius, Panarion 3:13:7]). Justin Mar-
tyr, Dialogue 88:3, and the different ver-
sions of the Diatessaron, which draws upon
a Jewish Christian gospel tradition, also read
"in the form of a dove". In any case, it is
improbable that "as/like a dove" refers to
the mode of descent rather than the spirit
(GUNKEL 1987:158; BULTMANN 1957:262;
GREEVEN 1968:68). The dove is the form of
manifestation of God's spirit descending
"into' (? [eis] Mark) or ‘upon’ ({epi]
Matthew, Luke, John) Jesus when he was
baptized.
II. Evidence for a dove goddess in the
Minoan-Mycenaean culture takes us back to
the second millennium BCE. The Cypriote
Aphrodite is shown as a dove goddess on
many coins. In the West, the origin of the
cult of the dove goddess was acknowledged
to be Oriental (GREEVEN 1968:64-65). The
dove was the sacred bird of a goddess (per-
haps -Astarte, i.e. ‘Athtart) worshipped at
Beisàn. Lucian, De Dea Syria 33, reports
that Semiramis, the daughter of -Atargatis
(i.e. ‘Attar-‘atteh, the first part being the
Aramaic counterpart of ‘Athtar[t), the
second part perhaps a variant form of
~ Anat), had the dove as her symbol. Semi-
ramis on one occasion even had turned her-
self into a dove; thus the inhabitants of
Hierapolis (i.e. Bambyke on the Upper
Euphrates) regarded doves as holy (ibid.
14). Diodorus Siculus says that Semiramis
upon passing away "tumed into a dove",
and that “the Assyrians therefore worship
the dove as a goddess, thus deifying Semira-
mis” (Bibliotheca Historica 2:20:2). In an-
other place, Diodorus says that all the inhab-
itants of Syria honour doves as deities,
because the name of Semiramis is similar to
the word for ‘doves’ (ibid. 2:4:6). The name
of Semiramis would seem to reflect the
Semitic divine name -*Ashima (in Greek
sources, Sémea, Sima, Simé) and the root
idea of rwm. ‘high’ (Ass: Sammu-ramat,
etc.); folk etymology would have no
difficulty in connecting the divine name
with the Assyrian word summatu (simmatu),
‘dove’.
The Jewish allegation that the Samaritans
worshipped a dove image on Mt. Gerizim
appears to be a misunderstanding or deliber-
ate distortion of the Samaritan cult of Semd,
"the Name’, i.e. Yahweh. The implication of
the Jewish allegation would seem to be that
the Samaritans worshipped the goddess
Ashima, whose cult is said to have been
brought into the vanquished Northern King-
dom of Israel by the Assyrian colonists (2
Kgs 17:29-30).
III. In the version of the baptism of Jesus
in Gos. Heb., the Spirit is represented as
Jesus’ mother, and it is she who speaks the
words addressed to Jesus (apud Jerome,
Comm. in Is. 4, ad 11:2; cf. Origen, Comm.
in loann. 2:12). But Gos. Heb. does not
portray the Spirit in the form of a dove (in
Acts of Thomas 50, however, the Spirit is
263
DOVE
called “holy dove, who engendered the twin-
boys” [Jesus and Judas Thomas]); there is in
fact no evidence for a myth in which the
mother- and love-goddess chooses an aspir-
ant to kingship to be her son or lover.
On the other hand, an OT-Jewish back-
ground is not sufficient in order to explain
the figure of the dove as a form of manifes-
tation of the divine Spirit. The cooing of
doves in the temple could be seen as a remi-
niscence of the bath qol, ‘daughter of the
voice’, a substitute for the prophetic Spirit
(b.Ber. 3a). In Tg. Cant 2:12, the ‘voice of
the turtle-dove' is said to be ‘voice of the
Spirit of deliverance’, other interpretations
being the voice of the Messiah or the voice
of Moses. A saying ascribed to a rabbi of
the second century CE compares the Spirit
hovering over the primordial waters (Gen
1:2) to a dove hovering over her young
(b.Hag. 15a [in other variants the bird is an
eagle]). Philo can take the dove as a symbol
of Sophia (Wisdom) (Quis rer. div. her.
127). In other Philonic texts, the dove ap-
pears as a symbol of logos or nous (GREE-
VEN 1968:66). In all these texts, the dove is
only compared to God's Spirit, or used
allegorically; it is not represented as a form
of manifestation of the Spirit.
That the new king is designated by a bird
is a widespread folktale motive. A Jewish
development of this motive appears to be
found in the Zohar, where it is related that
the dove that did not return to Noah (Gen
8:10) one day will come back with a golden
crown in the beak and put it on the head of
the Messiah (Bammidbar 68:3-4). Influence
from the same folktale theme seems to be
found also in 7g. Esth II, where the throne
of Solomon is described as being decorated
with golden doves; thus, a dove was seen
bringing the king the Law, while another
dove with a hawk in its beak was regarded
as a symbol of the future deliverance of the
gentiles into the hands of the Messiah
(GEÉRO 1976:21-22 [n. 7]). Esther R. 1:2, in
a description of the throne of the Iranian
ruler, says that a golden dove above the
throne had a crown in its beak; when the
king would wait to sit down, the crown
would “touch and not yet touch” him. The
dove election motif may possibly be seen
also in the tradition that the dove was one of
the symbols of Israel (Ps 74:19; 2 Esdr 5:26;
many rabbinic texts, especially in Cant R.).
The folktale motif of the election of the
new king by a dove also appears in some of
the versions of the baptism of Jesus. The
Heliand, an old Saxon poem on the life of
Jesus, says that the the Spirit “came in the
form of a lovely bird, and landed on the
shoulder of our Lord” (BULTMANN 1957:
256 n. 1). Odes Sol. 24:1-2 reads: “The dove
fluttered over the head of (our Lord] the
Messiah, because he was her head. She sang
over him, and her voice was heard.” In this
version, the Spirit is not even mentioned.
The Heliand would seem to have combined
the canonical description with an old folk-
loristic version. The old folktale theme is
discernable already in John, where the Bap-
tist says that he received a revelation impart-
ing that the Son of God would come to him
incognito, and would have to be recognized
by “the Spirit descending from heaven as a
dove" and "remaining on him" (1:32-33).
Here the folktale motif of the clection of the
king by a bird has been welded with the
Israelite idea of the union of the Spirit with
the Messiah (1 Sam 16:13; Isa 11:2; 61:1).
In the Synoptics, the former is not clearly
present.
IV. Bibliography
R. BULTMANN, Die Geschichte der synop-
tischen Tradition (FRLANT N. F. 12; 3rd
ed.; Gótttingen 1957) 263-267; J. Fossum,
Samaritan Demiurgical Traditions and the
Alleged Dove Cult of the Samaritans, Stud-
ies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions
(EPRO 91; eds. R. van den Brock & M. J.
Vermaseren; Leiden 1981) 143-160; S.
Gero, The Spirit as a Dove at the Baptism
of Jesus, NovT 18 (1976) 17-35; H.
GREEVEN, n£piotepá 7DNT 6 (1968) 63-72;
H. GuNKEL, The Folktale in the Old Testa-
ment (trans. M. D. Rutter; Sheffield 1987)
158-159 and 196-197 (notes).
J. Fossum
264
DOXA — DRAGON
DOXA ^ GLORY
DRAGON Apüáxov
I. Drakón is the Greek word (Latin
draco) which is used in LXX (33 occur-
rences), NT and Pseudepigrapha for a large
monster which often appears as opponent of
God or his people. It is often related to the
sea and can be identified or associated with
a snake (Serpent). In the NT the word
only appears in Revelation (13 occurrences).
II. In ancient mythology the dragon
could be depicted as a real animal like a
snake or crocodile or as a large imaginary
monster living in the sca or on land. Certain
types of these monsters can be discerned in
mythological writings. Some share with Chi-
maera a lionlike front, the central part of a
he-goat and the hind-quarters of a snake.
Python and -*Typhon are also character-
ized as a dragon. However, drakón can also
be synonomous with ophis or other words
for snakes (MERKELBACH 1959:226). The
word was connected in antiquity with
S€pxopavSpaxetv, hence the meaning
"secing clearly", which matches one of the
functions of dragons as watchers of a sanc-
tuary. The dragon has often a fiery ap-
pearance, behaves in an aggressive, insolent
and lecherous way and often represents the
powers of chaos, especially in primordial
times (e.g. Tiamat, -Giants, Typhon). The
dragon is sometimes connected with (un-
usual) natural phenomena like storm, flood
or drought (MERKELBACH 1959:227; Fox-
TENROSE 1980:348, 581). The partly subter-
ranean river Orontes in Asia Minor is also
called Drakén, which is connected to tradi-
tions concerning the conflict between Zeus
and Typhon, which offer an explanation of
the typical bed of the river (Strabo 16.2.7).
Also one of the northern constellations was
called Drakón/Draco.
Mesopotamian, Hittite, Canaanite, Egypt-
ian, Iranian and Greek myths describe
battles between a figure representing chaos
and causing rebellion and a (still young)
supreme god who restores the order of the
gods by overcoming the monster: Marduk
versus Tiamat, the Weather God versus
Illuyankas, —>Baal versus Yam (Sea),
Horus versus -*Seth, Indra versus Vritra,
—Apollo versus Python and Zeus versus
Typhon; see for a survey of these and re-
lated conflict myths WAKEMAN (1973) and
FONTENROSE (1980). The conflict usually
takes place in primaeval ages, but is some-
times transposed to the world of human his-
tory and reenacted on special occasions like
a military victory or an accession ceremony,
whereby the king appears as the god who
triumphs over the dragon (e.g. Purulli and
Akitu festivals, see Marduk, Typhon). The
execution of rebels and other enemies seems
sometimes to have been inspired by the kill-
ing of the dragon in mythological traditions
(MERKELBACH 1959:234-235). Mithridates
gave orders to execute Manius Aquilius, a
Roman governor of Asia Minor, by pouring
liquid gold into his pharynx (Appianus, Hist.
rom. 12.21; Pliny, Nat. hist. 33.48; cf. Bel et
Draco 23-42, see below; see also Typhon).
III. In LXX drakón may be the transla-
tion of several Hebrew nouns which are
connected with existing animals or monsters
living in the sea: young lion (képir, Job
4:8[10 LXX}, 38:39), he-goat ('artüd, Jer
50:8[27:8 LXX]), asp (peren, Job 20:16),
jackal (ran, Mic 1:8; Jer 9:11[10 LXX];
Lam 4:3), snake (na@has, Amos 9:3; Job
26:13; cf. Isa 27:1) —»Leviathan (Job
40:20[25 LXX], Ps 74[73 LXX]14; Ps
104[103 LXX]:26; Isa 27:1) and -*Tannin/
Tannim (Exod 7:9, 10, 12; Deut 32:33; Job
7:12; Ps 74(73 LXX]:13; 91[90 LXX]:13;
Isa 27:1; Jer SI[28 LXX]:34). Leviathan
(Lotan) and Tannin/m appear in the Hebrew
Bible in their earlier (Ugaritic) shape as
chaos monsters living in the sea (e.g. Job
7:12; Ps 74:13-14; cf. also ^Rahab, Job
26:12-13), but are also connected with real
animals like the snake and the crocodile
(e.g. Ps 91:13; Ezek 32:2). The incorpora-
tion of pagan traditions belonging to conflict
myths in the Bible seems to serve the pur-
pose of discrediting the foreign nations
which oppress Israel (Egypt, Assyria,
Babylon) and to announce their ruin (Ezek
29; 32; cf. Isa 14; 30:7 and Jer 51). Nah 1:8
contains a hint of God’s triumph over the
265
DRAGON
chaos monster. The connection between the
lion and the dragon (cf. Job 4:10; 38:39; Ps
91:13; also Sir 25:16) may be inspired by
Persian conceptions. A relief of the palace
of Darius at Persepolis depicts the king
fighting against a lion-dragon (MERKELBACH
1959:234).
Drakón appears also in the Apocrypha (8
times) and in Greek texts of the Pseudepi-
grapha (about 17 times). The identification
of drakón with snake appears from Wis
16:10, where the venom-spraying snakes
seem to be inspired by the combination of
Exod 10:1-20 and Num 21:4-9 (sce ophis,
Wis 16:5; cf. also Bel et Draco 23-42; !
Enoch 20:7; T. Abr. rec. long. 17:14; Sib.
Or. 3:794). In the LXX version of Esther
the story of the rescue of Israel is placed in
an apocalyptic setting (Fragments AI-11
and FI-10; Ed. Rahlfs 1:1a-] and 10:3a-k,
see EHRLICH 1955), in which the protag-
onists Haman and Mordecai are depicted as
dragons fighting each other (AS/l:le;
F4/10:3d). This battle could be a reminis-
cence of the conflict between the Babylon-
ian supreme god Marduk and Tiamat (the
primordial goddess of salt water) in Mes-
opotamian myths, all the more since
Mordecai is a theophorous name containing
the name of Marduk (see already ZIMMERN
1891, who, however, incorrectly traces back
the Purim feast and the Hebrew word pir to
Akkadian puhru “meeting”; i.e. the meeting
of the gods which determined the lots and
was reenacted during the Akitu feast; pür
may derive from Akkadian påru, the lot that
one casts, cf. Esth 3:7 and 9:24; HALLO
1983). Part of the same myth may be the
basis of the second part of the story of Bel
et Draco (vv. 23-42; see for textual criticism
and commentary KocH 1987), one of the
Greek additions to Daniel. Daniel unmasks
the fraud of the Babylonians with the divine
giant snake (drakón), by brewing a concoc-
tion of pitch, fat and hair and feeding it to
the snake. The snake bursts open and dies
because of the food. Daniel has to suffer for
this performance and is thrown in a lions’
den, receives food from Habakkuk in a
miraculous way during his sixth day in the
pit (see -*Angel) and leaves it, unharmed
and in a healthy condition on the seventh
day, thereby proving the existence of the
God of Israel. GuNKEL assumed that the
story is a Jewish adaptation of a passage of
the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish
(1895:320-323, see esp. Tablet IV ll. 93-
104, ANET p. 67). Other scholars refuted
this hypothesis by pointing out that the con-
nection with Tiamat is far-fetched, that she
is never described as a snake and that the
Babylonians did not revere living snakes
(Davies 1913:653-654; Moore 1977:123-
124; 143; Kocu 1987:1 184). T. Asher 7:3
alludes to Ps 74 (73 LXX):13-14, T. Job 43:
8 probably to Job 20:16 LXX.
The dragon of Rev (12:3-4.7.9.16-17;
13:2.4.11; 16:13 and 20:2) is a combination
of several traditional figures, as appears
from Rev 12:9. The dragon is identified with
the old snake of Gen 3 (cf. Rev 12:15-16)
and the one who is called ->Devil (Seducer)
and -*Satan (cf. 12:10: "the Accuser"). Like
in Isa 27 the context of the appearance of
the dragon is transposed from primordial
time or even the creation (see e.g. Ps 74) to
the final period of history (cf. Sib. Or. 8:88).
It is common opinion that John the Prophet
incorporated pagan traditions connected with
dragon myths into his vision of the two
heavenly signs. Traditions concerning a
pursuit of a pregnant goddess by a dragon-
like god were combined with another myth
about the fallen angels (cf. / Enoch 6-11,
see Angel and Giants), which might also go
back to a pagan myth, possibly the myth of
Athtar who tries to take over the kingship of
Baal (YARBRO COLLINS 1975:79-83). There
is a considerable structural similarity
between the content of Rev 12 and the pat-
tern of myths concerning the conflict of a
dragonlike monster (respectively a god who
appears as enemy of other gods) and a god
associated with creation and/or order (see
further FONTENROSE 1980:9-11, 267-273;
YARBRO COLLINS 1975). The pattern of
combat myths shows at the same time that
the original residence of the dragon in
heaven (which is probably bound up with
the constellation Draco, also mentioned in
266
DYNAMIS
Sib. Or. 5:522, or Hydra, see BOLL 1914;
BERGMEIER 1982) and the fact that he has
more than one opponent (Michael, Jesus
and finally -*God) are pecularities of Revel-
ation. Several scholars assume that Rev 12
is partly dependent on a specific pagan myth
(see Python and Typhon). The search for
pagan mythological analogies to the dragon
of Rev should not be restricted to chap. 12
but also concern chap. 13 and 19:19-21;
20:1-3.7-10. This appears from the common
terminology in these passages, composi-
tional factors and the fact that the slaying of
the dragon is depicted in Rev 20:7-10. The
allies of the dragon are the two beasts of
Rev 13 representing the Roman emperors
and their cult (13:2.4.11; 16:13; —Ruler
Cult), which can be partly understood
against the background of the dragon as a
symbol for the wicked foreign King, see
already Ezek 29:3; 32:2 (Pharaoh), Jer 51(28
LXX), Est 1; Pss. Sol. 2:25; Sib. Or. 8:88
(Day 1985:88-140; see also Typhon). The
connection of a dragon with a (turbulent)
river is analogous to mythological traditions
(Typhon) and occurs besides Rev 12:15-16
in T. Abr. rec. long. 17:16; 19:5.
IV. Bibliography
R. BERGMEIER, Altes und Neues zur “Son-
nenfrau am Himmel (Apk 12)", ZNW 73
(1982) 97-109, esp. 100-101; F. Bott, Aus
der Offenbarung Johannis, Stoicheia 1
(Leipzig/Berlin 1914) 98-124; W. Davies,
Bel and the Dragon, APOT I (Oxford 1913)
652-664: J. Dav, God's Conflict with the
Dragon and the Sea. Echoes of a Canaanite
Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge
1985); E. L. EHRLICH, Der Traum des
Mordechai, ZRGG 7 (1955) 69-74; W.
FOERSTER, 5paxwv, TDNT Il (Grand Rapids
1964) 281-283; J. FONTENROSE, Python. A
Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins
(Berkeley/Los Angeles 1959; 19802); H.
GUNKEL, Schópfung und Chaos in Urzeit
und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung iber Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12
(Göttingen 1895); W. W. HALLO, The First
Purim, BA 46 (1983) 19-26; W. K. HED-
RICK, The Sources and Use of Imagery in
Apocalypse 12 (Diss. Berkeley 1970); C.
KLoos, Yhwh's Combat with the Sea. A
Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of
Ancient Israel (AmsterdanvLeiden 1986); K.
Kocu, JDeuterokanonische Zusätze zum
Danielbuch. Entstehung und Textgeschichte
I-II. (AOAT 38; Kevelaer/Ncukirchen-Vluyn
1987) I1 159-187; II 154-205; R. MERKEL-
BACH, Drache, RAC 1V (Stuttgart 1959) 226-
250; C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and
Jeremiah. The Additions. A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (AB 44;
Garden City 1977) 117-149; M. SCHLÜTER.
Deráqón und Gótzendienst: Studien, ausge-
hend von mAZ ll 3 (Frankfurt am
Main/Bern 1982); C. UEHLINGER, Drachen
und Drachenkümpfe im alten Vorderen
Orient und in der Bibel, Auf Drachenspu-
ren: Ein Buch zum Drachenprojekt des
Hamburgerischen Museums fiir Volkerkunde
(eds. B. Schnelz & R. Vossen; Bonn 1995)
55-76; M. K. WAKEMAN, God's Battle with
the Monster. A Study in Biblical Imagery
(Leiden 1973); N. WALTER, 5paxov, EWNT
1 (Stuttgart 1980) 853-855; A. YARBRO CoL-
LINS, The Combat Myth in the Book of
Revelation (Missoula [Mont.} 1975); H.
ZIMMERN, Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung
des Purimfestes, ZAW 11 (1891) 157-169.
J. W. VAN HENTEN
DYNAMIS Svvapic
I. Before becoming a divine name or
epithet, ‘power’ (dynamis) has had a long
and diversified history. As name or epithet,
‘power’ can be used in many different ways
in biblical and post-biblical literature. This
usage must be distinguished from more
general notions of divine power. All of anti-
quity assumed that deities have power, dis-
pense power, and interfere in human life
with their power. The degree of power dei-
ties were believed to control determined
their status and place in hierarchies as well
as the kind of cultic worship they received
from human beings. Cultic worship of dci-
ties was not only motivated by such power,
but was itself a way of participating in it.
Attributed to the highest deities, the epi-
thet ‘power’ indicates total sovereignty and
267
DYNAMIS
control, while lesser deities, angels, demons,
elemental forces, and even human ‘divine
men" are agents of the former, having been
endowed or charged by them. Beings
endowed with divine power then function as
administrators or representatives of those
who are in control. In a Hellenistic environ-
ment the Greek epithet dynamis could devel-
op into a hypostasis of its own and even
become a name, as in the case of Simon
Magus who, according to Acts 8:10 was
called ‘the power of God that is called
great’ (hé dynamis tou theou hé kalownené
megalé), In most biblical instances, how-
ever, ‘power’ is regarded as an attribute
either of God who is in control of all
powers, or of subservient divine agents
acting on his behalf through delegated
powers. In the biblical and post-biblical lit-
crature these powers include -*angels,
-*demons, -"stars, -*Stoicheia, and the
->Holy Spirit; in the NT, in addition,
-*Christ is integrated in the hierarchy.
IIl. By way of development, the biblical
and post-biblical occurrences must be seen
in their respective religious and cultural
environment.
In the OT, the language and imagery
describing divine power is extensive and
cannot be fully surveyed at this point. It is
an important fact that this language and
imagery is taken from the spheres of divine
warfare and kingship. It is God's mighty
arm that shatters the enemies (Exod 15:6; Ps
89:10.13: Isa 40:10; 48:14; etc.). He is the
strong warrior: ‘The Lorn goes forth like a
soldier, like a warrior he stirs up his fury; he
cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself
mighty against his foes’ (Isa 42:13). Fre-
quently, he is called ‘the Lorb of hosts’ (1
Sam 1:3.11: 4:4; 15:2; 17:45; —Host of
Heavens, Yahweh Zebaoth). The epithet of
séb@6t which occurs more than two hun-
dred times in the Hebrew Bible is frequently
translated by the LXX by Hellenistic epi-
thets such as Kyrios pantokratór (sec
Almighty) or -*kyrios (ho theos) tón
dynameón, but it can also appear as a new
name Sabaoth. While sabd’ means ‘army’,
Greek translators transposed it into Greek
cosmological concepts. This development
was preceded by the universal character of
post-Exilic theology, for which the Lord of
hosts is ‘the God of the whole earth’ (Isa
54:5). His ‘army’ even includes all powers
of heaven and carth (Isa 40:12-26; Pss 93;
95-99; 147:4-6; 148:1-4; 1 Chr 29:11; 2 Chr
20:6; LXX Dan 3:52-90; etc.). Thus, Hel-
lenistic Judaism of the LXX reinterprets the
old warrior god in terms of a cosmic deity
in control of all natural and supernatural
forces. For further discussion see H. E!SING,
TWAT 2, 902-911, s.v. hayil especially sec.
VI-VII; H. RINGGREN, TWAT 4, 130-137,
s.v. kóah; RiNGGREN, TWAT 6, 871-876, s.v.
saba@’; H.-J. ZOBEL, TWAT 6, 876-892, s.v.
séba ot.
In Greek theology, the concept of divine
power is understood cosmologically (sec
GRUNDMANN, TDNT 2, section A). The
Pythagorean Ecphantus may have been the
first to conceive of divine power as among
the primordial realities of the cosmos which
to him was by nature divine (Hippolytus,
Ref. 1.15; DiELS-KRANZ 51.1 [I, 442, 12-
14]; GUTHRIE 1962:324-1.327). Since
Anaximander took the apeiron, ‘the Bound-
less’ that encompasses everything, to be
divine (Aristotle, Phys. 203b6; DIELS-
KRANZ 12 A 15 [I, 85. 20]; GurHRIE 1962:
87-89), it was not too great a step to inter-
pret the gods as forces of nature. When and
by whom this step was first taken is not
altogether clear (see GUTHRIE 1965:478-
483; BALTES 1988:60-68), but for the phys-
ician Eryximachos in Plato's Symp. 186e it
is self-evident that the god Eros governs thc
cosmos through ‘the mightiest power of all’
(ibid., 188d). In Crat. 438c Plato reports the
view that the names (onomata) were first
given by a superhuman power (dynamis),
whether that name-giver was some sort of
spirit (daimón) or god (theos). Aristotle con-
curs (Met. 4,12, p. 10192326) that daimones
are called ‘powers’ (dynameis). These sug-
gestions are then fully developed into an all-
encompassing system by the Stoics, fore-
most by Posidonius (see NiLssoN 1974:
263-264, 534-539). Accordingly, the divine
universe is held together by a primordial
268
DYNAMIS
autokinétos dynamis (Sextus, Adv. math.
9.75 [SVF 2.112-113]), and the traditional
gods can now be identified as specialized
agents of the universal divine power: "The
deity. say they, is a living being, immortal.
rational, perfect or intelligent in happiness,
admitting nothing evil (into him), taking
providential care of the world and all that
therein is, but he is not of human shape. He
is, however, the artificer of the universe,
and, as it werc, the father of all, both in
general and in the particular part of him
which is all-pervading, and which is called
many names according to its various powers
(dynameis)". What follows is a list of Olymp-
ian gods and the powers represented by
them (Diogenes Laertius 7.147, trans. R. D.
Hicks, LCL edition; see also SVF 2.305-
2.321: De natura deorum). These ideas
made it possible to interpret the popular
pantheon with all its gods and demons in a
philosophical manner, a possibility that pro-
foundly changed all ancient theology (see
especially Ps.-Aristotle, De mundo 6, 396b
29, 397216, 397b19-398a6, 398b8, 20-25,
399b19-28; Comutus, Theologiae Graecae
Compendium (ed. C. Lang 1881] 4.12; 13.
11; 45.4 etc.).
In the Hellenistic era, dynamis was an
established divine epithet, so much so that
for some philosophers the names of the gods
became superfluous (see Cleanthes, Hymn
(Stobaeus, Ecl. 1, 1, 12, p. 25,3; SVF 1.
121]: Epictetus, Ench. 53; Seneca, Epist.
107.10). Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 67, 377F-
378A) represents what can be taken as the
Opinion of many at his time: “... we have
regarded as gods the beings who use the
products of nature and bestow them upon
us, providing us with them constantly and
sufficiently, nor do we regard the gods as
different among different peoples nor as bar-
barian and Greek and as southern and north-
ern. But just as the sun and the moon,
heaven, carth and sea are common to all,
though they are given various names by the
varying peoples, so it is with the one reason
(logos) which orders these things and the
one providence which has charge of them,
and the assistant powers (dynameis) which
are assigned to everything; they are given
different honours and modes of address
among different peoples according to
custom ” (trans. GRIFFITHS 1970:223-
225). For popular religion, however, the
concepts of divine power provided an enor-
mous boost. Gods and demons could be
understood as conduits of divine power
(dynamis, energeia) in all its applications.
The epithet dynamis tou theou became more
important than the names which could be
exchanged or accumulated or fused with
each other. A new practice in magic arose
by which the names of gods were bundled
and merged so as to increase divine power
(see NILSSON 1974:2,534-2.539).
Hellenistic Judaism reflects these devel-
opments. The powers of the universe were
easily identified with the angels and demons
which multiplied into ever greater numbers
(Jub. 2:2-3; 1 Enoch 40:9; 61:10; 82:8; 4
Esra 6:6; etc.). Later Jewish magic and mys-
ticism (Hekhalot literature) is preoccupied
with constantly expanding systems of
angels, demons, elemental spirits, personi-
fications and hypostatic entities, with which
the universe is filled. As especially Philo of
Alexandria shows, these doctrines of divine
powers allowed, on the one hand, to main-
tain God's sovereignty over all the powers,
while, on the other hand, incorporating the
complexities of the universe (see GRUND-
MANN, TDNT 2, sec. C.1-2; DILLON 1977:
161-174; DiLLoN 1983; SEGAL 1977:159-
181; SIEGERT 1980, 1988, 1992 [indices];
MACH 1992:85-86, 93).
III. In the NT the traditions outlined con-
tinue with some important changes. For
Christian theology God is in essence power
(Rom 1:20; 9:17 [Exod 9:16]; Matt 6:13
var. lect. [doxology]) who dispenses it
through the traditional intermediaries to
whom is now added Christ (1 Cor 5:4; 2
Cor 12:9; 13:4; 2 Pet 1:3) and his apostles
(Acts 4:33; 6:8; etc.), the Holy Spirit (Luke
1:34; 4:14; Acts 1:8, and often in Luke and
Acts; Rom 15:13.19; Eph 3:16) and the gos-
pel (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18.24). Part of
Christ’s victory is to subjugate ‘the powers
of heaven’ (Mark 13:25-26 par.; 1 Cor 15:
269
DYNAMIS
24; 2 Thess 1:7). Interpreting Ps 110:1
(Mark 12:36 par.), the coming of the ->Son
of Man (Mark 14:62 par.) means seeing him
‘sitting at the right side of the power’, with
‘power’ substituting God himself. In lists of
celestial beings, ‘powers’ have their place
and they are associated with angels (Rom
8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 1 Pet 3:22; cf.
2 Thess 1:7; 2 Pet 2:11; Rev 1:16).
IV. In the post-apostolic and patristic
literature these lines of tradition continue
and expand. There are new developments as
well. While the NT speaks of the dynamis of
the devil (Luke 10:19; Rev 13:2) and ‘the
devil and his angels’ (Matt 25:41; cf. Rev.
12:7.9; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6), Ignatius prefers
the plural ‘the dynameis of Satan' (/gn. Eph.
13:1), an indication of the growing gnostic
dualism. Also Acts 8:10 is special in that its
report of Simon Magus being regarded as
‘the power of God that is called great’
points to gnostic developments related to the
cult of Simon Magus and beyond (see for
passages Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v.
Svvaptc, sec. VI.B and VII; FASCHER, RAC
4, 441-451; SiEGERT 1982:235-236).
V. Bibliography
C. E. ARNOLD, Ephesians: Power and
Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians
in Light of Its Historical Setting (SNTSMS
63; Cambridge 1989); BAGD, s.v. Súvapıç;
M. BALTES, Zur Theologie des Xenokrates,
Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman
World (ed. R. van den Broek, T. Baarda &
J. Mansfeld; EPRO 112; Leiden 1988) 43-
68; G. B. CaiRD, Principalities and Powers:
A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford 1956);
W. Carr, Angels and Principalities: The
Background, Meaning and Development of
the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai ex-
ousiai (SNTSMS 42; Cambridge 1974); J.
DILLON, Philo's Doctrine of Angels, Two
Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Com-
mentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus
Sit Inunutabilis (ed. J. Dillon & D. Winston;
BJS 25; Chico 1983) 197-205; DILLON, The
Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80
B.C. to A.D. 220 (London 1977); E.
FASCHER, ‘Dynamis’, RAC 4 (1959) 415-
458; G. FRIEDRICH, EWNT (EDNT) |, s.v.
Sbvapic; J. G. GrirritHs, Plutarch's De
Iside et Osiride (Cambridge 1970); W.
GRUNDMANN, TDNT 2, s.v. S0vapat KTA.,
esp. sections C.1.b, D.2.a-b; GRUNDMANN,
Der Begriff der Kraft in der neutestament-
lichen Gedankenwelt (BWANT 4:8; Stutt-
gart 1932); W. K. C. GuruniE, A. History of
Greek Philosophy, vols. 1-2 (Cambridge
1962, 19655 M. MacH, Entwicklungs-
stadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vor-
rabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tübingen
1992); M. P. NILSSON, Geschichte der grie-
chischen Religion (3rd ed.; 2 vols.; Munich
1967, 1974); A. D. Nock, Divine Power,
Essays on Religion and the Ancient World
(Cambridge 1972) 34-45; F. PREISIGKE, Die
Gotteskraft in der friihchristlichen Zeit
(Leipzig/Berlin 1922); J. R6uR, Der okkulte
Kraftbegriff im Altertum (Philol. Suppl. 17;
Leipzig 1923); A. F. SEGAL, Two Powers in
Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about
Christianity and Gnosticism (SILA 25; Lei-
den 1977) F. SiEGERT, Nag-Hammadi-
Register: Wörterbuch zur Erfassung der
Begriffe in den koptisch-gnostischen Schrif-
ten von Nag-Hammadi (WUNT 26; Tübin-
gen 1982); SIEGERT, Philon von Alexandrien,
Über die Gottesbezeichnung ‘wohltdtig ver-
zehrendes Feuer’ (De Deo) (WUNT 46;
Tübingen 1988); SiEGERT, Drei hellenis-
tisch-jiidische Predigten (2 vols.; WUNT 20
& 61; Tiibingen 1980, 1992); H. S.
VERSNEL (ed.), Faith Hope and Worship:
Aspects of Religious Mentality in the
Ancient World (Leiden 1981).
H. D. Betz
270
EA ~> AYA
EAGLE ^2:
I. The common Semitic noun N&R,
‘eagle; vulture’, attested in the OT some 25
times, indicates a deity in pre-Islamic Arabic
texts and inscriptions. In the Old Testament
~YHWu's caring love is sometimes compa-
red with the attitude of an eagle toward its
breed (Exod 19:4; Deut 32:11).
II. The oldest attestation of the avian
deity can be found in a Sabaic inscription
from the vicinity of Manb dating from the
first part of the seventh century BCE (YM
375 = YM 1064; TUAT II 628; MULLER
1994:91-94). The inscription relates that a
certain YaSiq’il dedicates a person called
Ammshafaq to the deity Nusür. MÜLLER
(1994:94) construes nswr as a plural of the
qitwal-type. An interpretation as singular
(Hörner. WbMvth V1. 519) seems to be
more plausible in view of the fact that other
pre-Islamic Arabic texts only mention onc
Eagle. The traditional interpretation of the
phrase 'in "wtnn nsr mssrqn wnsr m'rbn in
CIH 555:1-3 with "These images, the eas-
tern Nasr and the western Nasr" is incorrect
since nsr here denotes the preposition
‘toward’. The phrase should be translated as
“These boundary stones, toward the east and
toward the west" (HórNEeR, WbMyth Vl,
457; MÜLLER 1994: 97). The deity nswr/nsr
was worshipped throughout the Arabic pen-
ninsula (WELLHAUSEN 1897:23; HÓFNER.
WbMyth V1, 457.519; MÜLLER 1994). From
the inscription CIH 189 it can be inferred
that he also functioned as an oracular deity.
Quran Sura 71:20-25 and Ibn al-Kalbi's
Book of Idols (KLINKE-ROSENBERGER
1941:35.61) interpret this deity as one of the
idols of the contemporaries of -*Noah. In
Classical Arabic the stellar constellation of
the Eagle is called an-nasr at-tà 'ir.
III. At several instances in the OT nsr
denotes simply the bird, although it is often
referred to in comparisons, e.g. Hos 8:1; Ob
4; Mic 1:16; Jer 4:13. Although in ancient
Israelite religion the divine could take the
form of a bird or an avian spirit (KORPEL
1996), in the OT God is nowhere presented
as an eagle. In Exod 19:4 and Deut 32:11
Yuwn’s watchful protection and his careful
leading are expressed by refering to omitho-
logical imagery. With regard to Deut 32:11,
the interpretation of H. G. L. PEELS (On the
Wings of the Eagle [Dtn 32,11] - An Old
Misunderstanding, ZAW 106 [1994] 300-
303) who construes ya‘ir as a form of the
verb ‘YR, ‘to watch over’, should be prefer-
red to the traditional interpretation “Like an
eagle that stirs up its nest ..." being ornitho-
logically impossible.
In some pseudepigraphical literature the
Eagle plays and almost angelic role. The
Syriac 2 Apoc Bar 77:20-26; 87 relates that
Baruch used an eagle with mythological
proportions to bring his letter from the ruins
of Jerusalem to Jeremiah living in Babylo-
nia. The Greek Paralipomena Jeremiae has
extended this story with the mythological
detail that the bird on arrival in Babylon
legitimized itself by resurrecting a dead
person (4 Bar 6:12; 7:1-12: see J. HERZER,
Die Paralipomena Jeremiae [TSAJ 43;
Tübingen 1994] 67-72). The late Ethiopic
reworking Tarafa nagar za-Barok has chan-
ged this tradition in such a way that the
eagle on arrival in Babylon spoke to Jere-
miah and the exiles with a human voice
announcing the end of the exile (MÜLLER
1994: 96-97).
IV. Bibliography
R. KLINKE-ROSENBERGER, Das Gétzenbuch
Kitáb al-Agnám des Ibn al-Kalbi (Leipzig
1941); M. C. A. KonPEL, Avian Spirits in
Ugarit and in Ezekiel 13, Ugarit, Religion
271
EARTH
and Culture (N. Wyatt ed.; Münster 1994)
99-113; W. W. MÜLLER, Adler und Geier
als altarabische Gottheiten, “Wer ist wie du,
HERR, unter den Göttern? (FS O. Kaiser; 1.
Kottsieper et al. eds.; Göttingen 1994) 91-
107; J. WELLHAUSEN, Reste Arabischen
Heidentums (Berlin 1897) 23.
B. BECKING
EARTH 778
I. Earth (j^) is one of the most com-
mon words in the OT with more than 2500
occurrences. The word—and its etymol-
ogical cognates—is widely attested in other
Semitic languages, c. g. ars in Uganitic and
Phoenician, ’rd in Arabic, ’rq or ’r“ in Aram-
aic and ersetu in Akkadian. The Sumerian
equivalent is ki or ura’; a corresponding
Hittite word can be seen in daganzipa, while
in Greek we find yy or yaia.
II. As is also the case with -*Heaven,
references to Earth as a separate goddess
receiving an elaborate cult, are rather
limited. The main occurrences of a goddess
Earth can be found in cosmogonical pas-
sages. Thus we know from the Sumerian
Harab myth (JACOBSEN 1984) that Harab
(Plough) and Ki (Earth) were the first
parents who cultivated the land and begot
Shakkan, the cattle-god. Earth desired her
son and together they killed Harab so that
Shakkan could marry Earth. Then Earth is
also slain by Shakkan's sister -*Tiamat.
Another Sumerian tradition states that the
goddess Nammu was the mother of heaven
and earth; afterwards she gave birth to the
first generation of the gods, beginning with
Enlil. A reflection of this cosmogonical
myth can be found in the Enuma Elish (I 1-
15) where the first divine pair Apsu (-*Ends
of the Earth) and Tiamat begot -*Lahmu and
Lahamu; They gave birth to Anshar (Lord
Heaven) and Kishar (Lady Earth) who be-
came Anu’s parents. Other—and unhar-
monized—traditions about cosmogony and
theogony begin with the pair Enki and
Ninki, namely Lord Earth and Lady Earth,
leading down through various generations to
the birth of Enlil. Such Mesopotamian lists
(LAMBERT 1975:52-53) show how the el-
ements were deified in the beginning but
such (primeval) 'gods' very seldom had any
cultic and further theological importance. In
these cosmological traditions we also
encounter the myth of the separation of
heaven and earth or the mythological ref-
erence to the birth of the —Pleiades who are
considered children of Anu and Earth (Erra
i 28-29). On the whole Mother Earth has no
prominent role within the pantheons of Mes-
opotamia but some aspects of her can occa-
sionally be found in connection with other
goddesses whose dominion is the realm of
life and/or death, such as -*Ishtar, Nintu or
Ereshkigal.
From the Syrian and Anatolian area we
get the following impression: Based on ety-
mology we find an carth-goddess in Ugarit,
namely Baal's daughter Argayu (KTU 1.33 iii
7; 1.4 i 18; etc.). As the Akkadian pantheon
list from Ugarit equates her with the
Babylonian goddess Allatu (RS 20.24; cf.
KTU 1.118:22), we can deduce that she was
also considered a goddess of the nether-
world. According to the list KTU 1.106:32
the offerings to her follow those to the gods
of the netherworld. A similar connection
with the netherworld can be seen in the case
of the Hittite deity Daganzipa, literally the
‘genius of the earth’, we read that the dark
Daganzipa shall take away every illness
with her hand (KUB XVII 8 iv 8). But
Daganzipa can also receive offerings (KUB
X 89 ii 27) or she can be supplicated
together with heaven to hear the prayers
(KUB VI 45 i 35-36). This reference clearly
points towards -*Heaven-and-Earth as cos-
mic entities who are witnesses in treaties.
Occasionally Daganzipa can be called the
daughter of the -*Sun (KBo III 38:3), she is
called Mother Earth (annas daganzipa’:
KUB XLIII 30 iii 5), or she appears together
with the stormgod (KBo XI 32:31-32). Thus
we can deduce that Daganzipa was a minor
goddess in Hittite religion (cf. OTTEN 1973:
37) although most Hittite texts refer to earth
only with physical or geographical connota-
tions.
The theogonical aspect of earth is also
272
EBEN —
known from Greek texts where Gë im-
pregnated by Ouranos brings forth the
—Titans and -*Giants (Hes., Theog. 117ff.).
In Homeric texts she is seen as a goddess
who is a witness to oaths (//. 3,104; 19,259);
maybe she was also concerned with oracles.
But on the whole Gé is more a cosmic
aspect than a personified deity. Thus she is
only venerated later with very limited cults
while --Demeter has become the goddess
who brings life and growth to the earth.
In conclusion: earth does not feature as a
great goddess in the surrounding cultures of
the OT. As a cosmic entity she could be
connected with theogonical and cosmog-
onical speculations; she is also referred to as
a divine witness. On the other hand she is
connected with gods of the netherworld or
with goddesses who bring life. But earth
herself did never gain the importance of
these personal deities.
Ill. A comparable picture emerges from
the Hebrew Bible. In the many occurrences
of the word, "eres, 'earth' is a cosmic entity
(TsuMuRA 1988:264-268), either as a com-
plement to heaven (cf. e. g. Gen 1:1; 14:19,
21; Amos 9:6) or within a tripartite cosmos
together with heaven and the sea (cf. Exod
20:4.11; Deut 5:8; Pss 24:2; 82:5; 104:5-6;
136:6). But ’eres also refers to the ground
(cf. Gen 7:14; Exod 8:12-13; 2 Sam 12:17.
29; Ezek 26:15; Job 2:13) or to geographical
and political units (cf. Exod 6:4; Deut 4:46-
47; Judg 10:8; 1 Sam 13:19; | Kgs 9:19; Jer
30:10; 46:27; 51:28 etc.). As the earth is the
"land of the living" (cf. Isa 38:11) it is the
opposite of the realm of death which can be
termed the "land below" (cf. Ezek 31:14.
16.18; 32:1824; Isa 44:23; Ps 139:15).
Some occurrences of "eres refer exclusively
to -*Sheol (cf. Exod 15:12; Jer 17:13; Jonah
2:7: Pss 22:30; 71:20).
The divine character of carth is rather rc-
stricted: Maybe some oaths and curses
where Heaven-and-Earth are mentioned (cf.
Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1; Isa 1:2; Mic
6:2; Ps 50:4) may reflect the well-known
idea from the ancient Near East that both
entities can be called to witness in such cir-
cumstances. A further allusion to a certain
EDOM
mythological background of ’eres is ‘Mother
Earth’. Thus earth is called the "mother of
all living beings"; they have come from her
and will return to her (cf. Job 1:21; Ps 139:
15; Sir 40:1). One can sce further a faint
allusion to the notion of mother earth in
Deut 12:24 where it is said that the blood of
the offerings should be poured out upon the
earth like water; maybe this commandment
reflects the idea of feeding the earth. But
besides such allusions to earth’s divinity the
OT always stresses that it is God who has
made it (cf. Gen 2:4; Exod 20:11; Isa 40:28;
Jer 10:12: Zech 12:1; Ps 24:2 etc); thus she
cannot have divine power and greatness.
IV. Bibliography
T. JAcoBSEN, The Harab Myth (SANE 2/3;
Malibu 1984); W. G. LAMBERT, Sumer and
Babylon, Ancient Cosmologies (C. Blacker
and M. Loewe ed.; London 1975) 42-65;
LAMBERT, Kosmogonie, RIA 6 (1980/83)
218-222; H. OTTEN, Eine althethitische
Erzählung um die Stadt Zalpa (Wiesbaden
1973) 37; M. Orrosow, CN "eres, TWAT
1 (1970-1973) 421-436; G. RYCKMANS,
Heaven and Earth in the South Arabic
Inscriptions, JSS 3 (1958) 225-236; D. T.
Tsumura, A “Hyponymous” Word Pair: ’rs
and thm(t) in Hebrew and Ugaritic, Bib 69
(1988) 258-269.
M. HurrER
EBEN -> STONE
ED ^ WITNESS
EDOM OTN
I. Asa deity, Edom is possibly attested
in the Egyptian Leiden Magical Papyrus
3434345 V 7, otherwise only in personal
names. ‘Obed Edom (LXX Abdedom) 2 Sam
6:10-12 (//1 Chr 13:13-14; 15:25) is a citi-
zen of Philistine Gath—and the owner of an
estate between Baalath-Jehudah and Jeru-
salem—who accommodated the ark for
three months. In Chronicles, he is trans-
formed into a Levite (1 Chr 15:18.21.24;
16:5.38) and the ancestor of a Levitical clan
(1 Chr 26:4.8.15). In Punic, 'dm is attested
273
EHAD — EL
in the personal names mikdm and 'bd'dm
(BENZ 1972: 260).
II. The deity Edom could be identical
with, or derived from, the country of Edom
(cf. HALAT 12). As a toponym, Edom
(<*’*udum), ‘reddishness’ refers to the colour
of that country’s soil. If the god and the
country are to be connected, Obed-Edom
would stand for **bd qws "I(hyb'l 'dm, 'Ser-
vant of Qaus, the god/lord of Edom' (cf.
similar ancient South Arabian names, e.g.
Sabaic ‘bd’wm for ‘bd ?lngh b‘l ’wm, ‘Ser-
vant of Ilmaqhá, the lord of (the sanctuary
of) 'Awwàm', or Nabataean 'bd'lgy', i.c.
‘Servant of the god Gaia’; cf. KNAUF 1988:
46-47). The name would then presuppose
the establishment of Edomite statehood,
which did not exist before the 8th century
BCE (-*Qés). A Philistine named after the
Edomite god is conceivable for the 7th or
6th centuries, when the southern Palestinian
cities were linked to Edom by profitable
trade (cf. Amos 1:6). Whereas the ark narra-
tive may well be dated into that period,
there is hardly a connection between the
country of Edom and the Phoenician colo-
nies in North Africa. The ‘Edomite/Arabian
connection’ may, however, help to elucidate
the unusual vocalisation ‘obed in the
Masoretic tradition, which might allude to
Arabic ‘abid ‘worshipper’.
Alternatively, *?Udum, “Redness”, may
be seen as a Canaanite lesser deity, men-
tioned as the wife of —Resheph in the
Leiden Magical Papyrus 343+345 V 7 (cf.
DAHOOD 1963:292, who equates her with
Arsay). This theory is not wholly satisfac-
tory cither. Egyptian invm could also relate
to Canaanite yatdém, ‘orphan’ (which would
match Resheph's image more appropriately).
On the other hand, GónG (1987) identified a
deity J/nrg, "-*Amalek" in the same papy-
rus (obv. III, 9 XXIII 3), which lends sup-
port to the geographical pertinence of that
source's Edom (cf. for a possible connection
between Resheph and the country of Edom
Isa 63:1-6; Hab 3). In spite of some addi-
tional evidence, it is still not possible to
advance the interpretation of a putative deity
Edom beyond F. BuHL (1893: 42; cf. also
BARTLETT 1989:196).
Ill. Bibliography
J. R. BARTLETT, Edom and the Edomites
(JSOTSup 77; Sheffield 1989); F. L. BENZ,
Personal Names in the Phoenician and
Punic Inscriptions (StP 8; Rome 1972); F.
BUHL, Geschichte der Edomiter (Leipzig
1893); M. Da4Hoop, Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexi-
cography J, Bib 44 (1963) 289-303; M.
Gora, Ein Gott Amalek? BN 40 (1987) 14-
15; E. A. KNAUF, Midian. Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens
am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.
(Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palistina-
Vereins; Wiesbaden 1988).
E. A. KNAUF
EHAD - ONE
EL YN
I. The name El, ?el, il(u), is, with the
exception of Ethiopic, common Semitic and
originally means -God. Etymologically the
origin of the appellative cannot be deter-
mined with certainty. Most likely, the noun
can be derived from the verb "wr (the root
'LH has also been suggested) ‘to be strong’
also ‘to be in front, dominate’ (DAHOOD
1958:74). The substantive (formed as a stat-
ive participle or adjective; Pope & ROLLIG,
WbMyth 1:217-312) denotes ‘strength, force,
power, might, mana’. Related to a personal
god, the noun has as meaning ‘the strong
one; mighty one; head, chief, leader’. Other
scholars, however, construe 7i/ as an original
Semitic noun, not derived from a verb,
meaning 'chief, god' (STARCKY 1949:383-
386).
The noun "él occurs some 230 times in
the OT (except the problematic testimonies
Num 12:13; Ps 52:3; Job 41:17). In the
LXX it is mostly rendered by Gedc. Excep-
tions are ioxupóg (2 Sam 22 (2 Ps 18]:31-
33. 48; 23:5; Ps 7:12; several times in Job;
Neh 1:5; 9:31) vynddg (Lam 3:41),
&yyeAog (Isa 9:5; Job 20:15), paptus (Isa
43:12), xvopiog (e.g. Isa 40:18; Ps 15 [16]:1;
Job 5:8). Job 20:29 reads éxioxornog; Isa
7:14 construes ‘EppavournA, Isa 8:8,10
however pe6" nu@v ó O0góg. The Kókébé "el
of Isa 14:13 are rendered in Greek as Gotpa
274
tov ovpavov. Vg normally reads deus for
él. Some exceptions can be noted: ‘fortis
(Exod 15:11; Jer 51:56; Ps 94 [95]:3); ‘fort-
issimus' (Jer 32:18); 'dominus' (Ps 15 [16]:
1; Ps 35 [36]:7; Ps 150:1; Lam 3:41). Fur-
ther peculiarities are ‘filii Israhel’ (Deut
32:8—like MT) and the translation of ’élim
(Ps 28 [29]:1) by ‘arietes’ (derived from
'ayil). The Samaritan Targum often renders
'él by Aram hélá ‘the Power’ (Dynamis).
IIl. In Ancient Mesopotamia ilu is at-
tested as an appellative for deities, though a
deity // is not attested. It has been suggested
that /lu as a deity was attested at Emar (D.
ARNAUD, Recherches au Pays d’AStata.
Emar VI/3 [Paris 1986] No. 282:16-18:
dI[u). This suggestion is, however, based on
an incorrect reading of the text (J. M.
DuRnAND, RA 84 [1990] 80): dGASAN*"-kà-
si, 'Nin-kasi'. The position held by El e.g.
in the Ugaritic pantheon can be compared to
the position of Ea (-*Aya) in Mesopotamia
though in god-lists Ea is equated with
Kothar (W. G. LAMBERT, The Pantheon of
Mari, MARI 4 [1985] 525-539; E. LIPIŃSKI,
Éa, Kothar et El, UF 20 [1988] 137-143).
The Ugaritic texts from Ras Shamra sup-
ply more than five hundred references to El.
The noun il in the Ugaritic texts frequently
has the appellative meaning too, especially
in the epistolary literature, but partially also
in the mythological, cultic, and epic texts. In
about half of the occurrences, El denotes a
distinct deity who, residing on the sacred
mountain, occupies within the myths the
position of master of the Ugaritic pantheon.
He bears the title mik ‘king’ (KTU 1.1 iii:23
[restored]; 1.2 ii:5, 1.3; v:8. 36; 1.4 i:5;
iv:24. 38. 48; 1.5 vi:2 [restored]; 1.6 i:36;
1.17 vi:49; 1.117:2-3; cf. 1.14 i:41) and pos-
sesses ultimate authority. In these cases il is
therefore likewise to be understood as a
proper name.
In the literature El is depicted as qgdf
‘holy’ (KTU 1.16 i:11. 22) and appears as
an aged deity (Ancient of Days); the grey
hair of his beard (ibt dqu) is referred to
(KTU 1.3 v:2. 25; 1.4 v:4; 1.18 i:12 [re-
stored]). The frequently employed epithet
ltpn il dpid ‘the benevolent, good-natured
El’ (e.g. KTU 1.4 iv:58; 1.6 iii:4. 10. 14; 1.
EL
16 v:23; see for the etymology Loretz
1990:66) characterizes the deity even better.
Sometimes one of the two nouns (Itpdpid)
occurs without the other or in another con-
nection. It might be presumed that this epi-
thet characterizes the attitude and the experi-
ence of mankind in its relation to El. The
heavenly gods guaranteed and promoted
human life. To El was attributed the kind of
wisdom that made him judge everything
rightly (KTU 1.3 v:30; 1.4 iv:41; v:3-4; 1.16
iv:1-2). On the other hand, El is known as
the one who is able to cure diseases (ATU
1.16 v:23-50; 1.100; 1.107; possibly also
KTU 1.114; cf. 1.108 and ARTU 191-203).
Further, El is designated as tr ‘bull’. This
metaphor expresses his strength and divine
dignity (e.g. KTU 1.2 1:33. 36; 1.3 v:35;
1.14 i:41).
The problem concerning El as creator is
not easily solved. It is suggested by the epi-
thet fr and, more clearly, by formulaic lan-
guage to be discussed. In the mythological
texts, El is often depicted as father of the
other gods. Moreover, he is called in the
Keret epic ab adam, ‘father of mankind’,
obviously because he is the creator of
humanity. The construction bny bmwt occurs
several times in the myths and once in the
Aqhat epic. The expression allegedly refers
to El's creative activity. Traditionally bny
has been understood as the participle of the
G-stem and bw? as a noun derived from the
same root. Thus the construction is trans-
lated ‘creator of creatures’. However, since
RS 24.244 and RS 24.251 have become
known, this interpretation is no longer
uncontested, as bnwt occurs unconnected in
those documents (KTU 1.100:62; 1.107:41,
if correctly restored). These texts gave new
life to the interpretation of VIROLLEAUD
(Ug. V [1968] 571. 580) who rendered the
noun ‘virilité, force créatrice’. This render-
ing was supported by M. DIETRICH, O.
LoreTZ & J. SANMARTÍN (Bemerkungen zur
Schlangenbeschwörung RS 24.244 = UG. 5,
S. 564FF. NR. 7, UF 7 [1975] 124: 'Kraft,
Zeugungskraftü) and S. SEGERT (A Basic
Grammar of the | Ugaritic Language
[Berkeley 1984] 181: 'engendering power,
virility’). However, the interpretation of
275
bnwt is still undetermined. DE Moor (1990:
69) continues to interpret the words as refer-
ring to El as creator. In relation to mankind,
it is only said that El blesses Keret and
Dam il in order to give them descendants
(KTU 1.15 i1i:116-28; 1.17 i:25. 42). The
mythical procreation of gods, on the con-
trary, might have been recognized at Ugarit
though the textual basis is small (KTU 1.10
ii:5; 1.223; M. DIETRICH & O. Loretz,
TUAT Il [1986-89] 350-357; ARTU 117-
128). In KTU 1.3 v:36; 1.4 iv:48 and 1.10
iii:6 El is depicted as the one who appointed
—Baal as king. The verb used here to
describe the action, kn [kw], however, does
not mean ‘to create’. The usual Ugaritic
verb signifying ‘to create’ is gny. It is used
in relation to gods in KTU 1.10 iii:5. The
meaning of the verb is obscure in KTU 1.19
iv:58 (it describes the relation of El to a
locality; possibly to be explained either ‘to
own’ or ‘to produce, create’). The Phoenic-
ian inscriptions attest only once gny, ‘to cre-
ate’, and that with regard to the earth (KA7
26 A III:18). It is doubtful whether El was
conceived of as —'El creator of the earth’ at
Ugarit since there is no reference to the con-
cept (Pore 1987:219-230; RENDTORFF
1966:287; contrast DE Moor 1980; 1990:
69). As regards the creative activity of El
the Ugaritic conception differed from that in
the remaining Syrian-Palestinian area.
It has been suggested that El was de-
prived of his authority in the course of his-
tory and relegated to a lower position in the
Ugaritic pantheon. Several observations
were intended to support this supposition
(esp. Pore 1955:90-104; 1987:227-229;
OLDENBURG 1969). One view holds that
Baal was promoted to the position of El. It
has been examined by C. E. L'HEunREUX
(Rank among the Canaanite Gods. El, Ba‘al,
and the Repha’im (Missoula 1979]), who
concluded that this view can no longer be
maintained as it rested on too many conjec-
tures. On the contrary, El kept his authority
unceasingly according to the belief of the
Ugaritic population. The myths do not refer
to any discord between El and Baal
(SCHMIDT 1966:64-67; H. GESE, RAAM 1-
EL
232; esp. 112; P. J. vaN Zu.. Baal. A Study
of Texts in Connection with Baal in the
Ugaritic Epics [AOAT 10; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1972]; S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, Zur
Gótterlehre des Epos von Keret, UF 1l
[1979] 505-514; M. Yow, Ougarit et ses
Dieux, Resurrecting the Past [FS A.-
Bounni; P. Matthiae, M. van Loon & H.
Weiss eds.; Istanbul 1990] 325-343, esp.
337). It is inadmissible to posit a major
religio-historical development on the basis
of the position held by El in the Ugaritic
documents to that of "| in the Phoenician
and Aramaic inscriptions. The religious con-
ceptions of the various arcas and periods
need not have been congruent.
Views diverge about the significance of
the epithet ab snm (B. MArGattT, UF 15
[1983] 90-93). The interpretation of the text
KTU 1.65 by M. DIETRICH; O. LoRETZ & J.
SANMARTÍN (UF 7 [1975] 523-524) is not
entirely convincing. P. D. MiLLER (El the
Warrior, HTR 60 [1967] 411-431) mentions
the possibility that Philo Byblius knew El as
a bellicose deity, based on his interpretation
of the epithet under consideration. This is
unfounded. The expression ab inm presum-
ably characterizes El as the oldest among
the gods (ARTU 16 n. 83).
Finally, it should be observed that El was
iconographically represented by his wor-
shippers. Unfortunately, it is seldom poss-
ible to identify him among the images pre-
served. The material is collected by A.
Caquor & M. Sznycer (Ugaritic Religion
[Leiden 1980] pl. VII. assumedly VIII a); by
M. Yon & J. GacHeT (Une statuette du
dieu El à Ugarit, Syria 66 [1989] 349) and
by P. WELTEN (Götterbild, männliches,
BRL?, 99-111; cf. the comments by N.
Wyatt, The Stela of the seated God from
Ugarit, UF 15 [1983] 271-277).
In the Phoenician, Aramaic, Punic and
Neo-Punic inscriptions the noun ’/ is gene-
rally used as appellative in the sense of
‘god, godhead’ or as adjective ‘divine’. This
use of the term is also known from the
Uganitic texts of Ras Shamra and from the
OT. Yet, El was also used as proper name,
e.g. when El is mentioned alongside other
276
gods. This is the case in the Aramaic
inscription of Panammuwa I king of Sam'al
(KAI 214) dating from the middle of the
eighth century BCE. The text mentions the
gods -*Hadad, El. —Resheph, -*Rakib-el
and Shamash (->Shemesh) as benefactors of
Panammuwa, bestowing upon him the
kingship and welfare of his state (KA/ 214:1.
2. 11. 18). The gods Hadad, El, Rakib-el
and Shamash are found also in the closing
formula of the inscription on the statue of
Panammuwa II. Moreover, the first stela of
the Aramaic Sefire-inscription (eighth cen-
tury BCE) containing the text of the treaty
between the kings of KTK and Arpad (KAI
222) mentions El alongside ‘lyn (-*Elyón)
and other gods (ĶAI 222A:11). In a
Phoenician votive inscription from the Hel-
lenistic era, discovered at Umm el-
‘Awamaid, the name El is also used absolut-
ively (M. LiDZzBARSKL Ephemeris für
semitische Epigraphik, vol. 11 [1903-1907]
166 a. 1; cf. RóLLIG, 1959:409). W. W.
Graf BAUDISSIN (Kyrios als Gottesname im
Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religions-
geschichte 1I] [ed. O. Eissfeldt; Giessen
1929] 11) already noted the divine name
rkb'| (e.g. KAI 24:16) might contain the
proper name El. This opinion is endorsed by
ROLLIG (1959:409). Finally, El is attested in
the inscription of Deir ‘Alli, dating from
about 700 BCE, (second combination II:6;
see J. Hormszer, TUAT II,1 [1986] 145; on
'él used as a proper name among the south-
em Arabians, see Cross 1973:260-261). It
is therefore not astonishing that El was still
known as an independent deity to Philo
Byblius who calls him màog (Eusebius,
Praep. evang. 1,10:16. 20. 29. 44).
The Phoenician inscription of Karatepe
dating from the late eighth century BCE
quotes beside other gods 7! qn ’rs 'El-cre-
ator-of-the-Earth' (KA/ 26 A III:18). The
same epithet occurs in a second century CE
Neo-Punic inscription (KA/ 129:1). It
qualifies El as creator of the earth. The
name has ancient roots as witnessed by the
divine name 9EI-ku-ni-ir-a in a myth dis-
covered at Boghazkóy. It must be emphasi-
zed that nowhere in the Phoenician and
EL
Punic inscriptions is El mentioned as presi-
dent of the other gods (RENDTORFF 1966).
P. BORDREUIL (Les noms propres Trans-
jordaniens de l’Ostracon de Nimroud, RHPR
59 (1979) 313-317) has pointed out that in
Ammonite personal names the theophoric
element °’? predominates. However, these
names do not prove that El was worshipped
in Ammon, since the theophoric element
under consideration should presumably be
interpreted as referring to the Ammonite
national deity >Milcom (SmitH 1990:24;
see also U. HüBNER, Die Ammoniter
[ADPV 16; Wiesbaden 1992] 256. for a
more cautious view). El is not attested in the
Ammonite inscriptions. According to P. M.
M. Daviau & P. E. Dios, El, the God of
the Ammonites?, ZDPV 110 [1994] 158-
167) an Atef-crowned head excavated at
Tell Jawa, Jordan should be interpreted as
the depiction of El as the chief god of the
Ammonites; an identification with Milcom
is more plausible, however.
III. The population of Palestine in the
first millennium BCE knew the deity El.
Already F. C. Movers (Die Phénizier |
[Bonn 1841] 389) held that the Israelites
worshipped El as a god distinct from
Yahweh (but cf. Scrmipt 1971:146). As a
result the OT contains texts where the
Canaanite background of the name is still
recognizable. In these few instances El
refers to a deity other than Yahweh. The
evidence will pass in review.
The expressions "el ’élohé yiára'el, ‘El,
the god of Israel’ (Gen 33:20) and ha’él
"elóhé ?abika, ‘El, the god of your father’,
(Gen 46:3) should be discussed first. The
present context of both phrases relates them
to the patriarch Jacob and his God in whom
none other than Yahweh could be seen
(SmitH 1990:11). Yet it is the Canaanite El
who is depicted here as the God of Israel
(contrast Josh 8:30). In all probability Gen
33:20 represents an old tradition. It shows
that El] was worshipped at least by some of
the proto-Israelites (but cf. the interpretation
of the Greek translation: xai e&xexaA£oato
tov Bedv Iopand). O. Lorerz (Die Epitheta
"1 *thj j§rl (Gn 33,20) und °l °Ihj °bjk (Gn
277
46,3), UF 7 (1975) 583) estimates 'élohé to
be a later expansion of an original 'e/
'übikà; cf. the explanation by C. WESTER-
MANN (Genesis [BK I/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1981] 644-646; [I/3; Neukirchen Vluyn
1982] 171). DE Moon (1990:245) construes
an original reading ’n y/l "Ihy ?byk, 'I am
Yu-El, the God of your father’. This seems
to be highly speculative, however. The sur-
mise that ’é/ in Gen 46:3 has been trans-
formed from a proper noun into an appel-
lative is supported by the fact that there are
numerous cases where the proper name
Yahweh is supplemented by a genitive
employed in apposition: e.g. yhwh ’élohé
"ábótékem (e.g. Exod 3:15-16; Deut 1:11.
21; 6:3; Josh 18:3). The same can be ob-
served at Num 23:8. 19. 22-23; 24:4. 8. 16.
23; 2 Sam 23:5.
The view that El was worshipped among
the Israelites is supported by Isa 14:4b-20, a
lamentation about the downfall of a univer-
sal ruler. The text relates that the tyrant
intended to ascend to heaven in order to set
his throne above the kókébé "él, ‘the stars of
El’, and thus settle himself upon the divine
mountain in the outmost north (v 13). This
was an attempt to exercise dominion over
the universe, something traditionally re-
served for El, the divine lord. The text al-
ludes to Canaanite traditions. Pore inter-
preted a line in a Punic inscription from
Italy—XKA/ 277:10-11—as follows: km
hkkbm °l, ‘like the stars of El' (apud Cross
1973:272). This interpretation has been chal-
lenged by SPRoNK (Beatific Áfterlife [AOAT
219; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986] 215n1) who
apparently renders ‘like these stars’. How-
ever, ^| can be interpreted as a genitivus
qualitatis: 'these divine stars'. The divine
mountain (—Zaphon, —Baal Zaphon )was
an important element in this Canaanite/
Ugaritic mythology.
Another trace of El-worship in ancient
Israel is found in Ezek 28:2 (pace Cross
1973:271). The king of Tyre regarded him-
self a god and thought that he possessed a
divine residence in the midst of the sea
(>Melqart). Here, the allusions to Canaanite
mythology are unmistakable. The residence
EL
of El (mtb il) is referred to in KTU 1.3
1v:48; v:39; 1.4 1:12; iv:52. El's mythic
dwelling is situated at mbk nhrn/ apq
thmtm, ‘the fountainhead of the two rivers/
bedding of the two floods’ (e.g. KTU 1.2
iii:4; 1.6 1:33-34).
Further hints to the worship of El are
given by the names ’é/ bérit (~Baal Berith:
Judg 9:46), 'el *'ólàm (-*El-olam; Gen
21:33), ?él 'élyón (Most High -*Elyon; Gen
14:18-22; Ps 78:35), ?el ro'*í (God of seeing
—El-roi; Gen 16:13), and ^el sadday
(-*^Shadday; Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14;
48:3; 49:25 [cj.; Exod 6:3; Ezek 10:5) as
well as by genitival constructions containing
El: béné ’é] (Deut 32:8. 43; LXX: vioi
Geov; 4QDtn€ bry 7 [hym]; P. W. SKEHAN,
A fragment of the “song of Moses” (Deut.
32) from Qumran, BASOR 136 [1954] 12-
15; O. Loretz, Die Vorgeschichte von
Deuteronomium 32,8f.43, UF 9 [1977] 355-
357) respectively béné "elim (Ps 29:1; 89:7),
mó'ádé ël (Ps 74:8), and 'ádat ?él (Ps 82:1;
H. NiEHR, Gótter oder Menschen - cine
falsche Alternative: Bemerkungen zu Ps 82,
ZAW 99 [1988] 94-98).
Finally, Hebrew proper names with the
theophoric element ?é/ known from the OT
as well as from ancient Hebrew inscriptions
should be taken into account. It is not clear
whether the element ’é/ refers to a deity in
general or to E! in particular (for Ugarit see
EISSFELDT 1951:46-52; F. GRONDAHL, Die
Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit [SiP
l; Roma 1967] 94-97; for the other regions
sec M. Noru, /PN 82-99; J. H. TiGay, You
Shall Have No Other Gods (HSM 31; Atlan-
ta 1986] 12. 83-85). In the main, the noun
"él is used in the OT in a way comparable to
the Ugaritic and Canaanite inscriptions, i.e.
as an appellative meaning 'god'. This use
survived alongside the divine designation
'élóhím (e.g. Exod 15:11; Isa 44:10. 15. 17;
46:6; Ezek 28:9; Ps 36:7; 80:11; 104:21(?];
Dan 11:36). There are cases where ’é/ refers
to Yahweh. Apparently there was no re-
straint in ancient Israel in using the substan-
tive since Yahweh—in spite of his incom-
parability—was also perceived as a deity
comparable to the gods of the Canaanite
278
world (e.g. Gen 35:1. 3; Exod 15:2; Deut
3:24; Isa 5:16; 7:14; 8:8. 10; 31:3; Jer
51:56; Hos 11:9; 12:1; Mic 7:18; Ps 63:2;
SMITH 1990:7-12; DE Moor 1990).
The identification of El with Yahweh
opened the possibility of adopting ideas and
concepts connected with the El religion. A
problematic case is the designation "el
ganna’ (qann6’), ‘a jealous god’ for Yahweh
(Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15;
Josh 24:19; Nah 1:2) since in the Ugaritic
literature jealousy and violent behaviour is a
characteristic not of El, but of the goddess
-Anat (KTU 1.3 v:22-25; 1.17 vi:41-45;
1.18 i:9-12). It is easier to find the ante-
cedent to the characterization of Yahweh as
él rahhtim wéhanniin ’erek ’appayim wérab
hesed, ‘a merciful and gracious god, long-
suffering and abundant in goodness’ (Exod
34:6; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps 86:15; 103:8;
145:8; Neh 9:17; many other passages con-
tain separate elements of this confession).
This phrase is related to the epithet of El of
Ugarit /tpn il dpid discussed above (SMITH
1990:10). Most probably, this trait of El was
also Known in the more southern Canaanite
regions. The fact that it was taken over to
characterize Yahweh underlines the continu-
ation between the Ugaritic/Canaanite El
religion and later Yahwism (DE Moor 1990:
69-82. 234-260; KonPEL 1990; SwirrH 1990:
7-12.21-26; Loretz 1990:73. 182; pace e.g.
L. KOHLER, Theologie des Alten Testaments
(Tübingen 1936 = 41966] 30). An important
feature is the designation of Yahweh as
‘king’, though this title is not applied to El
in the Ugaritic inscriptions but to Baal.
Nonetheless, this metaphor hints at a
Canaanite heritage. The moment of attribu-
tion of the epithet ‘king’ to Yahweh is a
question of debate. The concept of Baal as
king might have been of influence (SCHMIDT
1966; KonPEL 1990:281-286).
The Phoenician inscriptions from Karatepe
reveal El as a creator-god. Therefore it is
plausible that the Canaanite population of
Palestine has taken over the view of El as a
creator, which was only late applied to
Yahweh. It should be noted however that it
is not clear from the Ugaritic texts that E]
EL
was seen as creator. The view that mankind
was the creation of Yahweh is known from
sources which are not earlier than the
seventh century BCE (Gen 2:7. 22; Exod
4:11; Deut 4:32; 32:6. 15; Isa 29:16; Hos
8:14; Prov 14:31]; 17:5; 22:2; 29:13 (cf.
20:12; Ps 139:13]), and the view of Yahweh
as the creator of mankind cannot certainly
be traced back to the concept of creation of
the earth by Yahweh (Gen 2; 14:19. 22).
However, it should also be taken into
account that the idea of Yahweh as creator
was borrowed by the Israelites from the
Phoenician -*Baal-shamem religion (H.
NiEHR, Der hóchste Gott |[BZAW 190; Ber-
lin New York 1990] 119-140).
The fact that Yahweh obtained, though
relatively late, the title ?àb, '-*Father' (Isa
63:16; Jer 3:4; 31:9; Mal 1:6) probably also
shows Canaanite influence though attesta-
tions that El was seen as ‘father’ are only
known from Ugaritic sources (e.g. KTU 1.2
1:33; 1.3 v:35; 1.4 iv:47; 1.14 i:41; KORPEL
1990:235-239).
S. E. LOEWENSTAMM (Comparative Stud-
ies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Litera-
tures [AOAT 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980}
157-159) connects Num 12:13 to the
Canaanite concept of El as healer (—>El-
rophe) and 2 Sam 14:20, as well as Job
12:12, to El'S wisdom. It should be re-
marked that the references applying the
noun ’é/ to Yahweh increase from the Baby-
lonian era onward (Isa 40:18; 42:5; 43:10,
12; 45:14, 15, 20-22; 46:9; Num 16:22; 1
Sam 2:3; Josh 22:22; Isa 12:2; Lam 3:41).
They prove that El did not disappear from
the religious sphere and should likewise be
judged as an intentionally archaizing el-
ement. The name El is employed for
Yahweh particularly often in the Psalter
(e.g. 5:5; 7:12; 18 [2 2 Sam 22]:3. 31. 33.
48; 102:25).
IV. Bibliography
F. M. Cross, "el, TWAT 1 (1973) 259-279;
M. J. DaAHOOD, Ancient Semitic Deities in
Syria and Palestine,. Le antiche Divinità
Semitiche (J. Bottéro & S. Moscati eds.:
Roma 1958) 65-94; O. EissFELDT, El and
Yahweh, JSS 1 (1956) 25-37 = KS Ill
279
EL-BERITH — EL-CREATOR-OF-THE-EARTH
[1966] 386-397; EissrELDT, El im ugari-
tischen Pantheon (Berlin 1951); E. Jacos,
El, BHH 1 (1962) 386-389; M. C. A. Kor-
PEL, A Rift in the Clouds (UBL 8; Miinster
1990); O. LonETZ, Ugarit und die Bibel
(Darmstadt 1990) 66-73; J. C. DE Moor, El,
the Creator, The Bible World. Essays in
Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon (ed. G. Rends-
burg et al.; New York 1980) 171-187; DE
Moor, The Rise of Yahwism (BETL 91;
Leuven 1990); M. J. MULDER, Kanadni-
tische Goden in het Oude Testament (Den
Haag 1965) 13-24; U. OLDENBURG, The
Conflict between El and Baal in Canaanite
Religion (Leiden 1969); M. H. Pope, El in
the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup 2; Leiden 1955);
Pore, The Status of El at Ugarit, UF 19
(1987) 219-230; R. Renptorrr, El, Ba‘al
und Jahwe. Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von
kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion,
ZAW '78 (1966) 277-291; W. RÓLLIG, EI als
Gottesbezeichnung im Phünizischen, Fest-
schrift J. Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag (R.
von Kiele ct al.. eds.; Heidelberg 1959) 403-
416; W. H. Scuwipr, ’él, THAT 1 (1971)
142-149; SCHMIDT, Königtum Gottes in
Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 80; Berlin
21966); J. Starcky, Le nom divin El, ArOr
17 (1949) 383-386.
W. HERRMANN
EL-BERITH -* BAAL BERITH
EL-CREATOR-OF-THE-EARTH
I. The second element of the name of
the deity °l qn ’rs can etymologically be
connected with the verbal-root QNY 'create,
acquire (a property)’, which is used for
example, in Ps 139:13 (asta qanita kilyétai
‘you created my kidneys’). The interpreta-
tion of the god as ‘El-Creator-of-the-Earth’
therefore seems highly justified. Contrast E.
Lipixski (TWAT 7 [1990-1992] 68) who
preferred a derivation from QNy ‘to keep, to
possess’ and translated: ‘El-the-Owner-of
the Earth’. The God is mentioned in Gen
14:19.22.
II. The name of the deity first occurs
outside the Bible in Phoenician in the Kara-
tepe-Inscription (7! qn ’rs KAI 26 A IIT 18 =
TSSI lI 15 A III 18, end of the eighth cen-
tury BCE). The hieroglyphic-Luwian version
mentions the Mesopotamian god of wisdom
and sweet-water Ea in the writing Pa-d-s.
El-Creator-of-the-Earth is mentioned in the
curse-formula between —Ba'al Samém, i.c.
the Lord of Heaven, and Sami “olam, i.c.
the Sun-god of Eternity. Traces of the
Canaanite god and his worship can be found
much earlier. A mythological text from the
Hittite archive of HattuSa tells the story of
del-ku-né-er-Sa, the husband of 4a-se-er-tum
(Ashera). He dwells in a tent at the
sources of the river Mala i.e. the -*Eu-
phrates (ANET? 519, cf. H. Orren, MIO 1
[1953] 125-150; MDOG 85 [1953] 27-38).
The Weathergod, embarrassed by the sexual
overtures of Ashertu, pays a visit to El-
qoneh who advises him to injure the god-
dess. He complies by murdering 77 or 88
sons of Ashertu. The slaughter gives risc to
great mourning. The myth breaks off here,
but it is certain that it is Canaanite in origin.
The god El-Creator-of-the-Earth who lives
in a tent by the Euphrates, moreover, points
to a nomadic cultural setting. In the writing
dku-né-er-ša (i.e. without the opening god-
name, if not to be found in the determinat-
ive) the god also occurs in a fragmentary
Hittite ritual (KUB 36,38 rev.8) as onc of
the 'thousand gods of Hatti-land'. Centuries
later, in the second cent. BCE, an exedra and
a porticus were dedicated to “I gn "rs in
Leptis Magna (Tripolitania) by a man
named Candidus, son of Candidus, who
gave notice of it by means of a NeoPunic
inscription (KAJ 129 = LEVI DELLA VIDA &
AMADASI Guzzo 1987, No. 18). In the
Aramaic world, we also know some tesserae
from Palmyra, which mention ?/ q(w)n '?r*
(INGHOLT, SEYRIG & SrARCKY, Recueil
[1955] No. 220-223). From the same place
there is even a bilingual dedication [IP] qwn
^r lte tb? ‘To El-Creator-of-the-Earth the
good god’, Greek poseidoni thed (J. CAN-
TINEAU, Syria 19 [1938] 78:5). This divine
figure may also be represented by the
b'[l]$mwn qnh dy rh, ‘Baal-shamen creator
of the earth’ in the Hatra-Inscription 23,3
280
ELDERS
(KAI 244) and the Konnaros of a Latin and
a Greek inscription from Baalbek (/GLS V1
No. 2743; 2841).
These widespread references show that
El-qoneh was venerated for a very long time
in the West-Semitic world. He is best
regarded as a manifestation of the highest
god >El: simply in his role as creator
mundi. 1n Hatra Baal-shamen was accorded
the highest rank among the gods; and there-
fore assumed El's power as creator.
HII. In the late (but in its core carly)
Biblical midrash about the mecting between
—Melchizedek and Abram (Gen 14), the
latter is blessed by the High Priest of
(Jeru)salem in the name of "el *elyón qóne
šāmayim wāāreş (v 19). He answers by
swearing an oath in the name of the same
god (v 22). lt is to be noticed, that a con-
tamination of El and Elydn here took place,
perhaps in a later Yahwistic tradition. The
tradition epithet is extended: the creation
comprises heaven and earth, a development
which made H. Gese think of a divine triad
consisting of an 'el *Elyón, ?él qoné "áreg
and "él qoné $ámayim (RAAM [1970] 114).
It is interesting to note that 1 QGenApocr
22:16.21 uses the Aramaic title mrh, i.e.
‘Lord (of Heaven and Earth)’ in his trans-
lation instead of goné. With this interpreta-
tion, the offensive contamination is rejected
in favor of an interpretation of the unified
name of the god ’él ‘Elydén. The reference to
El Qoneh in Gen 14 shows that this Canaan-
ite god was well known to the Israelites but
did not find his place in any official (and
private?) cult.
IV. Bibliography
H. A. HoFFNER, The Elkunir$a Myth Recon-
sidered, RHA 23 (1965) 5-16; G. LEvi
DELLA Vipa & M. G. AMaADAS! GUZZO,
Iscrizioni puniche della Tripolitania (1927-
1967) (Roma 1987) 46; P. D. MILLER, El,
the Creator of Earth, BASOR 239 (1980) 43-
46; M. WkEIPPERT, Elemente phónikischer
und kiliKischer Religion in den Inschriften
von Karatepe, ZDMG Suppl.1/1 (1969) 203-
204.
W. ROLLIG
ELDERS zpeofvtepot
l. The noun presbyteros, usually mean-
ing ‘older’, or in a technical sense ‘elder’
(Jewish) or ‘presbyter’ (Christian), occurs
12 times in Rev referring to beings in
heaven. They are always identificd as ‘the
twenty-four elders’.
II. Twenty-four elders appear for the
first time in the vision of heaven in chap. 4
and are described as sitting on 24 thrones
situated around the throne of God, dressed
in white garments and with golden crowns
on their heads (4:14). Also around the
throne, probably in the area between the
throne of God and the 24 thrones of the
elders, four living creatures are positioned
(4:6-8). Their task is to praise God without
ceasing and their praise is supported by the
24 elders who prostrate themselves (lit.
‘fall’, piptó) before the throne of God and
worship him (proskyneo).
The triad of the throne of God, the four
living creatures and the 24 elders is subse-
quently used to describe the central place in
heaven where specific events take place: the
appearing of the -*Lamb (5:6) and the wor-
ship of the Lamb by the —angels (5:11), the
worship of God by the angels (7:11) and the
singing of the new song (14:3). In these
texts no actions of the elders are mentioned.
When they come into action it is to wor-
ship God together with the four living crea-
tures. Their worship is described in the same
way as in chap. 4. It occurs when the Lamb
receives the scroll (5:8-10) and at the end of
the same scene (5:14); when the seventh
angel has blown his trumpet (11:16), and at
the great Hallelujah in heaven (19:4). Twice
one of the elders acts as an angelus inter-
pres, viz. when the Lamb is announced (5:5)
and when the countless multitude (7:9) is
identified as those who have passed through
the great ordeal (7:13-17). The thrones on
which the elders are sitting are mentioned
only in the introductory description in 4:4
and in 11:16 where they serve to identify
the elders (if the article Aoi is retained).
Usually the throne is the throne of judgment
(cf. 20:4; Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; Dan 7:9-
10; Ps 121:5 LXX), but the occupants of the
281
ELEMENTAL SPIRITS OF THE UNIVERSE — ELIJAH
throne in 20:4 are not the elders but the
martyrs risen from death. The golden
crowns on the heads of the elders are men-
tioned only in 4:4 and in 4:10 where they
are laid before the throne of God as an act
of submission.
To sum up, the 24 elders have their place
in a circle around the throne of God and
their sole function is to worship God, they
are explicitly distinguished from the angels
in 7:11 and implicitly in 5:11.
The idea of a divine household surround-
ing God is known in the OT (cf. | Kgs
22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1; Council) and wide-
spread in Jewish apocalyptic traditions but
no mention is made of elders (except. poss-
ibly, Isa 24:23 LXX, if enópion tón presby-
teron refers to heavenly beings and not to
the elders of the people as suggested in the
Targum).
Since no clear connections with other tra-
ditions, Jewish or non-Jewish, can be estab-
lished the following hypotheses to explain
the 24 elders in heaven are proposed.
The elders may represent or reflect earth-
ly institutions, such as the elders of the
people of Israel (cf. Isa 24:23, quoted above;
Exod 24:11), or the 24 priestly orders (2 Chr
24:1-19; cf. in the Mishnah ‘the elders of
the priesthood’, Yoma 1,5), or the twelve
patriarchs and the twelve apostles (men-
tioned together in Rev 21:12-14) represent-
ing together the people of God of the OT
and the NT, or the presbyters of the Chris-
tian church. This last interpretation would
also explain why the 24 elders carry the
incense which represents the prayers of the
saints (5:8). But nowhere in Rev are elders
or presbyters referred to as church officers.
The idea of the 24 elders in heaven may
go back to ideas from the Umwelt, such as
the 24 Babylonian astral deities mentioned
in Diodorus Siculus H 31,4 (quoted in
Bousser 1906; CHarLES 1920) and called
‘judges of the universe’ (cf. 2 Enoch A
IV.1); or the 24 Iranian heavenly Yazatas
(possibly referred to by Plutarch, /sis et
Osiris 47, cf Bousser 1906; CHARLES
1920). But the 24 elders are neither rulers
nor judges. Their only task is to worship
God. It is true that the number of 24 has
cosmic connotations but this is too general
to be helpful. Non of these hypotheses can
give a satisfactory explanation of the origin
and background of the 24 elders in heaven.
The parallels quoted or referred to may
somehow have contributed to the idea but
they are no more than analogies.
HI. Bibliography
E. B. Arlo, L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean
(Paris 1921) 54-56; W. Bousset, Die
Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen 1906)
245-247; G. BoRNKAMM, xp€oBuc, TWNT 6
(1959) 668-670; R. H. CHARLES, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Revel-
ation of St. John (Edinburgh 1920) I 128-
133; A. FEUILLET, Les vingt-quatre vicil-
lards de l'Apocalypse, RB 65 (1958) 5-32; J.
MICHL, Die 24 Altesten in der Apokalypse
des heiligen Johannes (Minchen 1938).
J. REILING
ELEMENTAL SPIRITS OF THE UNI-
VERSE - STOICHEIA
ELIJAH woos, TSS, 'HXe)ias
I. Elijah = “Yahweh is God” (cf. 1 Kgs
18:36,37) is the name (surname?) of an
Israelite prophet (9th century BCE), and
occurs 68 times in the OT (62x in | Kgs -
2Kgs 2), 29 times in the NT and further in |
Macc 2:58; Sir 48:1,4,12. On account of his
ascension (2 Kgs 2:11) he is considered to
have been transferred to heavenly existence
and accordingly his return could be expected
(Mal 3:23.24).
II. Stories about men who have been
transported bodily from the realm of human-
kind to a domain inaccessible to ordinary
mortals (heaven, paradise or some other
inaccessible place), are known from an-
tiquity, especially from Greece and Rome
(STRECKER 1962:461-476; LOHFINK 1971:
32-79), but also from Mesopotamia (SCHMITT
1973:4-23). In Rome the emperor’s removal
to heaven was a condition for his apotheosis
and cult. In the NT -»Jesus' ascension is
described as a removal in Mark 16:19; Luke
9:5]; Acts 1:2.9.11.22; 1 Tim 3:16.
ELUAH
The ascension traditions have a number
of characteristic traits in common (cf.
HourMAN 1978:301-303). With regard to
the story of Elijah's translation, the follow-
ing elements can be pointed out: they have
the purpose of telling about a person's
removal in the flesh to the divine world.
Usually they are told from the perspective of
the spectator(s). The circumstances and the
place of the ascension are described rather
fully (cf. 2 Kgs 2:1-18; Luke 24:36-53; Acts
1:4-11). No detailed information, however,
is given about the journcy, the route and the
destination of the transported person (cf. 2
Kgs 2:11.12; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:2.11.22).
He has vanished without a trace. None of
his mortal remains can be found on carth
(cf. 2 Kgs 2:16-18; Luke 24:1-11.23.24).
God or the gods are regarded as the agent(s)
of the translation (2 Kgs 2:1 presents an
interpretation of 2 Kgs 2:11; cf. Luke
24:52.53). Often fire (cf. Judg 13:20) and
meteorological phenomena carry away the
person concerned and/or conceal the event
(cf. 2 Kgs 2:11.12; Acts 1:9; 1 Thess 4:17;
Rev 11:12). By his assumption he is
qualified as an exceptional being (cf. Judg
13:6.8.10-23). As a miracle the removal
demands belief. Such belief can be elicited,
for instance, as the result of an inquiry (cf. 2
Kgs 2:16-18) or by (a) witness(es) (cf. 2
Kgs 2:12.18: Acts 1:10.11; Rev 11:12), by
the appearance of heavenly beings (cf. Acts
1:10.11) or by a voice from heaven (Rev
11:12). To be taken up is exceptional und a
great honour. lt happens only to extraor-
dinary mortals. By ascension immortality
and a divine status are acquired. Among the
heavenly beings the person in question lives
on. So he can be a helper for people on
earth (cf. Matt 28:30; Rom 8:34). From his
exalted position he can return to earth (cf.
Mal 3:23.24; Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7; 14:14-16).
Bodily translation does not always exclude
dying, but in that case resurrection is suppo-
sed (cf. Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; Rev 11:11.12
and see | Thess 4:16.17).
III. In the books of Kings, Elijah is
depicted as a real man of God. Thanks to
his intimate relation with the Lorp he was
in possession of supernatural powers and in
a position to do miracles (1 Kgs 17:8-16;
18:37.38; 2 Kgs 2:8). He had at his disposal
both life and death (1 Kgs 17:1, ef. Sir 48:3;
Luke 4:25.26; Jas 5:17.18; Rev 11:6; 1 Kgs
17:17-24; 2 Kgs 1:10-14). He was a cham-
pion of justice (1 Kgs 21) and distinguished
himself by his combat against -*Baal-wor-
ship and by his zeal (cf. | Kgs 19:10.14) for
the Lorp (1 Kgs 18-19, cf. Rom 11:2-5; 2
Kgs 1; Sir 48:3b, cf. Luke 9:54; 2 Chron
21:12-15). To a certain extent Elijah has the
traits of a new -*Moses (cf. c.g. G. FOHRER
19682:55-57). Great homage was paid to
Elijah. By means of divine chariots (cf. Dan
7:13; Mark 13:26 par.; 14:62 par.) he. was
carried up to heaven (2 Kgs 2:1.11; Sir
48:9.11.12), according to 1 Macc 2:58 for
being zealous and fervent for the law. With-
in the OT no other person's removal is nar-
rated with such clarity as Elijah's. The
translation of -*Enoch is only suggested (the
verb [qh in Gen 5:24 permits various inter-
pretations). Clear evidence about thc
assumption of other prominent OT figures
such as Moses, Baruch and Ezra belong to
the traditions outside the OT. Already with-
in the OT Elijah's return is announced and
associated with the Messianic age (Mal 3:1.
23.24, cf. Sir 48:10).
The phrase "to heaven" in 2 Kgs 2:1.11
has been translated in the LXX in a remark-
able way by hos eis ton ouranon, “as if to
heaven" (see also some MSS of | Macc
2:58). The reason for this dilution of the
Heb text is not clear. Did the translator
reject the miracle? (Scuwrrr. 1973:150).
According to an interpretation which is
mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud
(Sukkah 5a). Elijah's ascension to heaven is
excluded by Ps 115:16 (cf. Su-B 4 [1924]
765). The view that Elijah had not ascended
to heaven is also ascribed to the Evangelist
John (John 3:13, cf. John 8:52.53) (MARTYN
1976:181-219). In Samaritan tradition,
Elijah is depicted as a rascal who on his
flight for king Ahab drowned in the river
Jordan (The Samaritan Chronicle No. Il; ed.
MacDONALD 1969:163, 164). Did the trans-
lator intend to eliminate the chronological
283
ELIJAH
problem of 2 Chron 21:12—a letter of Elijah
reached Joram of Judah who lived after
Elijah’s ascension—by suggesting that
Elijah had‘ only been lifted up “as if to
heaven” and had been brought to another
place on earth (cf. 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kgs
2:16; Acts 8:39.40)? Or did he hold a dis-
senting view on Elijah’s destination, viz.
that Elijah had been carried to paradise (cf.
Jub 4:23), the place for the elect and right-
cous ones (J Enoch 70)? An indication of
Elijah’s destination is lacking in LXX Sir
48:9 and in Josephus’ description of Elijah's
removal (Ant. 9.28) (cf. HourMAN 1978:
298-300). The rabbis (Str-B 4 [1924] 765-
766) as well as the Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus,
Contra Haereses 5.5.1; Gregory the Great,
Homilia XXIX; PL 76 [1849] 1216) had no
uniform view of Elijah's destination.
According to the NT some people be-
lieved Jesus to be Elijah (Matt 16:14; Mark
6:15; 8:28; Luke 9:8,19; see also Luke 22:
43, cf. 1 Kgs 19:5,7), but in conformity with
his Messianic claim he himself designated
John the Baptist as having been the precur-
sor and herald of the Messiah (Matt 11:14;
cf. Matt 17:13; Luke 1:17; see on the con-
trary John 1:21.25). In the role of a precur-
sor of Jesus, Elijah appeared together with
Moses (cf. Mal 3:22-24) on the Mount of
Transfiguration. There they talked with
Jesus (Matt 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke
9:28-36). By their coming the beginning of
final age is announced (cf. also Rev 11:3-
12). In extra-biblical literature Elijah, as a
precursor of the Messiah, is accompanied by
Enoch (e.g., / Enoch 90:31; 4 Ezra 6:26). In
Rev 11:3-12 reference is made to Moses and
Elijah (cf. Rev 11:6) as preachers of repen-
tance in the last time. In their confrontation
with the beast (cf. the description of Elijah's
and Enoch’s struggle with the —Antichrist
in chap. 4 of the Elijah Apocalyse) they
suffered death, but after their martyrdom
they were raised from the dead and as-
cended to heaven (Rev 11:7-12). As appears
from Matt 27:47.49; Mark 15:35.36, Elijah
was considered the helper of the hopeless
(cf. 1 Kgs 17:8-24) in popular Jewish belief.
IV. Ancient witnesses attest to the exist-
ence of several apocryphal works which are
attributed to Elijah. Two complete Apoca-
lypses of Elijah are known: a Coptic docu-
ment and a Hebrew Sefer Eliyahu which is
significantly different from the Coptic work
(cf. DEHANDSCHUTTER 1988:59-68). In rab-
binical literature Elijah plays a prominent
role. The solution of halakhic problems is
expected of him. Rabbis and pious men
were considered to have been guided by him
in their studies. He is a precursor and active
partner of the Messiah. On account of his
burning zeal for the Lorp he is identified
with Aaron’s grandson Phinehas (cf. Num
25:7-13; Ps 106:30). In various guises he
appears as the redeemer and the helper of
the poor and the hopeless. In Jewish mysti-
cism Elijah is regarded as a supernatural
being not born of a woman. He is an angel
descended from heaven for the purpose of
being useful to humankind and a teacher of
Kabbalah. In Jewish folklore Elijah is a
favourite hero. He combats social injustice,
helps the poor and turns against the proud
and the oppressors. He also figures in
humoristic stories and in religious customs
("the chair of Elijah" at the circumcision
ceremony; "the cup of Elijah" at the Pass-
over Seder). With the name llyaas, Elijah
occurs in the Koran (Sura 6:85; 37:123-130)
and in Islamic tradition (cf. HIsl, 204-206;
A. J. WENSINCK, Encls! 3 [1927] 470-471).
V. Bibliography
G. Baroy, Élie le prophète I: Selon les
écritures et les traditions chrétiennes; Il: Au
Carmel, dans le Judaïsme et l'Islam, (Bru-
ges 1956); R. BAUCKHAM, The Martyrdom
of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?,
JBL 95 (1976) 447-458; J. Bowman, Elijah
and the Pauline Jesus Christ, AbrN 26
(1988) 1-18; B. DEHANDsCHUTTER, Les
apocalypses d'Élie, Élie le prophéte: Bible,
tradition, iconographie (ed. G. F. Willems;
Leuven 1988) 59-68; M. M. FAIERSTEIN,
Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must
Come First, JBL 100 (1981) 75-86; G. Fon-
RER, Elia (Zürich 19682); R. HAYWARD,
Phinehas - the same is Elijah: The Origins
of a Rabbinic Tradition, JJS 29 (1978) 22-
34; C. HourMaN, Elia's hemelvaart, NedT-
Ts 32 (1978) 283-304; *J. JEREMIAS, TWNT
2 (1935) 930-943; TWNT 10/2 (1979) 1098-
284
ELOAH
1099; U. KELLERMANN, Zu den Elia-Moti-
ven in den Himmelfahrtsgeschichten des
Lukas, Altes Testament Forschung und Wir-
kung. Festschrift ftir Henning Graf Revent-
low (ed. P. Mommer & W. Thicl; Frankfurt
am Main et al. 1994) 123-137; G. LoHFINK,
Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (StANT 26; München
1971) 32-79; J. L. Martyn, We have found
Elijah, Jews, Greeks and Christians: Essays
in Honor of W. D. Davies (ed. R. Hamerton-
Kelly & R. Scroggs; Leiden 1976) 181-219;
A. SCHMITT, Entriickung - Aufnahme - Him-
melfahrt (Stuttgart 1973); H. ScHWARZ-
BAUM, Studies in Jewish and World Folklore
(Berlin 1968) 522 [Index]; SCHWARZBAUM,
Elias, EdM 3 (1981) 1342-1354; SCHWARZ-
BAUM, Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends
in Islamic Folk-Literature (Walldorf-Hessen
1982) 219 [Index]; H. SEEBAss & N.
Oswa Lp, Elia, TRE 9 (1982) 498-504; A.
F. SEGAL, Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic
Judaism, Early Christianity and their Envi-
ronment, ANRW 2.23.2 (ed. W. Haase;
Berlin 1980) 1333-1394; G. STRECKER,
Elijah RAC 5 (1962) 461-476; K. WESSEL,
Elias, RAC 4 (1959) 1141-1163; H. Wiss-
MANN & QO. Berz, Entriickung, TRE 9
(1982) 680-690; O. S. WINTERMUIE,
Apocalypse of Elijah, 7he Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha \ (ed. J. H. Charlesworth;
London 1983) 721-753.
C. HOUTMAN
ELOAH n^N
I. The Hebrew word ’éléah is derived
from a base "ilàh-, perhaps a secondary form
of the Common Semitic word "il-, ‘god’.
Cognate terms are known from Ugaritic,
Aramaic, and Arabic/Arabian. The relation-
ship between the common noun and the
divine name is complicated and it varies
considerably from onc language to another.
In Aramaic and in the epigraphic Arabian
dialects, it is primarily a common noun,
while in Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Arabic
(Allah < al-ildhu, ‘the god’) the usage as a
divine name is clearly attested. There can be
no doubt that the more common biblical and
Jewish designation of ‘god’ as Elohim
represents an expansion of Eloah, though
there is debate both as to the ‘meaning’ of
Eloah and as to the origin of the expanded
form (God).
II. The earliest certain attestations of
both the singular and plural forms are in
Ugaritic (the existence of the word in Amor-
ite is doubtful: F. M. Cross, TWAT |
[1973] 260). There can be no doubt that
both i/h and ilhm occur in Ugaritic ritual
texts, though the precise analysis of the
form and meaning of ilm is not always per-
fectly clear. These divine names are attested
to date in only two ritual texts, KTU 1.39
and 1.41 (the second text has a near dupli-
cate, KTU 1.87, which permits fairly certain
restoration of a basic text) and in one text
with mixed characteristics (KTU 1.108:13).
In the ritual texts, both i/h and ilhm are
listed as recipients of sacrifices. The pres-
ence of the singular form ilh is established
by parallel versions of a sequence of
sacrifices (KTU 1.39:5 and 41:14, 30 ilh ...
ilhm ... ilhm), while the form ilhm occurs in
three distinct contexts: (1) the onc just cited,
where ilhm is repeated twice after ilh in a
sequence of three sacrifices; (2) ilhm b‘lm
(KTU 1.39:9 and 41:18); and (3) as an inde-
pendent divine entity (KTU 1.39:3 and
41:6.12.28). In this third context, where ilhm
is a discrete entity in an offering list, it
appears in three different sequences of
divinities: (1) ils, ilhm, end of section (KTU
1.41:6); (2) beginning of section, ilhm, thmn
w Snm (KTU 1.39:3 and 41:12); (3) ing ilm,
ilhm, špš (KTU 1.41:27-28). The existence
of different sequences establishes the use of
the form ilhm to fill the slot otherwise
occupied by a divine name, and explana-
tions of ilhm in the first two contexts that do
not take this fact into consideration are
thereby weakened. In particular, the inter-
pretation of ilhm as an appellative in the
phrase ilhm b‘Im, i.e. ‘Baal-gods’, is without
parallel in the ritual texts. It is preferable,
therefore, to recognize in it two distinct
divine names, ‘the "/làhüma (and) the
Ba‘aliima’. The term expressing the simple
notion of ‘gods’ in these texts is ilm which,
as such, never fills the ‘deity’ slot in an
offering list because it occurs only in com-
posite divine names or in reference to a
285
ELOAH
specific group of deities. It is always, there-
fore, to be translated ‘gods’ rather than
'God(s)'.
The one occurrence of ilh in a text
containing mythological elements, i.e. KTU
1.108:13, is of little help in defining the
character and function of the deity because
the passage in question is badly broken (cf.
D. PARDEE, Les textes para-mythologiques
de la 24e Campagne (1961) [RSO IV; Paris
1988] chap. II). The text does not belong to
the group of primary mythological texts. It
also contains none of the elements on which
scholars have based their proposals for the
early dating of the major myths. The group
of texts to which this one belongs occa-
sionally show definite ritual elements. So
this poem may have been intended primarily
for cultic use. The fact that it ends with a
benediction on behalf of the king and the
city of Ugarit adds credence to this
classification. The restoration of the form
ilhm'in another of the 'para-mythological'
texts, KTU 1.107:11 (line 36° in PARDEE’s
new edition, Les textes para-mythologiques.
chap. VIII) is hypothetical, though not
impossible.
The distribution and the function of the
feminine form ilht are quite different: that
form appears only in mythological texts
where it means ‘goddesses’. It functions
therefore as the plural of ilt, ‘goddess’. The
form clearly belongs to the old poetic lan-
guage because it appears in all of the major
cycles as well as in bricfer texts (KTU 1.24
and 1.25). The distribution of forms is thus
the following: ilht, meaning ‘goddesses’,
occurs only in the mythological texts, where
ilm is the standard plural of il, ‘god’. On the
other hand, ilhm appears alongside ilm in
the ritual texts, though each has a different
function: ilm is a common noun and it never
fills the ‘deity’ slot in the offering lists
except as part of a composite name (e.g. plir
ilm, ‘the assembly of the gods’), while ilhm
does fill the ‘deity’ slot, both in the im-
mediate environment of i/h and alone.
The presence of ilit in the mythological
texts shows that the root "Lit is quite old,
while the absence of the singular form ilh in
the major mythological texts, together with
its presence in the ritual prose texts, may be
taken as indicating, at least in the light of
present data, that the plural form preceded
the singular. One can thus posit that i//ur/
ilht were originally expanded plurals (ilh is
not, therefore, a broken plural!) of il/ilt and
that ilh is a secondary formation. In the rit-
ual texts, the fact that ilhm appears just
before the deity rkmn w šnm, the youngest
of E!'s offspring, may indicate that the
term has come to designate certain of El’s
descendants. The precise reason for the
secondary creation of a deity i/h can only be
a subject for speculation, though there is a
parallel in Ugaritic religion if one accepts
that the divinity rpu is a back-formation
from the plural form rpum. (see PARDEE,
Les textes rituels [RSO; Paris, f.c.], chap. I.
on RS 1.001:3).
The word for 'god' in Aramaic, from
Yaudic to Syriac, is 7/h, and the word °l is
basically absent from the various Aramaic
dialects as a common noun (where il does
occur, either it denotes the deity El, as is
frequent in personal names, or else the text
is of Jewish origin—see J. M. LINDENBER-
GER, The Proverbs of Ahigar {Baltimore
1983) 93). Normally the plural denotes true
plurality in Aramaic, though in Jewish texts
the plural form is used in imitation of bibli-
cal and Jewish usage of Hebrew 'elohím to
designate Yahweh. Other than the identi-
fication in Jewish texts of ?elalélàhin with
the corresponding Hebrew deity, there is no
evidence presently available for the exist-
ence of a divine name "// in Aramaic. Be-
cause there are no second-millennium texts
of a truly Aramaic character, we can only
reconstruct hypothetically the pre-Yaudic
history of the Aramaic word 7/h. The essen-
tial absence of the common noun "/ in the
Aramaic dialects indicates that “/h displaced 7!
in that function at a very early date.
In the dialects of epigraphic Arabian, one
finds both ?/ and '/h as common nouns
meaning 'god' and occurring in various
configurations (M. HürNER, WbM th 1, 420-
422, on North and Central Arabian). In the
South Arabian dialect of Qataban, for
286
ELOAH
example, the form ’/h exists as a singular
common noun, but it also provides the
plural of 7i/ (S. D. Ricks, Lexicon of
Inscriptional Qatabanian |StP 14; Rome
1989] 10-11).
The importance of a divine name in
anthroponymy is of interest for determining
the place of the divinity in a given society
(PARDEE 1988, with previous bibliography).
The case of Eloah is instructive because it is
absent, both as a true theophoric clement
and as an appellative, from both Ugaritic
and Biblical personal names, wherc the deity
plays a minor role, though it does appear in
Aramaic as well as in Arabian names (cf.
M. MARAQIEN, Die semitischen Personen-
namen in den alt- und reichisaramáischen
Inschriften aus Vorderasien [Hildesheim
1988] 45, 223; J. K. Starx, Personal
Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions [Oxford
1971] 68; G. LANKESTER HARDING, An
Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic
Arabian Names and Inscriptions {Toronto
1971} 71-72, 91, 118). One may draw the
preliminary conclusion, which is supported
by the other literary genres, that the divinity
*Ila@hu was a minor one in Ugaritic culture.
The case of the Israelites is more compli-
cated, for there Eloah is relatively unimport-
ant while Elohim is very important but
neither form appears in proper names (on
the general absence in personal names of
theophoric elements the form of which is
plural or composite, see PARDEE 1988). On
the other hand, the common noun "iláh- was
used in personal names only in those cul-
tures where the word was an important part
of the vocabulary.
III. [In the Hebrew Bible, "élóah appears
fifty-seven times (as compared with nearly
100 occurrences of ’é/dh in the Aramaic sec-
tions, which constitute, of course, only a
fraction of the total text). The plural form
'élóhim occurs some 2750 times, both as a
common noun and as a divine name. That
this form had the status of a divine name is
proved, among other indicators, by the use
of singular forms used to modify the formal-
ly plural form. In the case of the singular,
that morpho-syntactic marker is not present
and other criteria must be used to determine
whether the function is that of a divine
name or of a common noun. There can be
no question of the word ’éléah being of late
Aramaean origin in biblical Hebrew because
the word shows the characteristic Canaanite
shift of /i/ to /6/. Any putative Aramaic ori-
gin must therefore predate that shift.
Eloah occurs as a divine name most fre-
quently in the book of Job, where that term,
>El, and -*Shadday are the standard words
for ‘God’ in the poetic sections (Eloah forty-
one times, El fifty-five times, Shadday thir-
ty-one times). The divine name Yahweh
appears almost exclusively in the prose sec-
tions and in some transition indicators in
dialogues. The other three terms are used
much as Elohim or Yahweh are used in the
rest of the Hebrew Bible (the plural form
'élóhim occurs only four times in the poetic
sections of Job). Outside the book of Job,
only in Ps 50:22, 139:19, and Prov 30:5
does the formulation clearly indicate that
"élóah is being used as a divine name.
The appellative function is unmistakable
in several passages: in Deut 32:17 there
appears the expression /o? ?éloah, 'no god',
and in Ps 18:32 one finds the phrase "Who
is 'élóah but Yahweh?", parallelled in 2
Sam 22:32 by "Who is "él but Yahweh” (cf.
also Isa 44:8). Finally, in Dan 11:37-39
'élóah is used much like ’é/dh in the Aram-
aic chapters, while the appellative function
is clear in Deut 32:15, Hab 1:11, Ps 114:7,
Neh 9:17, and 2 Chr 32:15 as well.
In Hab 3:3, the function of the term is
debatable: ’éléah mittéman yabd’ wégad6§s
méhar-p@ran, “Eloah has come from
Teman, Qadosh from Mount Paran”. Is the
parallelism here 'God//(the) Holy One’ or ‘a
god//a holy one? In the context of Hab 3
one would not wish to doubt that the ref-
erence is monotheistic and to Yahweh; but
does the expression make use of the com-
mon noun as an epithet of Yahweh or of a
divine name equivalent to Yahweh?
Except in details of distribution, there-
fore, with the usage as a divine name being
rare except in Job, the usage of Eloah is
similar to that of Elohim. Lack of data pre-
287
ELOHIM —
cludes any conclusions about the possible
relationship between the Ugaritic concepts
of ?Ilàhu^llàáhüma and the origin and devel-
opment of Hebrew views of the same terms.
The relationship between Eloah/Elohim and
Yahweh must be elucidated, to the extent
that presently available data permit such
decisions, in the broader context of the
identification of Yahweh with other deities/-
divine names (El, Eloah, Elohim, Yah,
Elyon, and Shadday are the permitted ones,
though the range of popular usage may have
been more extensive—sce PARDEE 1988,
with previous bibliography).
IV. Bibliography
H. Bauer, Die Gottheiten von Ras
Schamra, ZAW 51 (1933) 84-85; M.
DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, Die
ugaritischen und hebräischen Gottesnamen,
UF 7 (1975) 552-553; M. DIETRICH & O.
Loretz, Baal RPU in KTU 1.108, UF 12
(1980) 177; D. PARDEE, An Evaluation of
the Proper Names from Ebla from a West
Semitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution
According to Genre, Eblaite Personal
Names and Semitic Name-giving (ARES I;
Rome 1988) 119-151; PARDEE, Les textes
rituels (RSO; Paris, f.c.), chap. I; Ges.18
Vol. 1 (1987) 61-62.
D. PARDEE
ELOHIM —> GOD I
EL-OLAM cow ^u
I. In the Old Testament, the divine
name El ‘6lam is attested in Gen 21:33, i.e.
in the conclusion of the story of Abraham’s
encounter with the Philistine king Abimelek
in Beersheba (Gen 21:20-34). After having
attested—by the token of seven ewe
lambs—that he himself has dug the well of
Beersheba (vv 28-30) and after the con-
clusion of a covenant with Abimelek and the
departure of his visitor (vv 22-24.27.32),
Abraham plants a tamarisk (ešel) in Beer-
sheba and invokes the name of yhwh ël
*ólam. The two vv 33-34 are often held to
be an addition to an already composite nar-
rative (stratum A: vv 22-24.27.32; stratum
EL-OLAM
B: vv 25-26.28-30.31, see WESTERMANN
1981:423-428). Others think that these
verses have been displaced from another
context (sce EissFELDT 1966:393 n. 5).
In the context of his story, the author of
Gen 21:33 clearly treats El-Olam as a divine
epithet for --Yahweh, and not as a separate
god. It is possible, of course, that yhwh is a
secondary intrusion into the narrative: in vv
22 and 23, the divinity is designated as
‘God’ (éléhim), in the discourse of Abi-
melek, and that God is obviously considered
as binding both Abraham and Abimelek.
This is consistent with the outlook of the
‘elohistic context’ to which Gen 20-22 have
traditionnally been attributed: even if one
keeps in mind that a pre-exilic dating of
these chapters has now become improbable
(VAN SETERS 1975:227-240; BLUM 1984:
405-419).
II. Independent of the date of the redac-
tion of the Genesis narrative, the question of
the traditional background needs to be rais-
ed, and in that context the question of the
‘identity’ of the figure standing behind El-
olam. Until the late seventies, it was com-
mon to assume (sce WESTERMANN 1981:
116-138) that El-olam in Gen 21:33, as well
as most of the other occurences of El-titles
in the patriarchal narratives, were the relics
of divinities belonging to a pre-Israelite or
*proto-Israelite'—or at the very least, pre-
Yahwistic—stratum of the history of biblical
religion. This perspective was suggested by
ALT’s (1929; 1953) ‘discovery’ of the ‘god
of the fathers’, that type of nameless tutelary
deity that supposedly belonged to the social
and historical phase of the still purely no-
madic clans that were to become Israel. ALT
(1953:47-52) also suggested that the cult of
the local ’élim reflected a later, post-settle-
ment stage, during which thc proto-Israelite
immigrants had become familiar with the
various cults practiced by the autochthonous
"Canaanites' at local sanctuaries. In that
context, El-olam would be the autochthon-
ous god vencrated at the shrine of Beersheba
(Arr 1953:7). After the discovery of the
texts of Ugarit, the ’él of the Genesis narra-
tives ceased to be considered as a mere
288
EL-OLAM
appellative and began to be identified with
-*El, the creator god of Ugarit. El-olam of
Gen 21:33 could now be seen as one of the
many local hypostases of the great Canaan-
ite god, i.c. the god El of Beersheba, later
identified with Yahweh (EISSFELDT, KS 3,
393-394; KS 4, 196-197; DE Vaux 1971:
262-263; WoRSCHECH 1983:178; etc.).
ALBERTZ (1992:57) doubts that the various
'el-deities of the patriarchal narratives have
much in common with the great heavenly El
of the Ugaritic pantheon, but the addition of
*ólàm suggests that the deity of Gen 21:33
was not considered as simply a local numen.
Some scholars (c.g. VAN DEN BRANDEN
1990:36) have tried to show that fóládm as
applied to a deity could be used alone—i.e.
without association with ’é/ or the like—so
in Deut 33:27a, where the expression zéró'ót
*ólàm would not mean ‘the ancient/eternal
arms’ but ‘the arms of (the god) olam’, and
they surmised the existence—or at least the
‘survival’ in Biblical tradition—of a god
called Olam. Many of the occurrences of
‘6lam in the Psalms were interpreted by
DAHOOD (1966; xxxvii and ad luc.) as di-
vine names (Pss 24:7.9; 52:11; 66:7; 73:12;
75:10; 89:3). but all these passages are
better explained by assuming the common
meaning of ‘läm in the Old Testament. As
Cross (1973:48 n.18) remarks: “Had he
found fewer instances his case would appear
stronger”. In the pantheons of the ancient
Near East, as will be shown below, *ólàm
often appears in conjunction with a divine
name: but apparently does not occur as a
divine name in itself. It is better, therefore,
not to construe Olam as a divine name.
But how then is ?E/ *ólàm to be trans-
lated? According to JENNI (1976:236), ^EI
*ólàm should be construed as a construct:
‘El/God of eternity’, i.e. ‘the eternal El/
God’, rather than as a name preceded by an
independent appellative: ‘the god ‘Olam’, or
‘El, the Ancient One’, as Cross (1955:236,
240) would have it, but Cross (1973: 46-50,
see 49) argues that the proper name El can-
not be taken in a construct relationship to
the noun 'ólám. In his opinion, a liturgical
formula of the type "E! du ‘ôlam (CEI, the
one (i.e.lord) of eternity’) must underlie the
name ’El ‘ôläm. Cross (1973:49 n. 23) fur-
ther points to the possibility of compound
divine names, like Hib or ‘štrtkmš, implying
that El and Olam could be two compounded
divine names. But El-olam could also be the
combination of a divine name and an epi-
thet. In the Ugaritic texts, gods appear to be
identified as i! malk (‘El, the king’) or ršp
mlk (‘Resheph, the king’); or, in a much
rarer combination, ’i/ hd (‘the god Haddu’)
(see Cross 1973:50). Since Olam is not
attested as an independent deity (see below),
it still remains very likely that, in Gen
21:33, ‘6lam is used as an epithet: irrespect-
ive of whether ’é/ is construed an appellative
or a divine name. In that case, El-olam
should be rendered as ‘El/God, the Eternal/
Everlasting/Ancient one’. This interpretation
is corroborated by such texts as Isa 40:28
(“Yahweh is the God of Eternity” éléhé
‘6lam yhwh) or Jer 10:10 (“Yahweh is God
«and» is truth (i.c. is the true God], he is
God «and» is life [i.c. is the living God]
and the king of eternity [i.e. the eternal
king]"). The suggestion by VAN DEN
BRANDEN (1990:52) to vocalize, in the light
of Isa 45:15, "EI *ólam and to understand
that divine title as ‘the God who hides him-
self lacks support in the texts.
ALBRIGHT (1966:24; no. 358) and Cross
(1962:238-239) have read the name El-olam
Cil dù “lami ) in a proto-sinaitic inscription,
presumably dating to the 15th cent. BCE.
Cross has used this evidence as a decisive
argument for the characterization of primi-
tive Yahwism as a form of El worship (in
the same vein, see DE Moor 1990:253). But
DuKstTrA (1987:249-250) has reexamined
the reading of Cross and shown that El-
olam is absent from the inscription. Even
though the title El-olam is not attested in
Ugarit, a Ugaritic text gives us the first
occurrence of ‘Im in conjunction with a di-
vine name: the goddess Sapšu bears the epi-
thet špš ‘Im (‘Sun the everlasting’) (KTU
2.42 [= UT 2008}, 7). In the Aramaic inscip-
tion from Karatepe (8th cent. BCE), we find
the god Šamaš *ólàm (šmš ‘Im, ‘Sun the
everlasting’) mentioned alongside -*Baal-
EL-OLAM
Shamen (5b'l 3mm, «the lord of heaven») and
‘El the Creator of Earth’ (^| qn ‘rs) (KA/ 26
I1I:19; cf. [V:2 3m ?zrwd ykn l'Im km $m $m$
wyrh ‘may the name of ‘ZTWD stand fast
forever, like the name of the sun and the
moon’; see also WEIPPERT 1969). The Phoe-
nician incantation of Arslan Tash (7th cent.
BCE) mentions a goddess 7/r ‘Im ‘the god-
dess, the everlasting’ (KA/ 27: 9-10), though
the expression could also be taken to mean
‘everlasting oath’. It seems that the eptithet
*olàm is felt to be especially fit for solar dei-
ties: the sun being the everlasting god par
excellence (see STAHLI 1985:27). One could
therefore ask the question, whether the men-
tion of a deity named El-olam should be
seen in the context of the 'solarization' of
the system of religious symbols that KEEL &
UEHLINGER (1992:282-321) have detected
for Israel (9th-8th cent.) and Judah (8th-7th
cent.), without however establishing a link
with ‘olām.
III. There remains the fundamental
question: Does the El-olam of Gen 21:33 go
back to a deity effectively worshipped or at
least so designated in a preliterary context,
or is that name simply an ad hoc invention
of the author of our Genesis passage?
Obviously, Gen 21:33 does not constitute
sufficient evidence for postulating the exist-
ence of a cult dedicated to a specific El-
olam, presumably located in Beersheba. But,
if one bears in mind that belief in El is
attested for the 9th and 8th cent. BCE not
only in Deir Alla (in a presumably non-
Israelite context) but also in Kuntillet *Ajrüd
(see KEEL & UEHLINGER 1992:235-237,
277-278), it remains probable that the author
of Gen 21:33—and perhaps the circles
responsible for the Abraham traditions as a
whole—wanted to connect their patriarch
with a form of pre-Yahwistic or para-
Yahwistic piety that, in his opinion—but
perhaps rightly so—was prevalent in early
times or in marginal zones. According to
ALBERTZ (1978:77-91; 1992:47-53), that
type of piety was rooted in private family-
life (as opposed to the official state cult
which was linked to the national and cosmic
Yahweh). But another possibility should
also be explored: perhaps ‘patriarchal’ relig-
ion is the form of national religion—another
form of Yahwism—that was prevalent
among the tribal elites of Israel down to the
monarchic period; i.e. before the prophetic
movement propagated the ideal of a non-
tribal and non-genealogical Yahweh linked
to the Exodus tradition? That seems to be
the case at least in Northern Israel where the
—Jacob legend functioned as a national
legend of origin of its own (see DE PuRY
1991:88-96). In that case, El-olam, even if
rooted in the south and embedded in a late
narrative context, might not have been
picked entirely out of the bluc.
IV. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Persönliche Frömmigkeit und
offizielle Religion. Religionsinterner Plura-
lismus in Israel und Babylon (CTM 9; Stutt-
gart 1978); ALBERTZ, Religionsgeschichte
Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (ATD
Erginzungsreihe 8/1; Göttingen 1992); W.
F. ALBRIGHT, The Proto-Sinaitic Inscrip-
tions and their Decipherment (Cambridge,
Mass. 1966); A. ALT, Der Gott der Väter
(BWANT 1IL12; Stuttgart 1929) = KS 1
(1953) 1-78; E. BLuM, Die Komposition der
Vdtergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen
1984); A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les Dicux
des Patriarches, BeO 162 (1990) 27-53; F.
M. Cross, Yahweh and the Gods of the
Patriarchs, HTR 55 (1962) 225-259, Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cam-
bridge. Mass. 1973) 44-75; M. DaAHoOD,
Psalms l, 1, IL (AB 16, 17, 17A; New York
1966, 1968, 1970); M. Duxstra, El ‘Olam
in the Sinai?, ZAW 99 (1987) 249-250; O.
EISSFELDT, El und Jahwe, JSS 1 (1956) 25-
37 = KS 3 (1966) 386-397; EISSFELDT,
"Ahtyüh ??2sár "ihtyüh und "EI *olàm (1965).
KS 4 (1968) 193-198; E. JENNI, Das Wort
‘läm im Alten Testament (Berlin 1953);
JENNI, D2i9 'ólàm Ewigkeit, THAT 2
(1976) 228-243; O. KEEL & C. UEHLINGER,
Góttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole
(Quaestiones Disputatae 134; Freiburg-
Basel-Wien 1992); M. KOCKERT, Váütergott
und — Vüterverlheissungen (FRLANT 142;
Göttingen 1988): J. C. pe Moor, The Rise
of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Mono-
290
EL-ROI
theism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990); A. DE
Pury, Le cycle de Jacob comme légende
autonome des origines d'Israél, Congress
Volume Leuven (VTSup 43; Leiden 1991)
78-96; H.-P. STAHLI, Solare Elemente im
Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO
66; Fribourg/Góttingen 1985); J. VAN
SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition
(New Haven & London 1975); VAN SETERS,
The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis,
Bib 61 (1980) 220-233; R. De Vaux, His-
toire ancienne d'israël. Des origines à
l'installation en Canaan (Etudes Bibliques;
Paris 1971); M. WEiPPERT, Elemente phóni-
kischer und kilikischer Religion in den
Inschriften von Karatepe, ZDMG Suppl. I
(1969) 204-205; J. WELLHAUSEN, Ge-
schichte Israels (Berlin 1878); C. WESTER-
MANN, Genesis (BKAT 1,2; Neukirchen
1981); U. WọorscHecH, Abraham. Eine
sozialgeschichtliche Studie (Europäische
Hochschulschriften XX1II/225. Bern, Frank-
furuM. etc. 1983).
A. DE Pury
EL-ROI ^x^ 58
Il. The name '£É/| roi (El/god of
seeing/vision) is attested only once in the
OT, in Gen 16:13. It is best interpreted as a
pseudo-archaic divine name inserted by a
later redactor of Gen 16.
IIl. The name El-roi is given by Hagar,
—Sarah's runaway and pregnant maid, after
her flight into the desert and her encounter
with a divine messenger. The messenger
foretold the birth of a son whom she is
instructed. to. name -*Ishmael (v 12), a
theophoric name of a common type con-
structed with —El and the imperfect of Sm‘
(‘may El hear’). Vv 13-14 introduce a new
sequence which is not really warranted by
the preceding verses. These two verses poss-
ibly represent an addition to the original
story (VAN SETERS 1975:193), since they
pursue a different purpose: in opposition to
v 12b, where Ishmael’s God was identified
as —Yahweh (‘for Yahweh has heard of
your misery’), v 13 introduces the name El
Roi. The apparent aim of the addition is to
ensure that the non-Israelite Ishmaclites
have no part in the worship of Yahweh. The
etiology given in v 13 poses a number of
difficulties of grammatical and syntactical
nature. Even if the famous conjecture of
WELLHAUSEN (1878:329 n. 1: ‘I have seen
God and have stayed alive’) is still very
speculative (cf. Boo 1980; KOENEN 1988),
the MT seems to suppose that El Roi al-
lowed himself to be seen by Hagar. After a
very careful analysis, KOENEN (1988:472)
proposes the following translation of v 13:
“And she called the name of (the) Yahweh
who spoke to her: “You are the God who
sees [i.c. saves] me” [vocalizing rd’? — par-
ticiple with suffix: ‘seeing me’, in accord-
ance with LXX, Vg. 7g. Onq.—- instead of
MT ra’i infinitive construct with suffix: ‘my
seeing’], for she said: “Indeed, here I have
seen the one [literally: the effects of the
one] who secs (i.e. chooses/saves] me".
The name El-roi together with the other
El deities mentioned in the Genesis narra-
tives, has often been interpreted as a distant
reminder of one of the manifestations of the
great god El supposed to have been wor-
shipped by the Patriarchs (Cross 1973:46-
60; ALBERTZ 1992:55). In this context, El-
roi was seen as the particular form of El
venerated by the clan of Abraham (Wor-
SCHECH 1983:172). Independently of all the
other problems raised by this theory, one
must note that ró^f as an epithet of El never
appears in any document of the ancient Near
East (KócKEnT 1988:75; KNAUF 1989:48).
It is true that, in a Babylonian prayer of
the Kassite period, wc find an invocation of
->Marduk as “my father, Great Lord Mar-
duk, the one who sees me” (ALBERTZ 1978:
124), but that last element is neither an epi-
thet nor a name. An Egyptian document of
the time of Memeptah (Papyrus Anastasi
III), which records the border traffic, men-
tions a traveller designated probably as ‘the
slave (of) Baal-Roy': "There went up the
servant of Baal Roy (R’-y), son of Zeper of
Gaza" (ARE III, $ 630; cf. ANET, 258). Al-
though the numerous problems posed by the
hieroglyphic transcription of Semitic names
cannot be discussed fully here, this text does
291
EL ROPHE
not prove that ‘Roy’ was ever the name of a
Semitic deity (against VAN DER BRANDEN
1990:35). In the transliteration, the element
-y derives more probably from a suffix pro-
noun of the Ist singular (‘Baal sees me’ or
'Baal is my shepherd’). One further possibi-
lity to find an attestation of a divine epithet
with the root R’H has been suggested by
KNAUF (1989:48). Speaking of the (proto-)
Arabic imagery of Gen 16, he speculates
about a possible divine epithet of Arabic ori-
gin: *ar-rd’iyu - ‘the one who sees’. But,
even here, we have no direct attestation of
that name or epithet, except for the fact that
pre-islamic Arabic tradition seems to use the
word rd’i in speaking of demons (PARET
1980:25). In the present state of our knowl-
edge, we must conclude that the word Ro’i
of Gen 16:13 is not a common—or even a
sporadic—epithet of the god El.
The El-roi of Gen 16:13 could therefore
be nothing more than an invention of the
redactor of vv 13-14 (VAN SETERS 1975:193,
288; KÓcKERT 1988:76). His aim could have
been to 'correct' both the identification of El
and Yahweh and the privileged relation
between Hagar and Yahweh, and to this end
he may have thought of a pseudo-archaic
divine name in the style of >El Olam and
-*El Shadday whom he probably knew from
written or oral traditions about the Patri-
archs. Why the name 'Roi'? This name
could derive from an interpretation of ‘Bé’ér-
lahai-ro’t’ in v 14, or, even more simply,
from the fact that 'secing' (which also im-
plies ‘fulfilling’ a prayer, or ‘taking care of
somebody) is an activity commonly at-
tributed to gods in the Semitic world: 'El
who sees me (i.e. chooses/saves me)’. As
we have seen, this is also the way the orig-
inal text of Gen 16:13 was meant to be
understood.
III. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Persünliche Frümmigkeit und
offizielle Religion. Religionsinterner Plura-
lismus in Israel und Babylon (CTM 9; Stutt-
gart 1978); ALBERTZ, Religionsgeschichte
Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (ATD
Ergänzungsreihe 8/1; Göttingen 1992); E.
BruM, Die Komposition der Väterge-
schichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen 1984);
T. Boou, Hagar's Words in Genesis XVI
13b, VT 30 (1980) 1-7; A. VAN DEN BRAN-
DEN, Les dieux des patriarches, BeO 162
(1990) 27-53; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth
and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1973)
44-75; E. A. KNAUF, Ismael. Untersuchun-
gen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nord-
arabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV,
2. Aufl. 1989); M. KÓCKERT, Véütergott und
Váüterverheissungen (FRLANT 142, Göttin-
gen 1988); K. KoENEN, Wer sieht wen? Zur
Textgeschichte von Genesis xvi 13, VT 38
(1988) 468-474; R. PARET, Mohammed und
der Islam (Stuttgart etc. 19805); J. VAN
SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition
(New Haven/London 1975); VAN SETERS,
The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis,
Bib 61 (1980) 220-233; J. WELLHAUSEN,
Geschichte Israels (Berlin 1878); U. Wor-
scuECH, Abraham. Eine sozialgeschichtliche
Studie (Europäische Hochschulschriften
XX11I/225; Bern, FrankfurvM., etc. 1983).
A. DE PURY
EL ROPHE *827 OS
I. The enigmatic line in Num 13:19 ?e/
nd? répà? nà? làh, traditionally rendered as
“O, God, do heal her", has been construed
as containing originally the divine name 'e/
rope’, ‘El Rophe; Healing God' (RouiL-
LARD 1987). This divine name has been
compared with the Ug epithet rpu,
‘Saviour’, occurring in the expression rpu
mik ‘Im and mt rpi, and with the Rephaim
(ROUILLARD 1987:35-42).
II. The expression rpu mlk ‘Im is gen-
erally translated as ‘the Saviour, the eternal
King’ (e.g. DE Moor, ARTU 187) and inter-
preted as an epithet either of -Baal seen as
the head of the Rephaim (e.g. DE MOOR
1976:329) or of Ilu (>El; e.g. J. Day, VT
30 [1980] 176). The expression occurs only
four times in what might be called a liturgi-
cal address (KTU 1.108:1.19°-20°.21°.22").
Without the extension mik ‘Im, r{p]i occurs
in the same text (23'-24°) but as a clear
reference to the Rephaim. B. MARGULIS
(Bibl 51 [1970] 57; JBL 89 [1970] 293-294;
292
ELYON
cf. VAN DER ToonN 1991:57) has pointed to
the fact that in KTU 1.108 it is said that rpu
mlk ‘Im is ‘dwelling in Athtaroth’ (1. 2) and
‘judging in Edrei’ (1. 3). This suggests that
the deity rpu milk ‘lm is identical with
Milku/Maliku who is said to be in Athtarot
(KTU 1.100:41; 1,107:17; RS 86.2235; cf. J.
Day, Molech. A God of Human Sacrifice
(Oxford 1989] 46-50; VAN DER TOORN
1991:57; see also Deut 1:4; Josh 9:10;
12:44; 13:12.31 where —'"'Og the milk of
~Bashan, who dwells in Athtarot" is men-
tioned). This implies that the expression rpu
mlk ‘Im is to be seen as a reference to a
chthonic deity (VAN DER ToorNn 1991:57-
60). It is possible, though not necessary, that
this is El.
The expression mt rpi, ‘man of Rpi* (e.g.
KTU 1.20 ii:8), has been interpreted as a
reference to Dan'el's personal god: from the
legend of Aqhat it is not clear whether rpi
(or rpu) should be identified with El or with
Baal (as DE Moor 1976:326-327, does).
In the Ugaritic texts various deities are
depicted as healing gods. The Rephaim are
known for their saving activities. KTU
1.82:6 relates that Baal has the force to
drive out serpent-demons. In a para-mytho-
logical text, the goddesses Athtartu and
- Anat are said to be healers of their father
Ilu, who had become sick from drinking too
much wine (KTU 1.114:27-28; DE Moor,
UF 16 [1986] 356). The deity —Horon is
said to be able to neutralize the effects of
poison from serpents (KTU 1.100:61-69).
HI. In the OT Yahweh is seen as—
among other things—a healing God (NIEHR
1991). This becomes clear from several
texts, e.g. Ex 15:26 where Yahweh is called
a rp', 'healer; saviour', and from personal
names like répd'él, -—'Raphael' (e.g. 1
Chron 26:7; Tob 3:17); répáyá, 'Rephajah'
(e.g. Neh 3:9; 1 Chron 3:21; 4:42; 7:2);
yrpyh, 'Yirpeyah; Yahweh heals' (M. Lipz-
BARSKI, Ephemeris für semitische Epi-
graphik 3 [Giessen 1915] 22) and the hypo-
coristic rp’, 'Rapha' (Samaria Ostracon
24:23; | Chron 8:2; Num 13:19; cf. M.
Notn, IPN 179).
Rouillard’s interpretation of the enigmatic
line in Num 12:13, though ingenious, is not
convincing. Her textual reconstruction is not
supported by any of the ancient versions
which all construe rp’ as an imperative and
not as a participle (see the outline in ROUIL-
LARD 1987:20-21). Her reconstruction pro-
duces a sentence which contains only a
vocative. That Moses’ intercessory prayer
on behalf of his sister would be limited to
the words “O healing God!”, seems to be an
oddity from a narrative point of view. Be-
sides, the divine epithet él ropé' does not
occur elsewhere in the OT.
IV. Bibliography
J. C. pE Moon, Rapi'uma - Rephaim, ZAW
88 (1976) 323-345; H. NiEHR, JHWH als
Arzt, BZ 25 (1991) 3-17; H. RoUILLARD, El
Rofé en Nombres 12,13, Sem 37 (1987) 17-
46; K. VAN DER ToorN, Funerary Rituals
and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and
in the Bible, BiOr 48 (1991) 40-66.
B. BECKING
ELYON 72»
I. Derived from the Hebrew verb ‘ald,
meaning ‘to ascend’, ‘elydn in the OT may
be used either as an adjective, describing
something that is spatially higher than some-
thing else (‘upper’, ‘highest’), or as a sub-
stantive, used primarily in reference to the
‘most high’ deity. In Ps 89:27, however, it is
used in reference to the king. As a divine
name, ‘Ely6n appears either on its own (e.g.
Ps 9:3; Isa 14:14), in combination with other
divine names (Yahweh, Elohim (-*God],
>El e.g., Pss 7:18; 57:3; 73:11) or in asso-
ciation with lesser divine elements (béné
*elyón, Ps 82:6; cf. Aramaic references to
qaddíiié ‘ely6nin in Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27).
An abbreviated form may also be attested in
Hos 11:7 (22) and 1 Sam 2:10 (AY). In
the LXX, 'Elyón is translated as Hypsistos.
In the present form of the biblical text,
the term is understood to be an epithet for
Yahweh, the God of Isracl. It is possible,
however, as some have argued, that the epi-
thet may conceal a reference to a separate
deity, possibly an older god with whom
Yahweh came to be identified. This has
293
ELYON
been argued, for example, with reference to
Gen 14:18, Num 24:16 and Deut 32:8. The
matter cannot be resolved without consider-
ing occurrences of ‘Elyén in other texts
from the ancient Near East. *Elyón is at-
tested in a variety of extra-biblical literature
such as Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic and
Greek. As a theophoric element, *Elyón may
also be traced in South-Semitic personal
names. These wide-spread Ancient Near
Eastem attestations have led to numerous
hypotheses regarding the nature of the more
ambiguous references to ‘Ely6n in the OT,
discussed below. In addition to its attesta-
tion in the OT, *Elyón appears as -*Hypsis-
tos in the NT, as well as in the apocryphal
and pseudepigraphic books. ‘Ely6n is also
attested in Qumran literature (see esp. 1Qap-
Gen).
II. In order to understand the character
and role of *Elyón, it must first be deter-
mined whether or not the word refers to an
independent deity or functions always as an
epithet for another god. The clearest
example of *Elyón functioning autonomous-
ly is found in the fragments of Sanchunia-
thon's 'Phoenician Theology' preserved by
Eusebius (Praep. evang. 1.10.15-29) using
Philo of Byblos as his source. According to
Sanchuniathon, a certain Elioun, called
*Most High' (Hypsistos) dwelt in the neigh-
bourhood of Byblos, along with his wife,
Berouth. To them was born a son, Epigeius,
or Autochthon—who was later called
Ouranos (Heaven)—and a daughter, Ge
(Earth). Sometime later, Elioun died in an
encounter with wild beasts and was there-
upon deified. His children also became dei-
ties, and through the union of Ouranos and
Ge, the god Kronos was bom. Later, a union
of Ouranos and his favourite mistress pro-
duced ~Zeus (Demarous). With certain
exceptions, this cosmology is closely related
to others in the ancient Near East. Texts
such as the Hurro-Hittite ‘Song of Kumarbi’
(also. known as ‘Kingship in Heaven’),
Hesiod’s Theogony, and various Ugaritic
myths about E] and -*Baal all display strik-
ing similarities to the ordering and function-
ing of gods in Sanchuniathon. Notably
absent in the latter two sources, however, is
any clear indication of a counterpart to San-
chuniathon's Elioun. Even the Hurro-Hittite
Alalu, though sharing the same hierarchical
relationship to other gods as Elioun, does
not display much similarity in character (see
"Song of Kumarbi" in HorrNER 1990:40-
43). Thus, although we find clear reference
to *Elyón as an autonomous deity in Philo's
Elioun, similar cosmologies in the ancient
Near East do not appear to have shared this
view. In fact, closer inspection of Philo's
account betrays a conflation of traditions
that may not be true to their earlier forms.
For instance, the name Epigeius would sug-
gest that the deity arose from Ge (cf.
Hesiod). However, these gods are brother
and sister according to Philo. It appears that
contemporary cosmological conceptions
have been absorbed into Philo's account of
more ancient traditions. His understanding
of Elioun as an independent deity may
reflect first century influences.
A possible exception to this conclusion is
found in the Sefire I inscriptions (KA/ 222
A) of the cighth century BCE, written in
Aramaic. As a treaty between Bir-Ga’yah,
the king of KTK and Matiel, the king of
Arpad, the inscription lists the major deities
of cach side as witnesses to the agreement.
Listed between a series of divine names
occurring in pairs and the great natural pairs
of Heaven and Earth, Abyss and Streams,
-—Day and -*Night, we find "| w'lyn. This
has been thought by many to confirm the
existence of *Elyón as an independent deity
(e.g. DELLA ViDA 1944; RENDTORFF 1967).
However, several considerations mitigate
against such a conclusion. First, El and
*Elyón are not consorts, as are the preceding
divine pairs. Secondly, the divine pairs arc
not followed immediately by El and 'Elyón,
but are interrupted by other clauses where
there are references to non-paired deities.
Finally, El and ‘Ely6n may not be part of
the pantheon of Bir-Ga’yah, which lists the
divine consorts, but that of Maticl (LACK
1962:57; cf. SEow 1989:52 n. 146). On the
other hand, ‘Ely6n may be understood as an
epithet of El in this inscription. The con-
294
ELYON
junction may be a waw explicativum (DE
Vaux 1961:310; SEow 1989:52n), render-
ing, "El, that is, ‘Elyén". One notes this
same phenomenon earlier in the list (line 9),
where we find 3mi wnr (L'HEUREUX
1979:46); -*"Shemesh; -^Light. One notes as
well the frequent occurrence of double di-
vine names in the Ugaritic corpus where
each is joined by a waw conjunction (e.g.
Ktr-w-Hss, Mt-w-Sr, Qds-w-Amrr). lt is
possible that the Sefire inscription bears wit-
ness to this phenomenon, or that it betrays a
separation of an early epithet of El that has
split into a separate cult and deity (Cross
1973:51). Whatever the case may be, it must
be admitted that the treaty gives us no con-
clusive evidence for or against the existence
of *Elyón as an independent deity.
In contrast to the mixed evidence to sup-
port the identification of 'Elyón as auton-
omous, there is a wide range of evidence to
suggest that *Elyón was a common epithet in
the West Semitic region, applied at different
times and in different cultures to any god
thought to be supreme. One example of the
fluidity of this epithet is in its application to
the Canaanite deities El and Baal. Although
El is nowhere referred to as 'Elyón in the
extant Ugaritic literature, numerous attesta-
tions, both biblical and extra-biblical, link
the two closely. We have already seen, for
instance, that, if nothing else, El and 'Elyón
are closely linked in the Sefire I inscription.
Similarly, in South Semitic inscriptions, one
finds a shortened form of *Elyón, “ly (and
sometimes ‘Il; -*Al) applied to El (Ryck-
MANS 1934:243). In the OT, 'Elyón appears
several times with El, either in collocation
(Gen 14:18-22; Ps 78:35). or in parallelism
(Num 24:16; Pss 73:11; 107:11). Many
scholars believe that the pre-Israelite cult at
Jerusalem worshipped the god EI-'Elyón.
There is also evidence to suggest that
Yahweh was originally worshipped as El-
*Elyón at Shiloh before David's capture of
Jerusalem (see below). These indicators all
point to 'Elyón being an early epithet of El.
Yet, other texts link Baal with this same
epithet in its abbreviated form. The clearest
example is found in the Keret epic (KTU
1.16 iii:5-8) where ntr b'l, ‘the rain of
Baal’, is twice parallelled by mr ‘ly, ‘the
rain of the Most High’.
In the Bible, also, there exists a possible
indication of Baal’s designation as Most
High. In the book of Hosea—a text well-
known for its unrelenting polemic against
Baalism—we find such an indication (al-
though some would amend the shortened
form */ to 5b'l, lectio facilior): "My people
are bent on turning away from mc. To the
Most High (‘J they call, but he does not
raise them up at all” (Hos 11:7). Further, in
Isa 14:13-14, we find a satire of the King of
Babylon that may reflect the myth of the
rise of Baal. In Canaanite lore, Baal is the
god who ascends the clouds and sits on 'the
heights of Zaphon'. Eventually he came to
replace El as high god of the Canaanite pan-
theon. It is intriguing, then, to find in Isaiah:
"You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to
heaven; I will raise my throne above the
stars of El; I will sit on the mount of assem-
bly, on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend
to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself
like *Elyón.'" Thus, if a Baal myth lies
behind this text, then we would have not
only another association of El and 'Elyón,
but a reflection of Baal's eventual surpas-
sing of El, so that he himself became the
‘Most High’ god.
The fluidity of the epithet ‘Ely6n is far
from restricted to Canaanite tradition alone.
The epithet became firmly associated with
the Israelite god, Yahweh, for instance. This
tradition carries over into later Jewish
pseudepigraphic literature and inscriptions
and is also found within the NT. The epithet
is frequently attested in Greek culture in
reference to Zeus as well. We know that the
cult of "Zeus Hypsistos' was recognized at
Thebes, Iasos, Mylasa and Edessa. Further,
in Lydia, some form of the Mother goddess
was called ‘Thea Hypsiste’. In Egypt, Hyp-
sistes was an epithet for —Isis (TREBILCO
1989:52). Thus, the epithet ‘Elyén seems to
have enjoyed a rich and widespread usage in
the ancient West Semitic world. Not only
was it associated with the ‘high gods’ of dif-
ferent cultures, but it could also be used
ELYON
within the same culture for different gods as
one ascended in significance over the other
to become the Most High God.
III. It is clear that Israel appropriated
‘Ely6n as an epithet for its own High God,
Yahweh. This is evident in the numerous
passages where ‘Ely6n appears either in
conjunction with Yahweh (Pss 7:18; 47:3)
or Elohim (Pss 57:3; 78:56) or is found in
parallelism or close association with either
of these (e.g. Pss 21:8; 46:5; 83:9; 50:14). In
some passages, the title *Elyón is applied to
Yahweh as an explicit assertion of Yahweh's
distinctiveness. In Ps 97:9, for instance, one
finds: "For you, Yahweh, are ‘Elyén over all
the earth; You are greatly elevated above all
gods." Similarly, in Ps 83:19 one finds:
"And let them know that your name is
Yahweh; You alone are ‘Ely6n over all the
earth.” One notes that in 1 Sam 2:10,
Yahweh may be associated with *Elyón,
attested in an abbreviated form, if the MT’s
‘Iw is understood as arising from common
confusion of w/y (accepted by NEB, and
now also by NRSV): “Yahweh, his adver-
saries are shattered; The Most High (Iw)
thunders in heaven.” In a number of pas-
sages, ‘Elyôn is simply one of a number of
appellations used for the God of Israel. In Ps
91:1-2, for instance, we find: “Let the one
who sits in the shelter of 'Elyón, who
spends the night in the shadow of -*Shad-
day, say to. Yahweh, 'My refuge and my
fortress, my God (Elohim), in whom I
trust."
In the few extant cases where 'Elyón
stands independently of any reference to
Yahweh, the title nevertheless remains
closely tied to the God of Israel. Thus, al-
though *Elyón is unmodified in Ps 9:3,
which reads, “I will be glad and exult in
you; I will sing praise to your name, O
*Elyón," the title 'Elyón nevertheless refers
to Yahweh, as is evident from the numerous
references to Yahweh throughout the Psalm.
‘Ely6n is also found paired with El in the
OT. Although El may refer either to ‘God’
(of Israel) or to Canaanite El, in most cases
the context in which it occurs clearly indi-
cates that the God of Israel is the intended
referent. In Ps 78:35, for instance, we find
EI-‘Ely6n in parallelism with Elohim: "They
remembered that Elohim was their -*rock,
EI-‘Ely6n was their redeemer (-*Goel).”
In Ps 57:3, we find a similar phenom-
enon, except this time *Elyón is paired with
Elohim, and these stand in parallelism with
El: “I call to Elohim-'Elyón, to El, who
fulfills his purpose for me."
In some cases, El and *Elyón are paired
without direct reference to Yahweh or
Elohim. In Ps 107:11, the psalmist speaks of
those who had “rebelled against the words
of El, and spurned the counsel of ‘Elyon.”
Again, the context of the psalm dictates that
the intended referent is Yahweh. Yet, in a
few passages in the OT, the pairing of El
with ‘Ely6n is more ambiguous. In these
instances, some scholars find reflections of
an earlier stage of tradition, where the title
*Elyón may have referred originally to a god
other than Yahweh. The primary examples
of such occurrences are Gen 14:18-22, Num
24:16 and Deut 32:8. With regard to the last
passage, some scholars find an early refer-
ence to *Elyón as a supreme god to which
Yahweh is subordinate. ‘ElyGn divides the
nations among the gods (LXX: 4QDeut) and
grants Yahweh an allotment like the rest.
Yet, contextual considerations suggest that
the preposition ki in v 9 be translated as an
asseverative particle, rendering, “Indeed,
Yahweh's own portion was his people.
Jacob was the territory of his possession.”
Thus, ‘Ely6n is more plausibly understood
as functioning as an epithet for Yahweh.
In an oracle of Balaam, son of Beor, in
Num 24:16, we find what may be the
earliest reference to *Elyón in the OT. AI-
though its early date is not uncontested,
many would locate the poem in the eleventh
or tenth century BCE. Here Balaam describes
himself as "one who hears the words of El,
who knows the knowledge of ‘Elyén, who
sees the vision of Sadday." Although the
context and content of the oracles dictate
that Yahweh is the god to whom these titles
refer, it is curious that Balaam, a prophet to
a non-lsraelite group, living along the Eu-
phrates, who is summoned by the King of
296
ELYON
Moab to curse the Israelites, would be con-
sidered a prophet of Yahweh (22:8, 18;
23:5, 16; 24:1, 13). Given the association of
the oracles with the ‘words of El’ it is poss-
ible that an earlier stage of the tradition
knew Balaam as a prophet of El. This notion
is supported by the Deir ‘Alli inscriptions
where Balaam, son of Beor is attested. Al-
though the inscriptions date to the eighth
century BCE, Balaam the Seer was apparent-
ly part of a long-standing tradition, well-
known by the people to whom the inscrip-
tion was addressed (HACKETT 1984:124). He
is described as a ‘seer of the gods’, who are
also identified as Shaddayin. The vision he
reports is ‘an utterance of El’ (Combination
1 1,2). The similarity between the Deir ‘Alla
inscriptions and the biblical tradition of
Balaam is striking and has been long noted
by scholars. It would appear that the biblical
material shares a common tradition with that
of the Deir 'Allà inscriptions. Given the
occurrence of El and Shaddayin in the
inscriptions, it is likely that El was also
known as Shadday (see HACKETT 1984:85-
89). And given its close links with the bibli-
cal account—in terms of geography, the
prophet's name, and the chief god El
(//Shadday)—it is possible that El was also
known as ‘Ely6n in the tradition attested at
Deir ‘Alla.
Perhaps the most difficult text to assess in
tenns of the history of tradition. behind
*Elyón is Gen 14:18-22. Here, a certain
Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of
El-Elyón, blesses Abraham in the name
of “El-‘Ely6én, maker of heaven and earth”
Ct ‘lywn qnh Smym w’rs). Significantly, at-
testations of a shortened version of this title
for El are widespread in ancient Near East-
em inscriptions. Examples are:
(1) The Hittite divine name Ilkunirša, occur-
ring in a Hittite translation of a West Sem-
itic myth from Boghazköy prior to 1200
BCE, appears to be a reference to El (OTTEN
1953; see HOFFNER 1965). (2) ?! qmrs in an
eighth century BCE bilingual god list from
Karatepe (KA/ 26 A III.18). (3) (4) qn’rs is
the probable restoration of a Hebrew
inscription of the eighth-seventh century BCE
from Jerusalem (AvVIGAD 1972; sce MILLER
1980). (4) *lqwnr’ in a first century CE
Aramaic inscription from Palmyra, which,
with DELLA VIDA 1944, is to be read ’ Ign
()r'(’)). (5) 7lqnr* in four tesserae from Pal-
myra (INGHOLT 1955). (6) "| qn ’rs in a
second century CE Neo-Punic inscription
from Leptis Magna (KA/ 129:1). Note that
the long form of this title has been read by
J. T. Miuix in an inscription from Palmyra
(Recherches d'épigraphie proche-orientale
[Paris 1955] 182): "[1 gw? ?]rt']? w Sm[yp.
Owing to the attestation of El-‘Elyén in
Gen 14:18-22, along with the expanded El
title gnh šmym wrş, Melchizedek would
appear to be a representative of the cult of
El-‘Ely6n, whom the biblical tradition asso-
ciated with the city of Salem (note that the
reference to Yahweh in v 22 is absent in
LXX, Syr, IQapGen; Sam attests ?/ /Ilym).
Most likely, Salem is a short form of Jerusa-
lem. It only appears in one other place in
the OT (Ps 76:3) where it stands in parallel-
ism with -*Zion. That Melchizedek’s Salem
was considered Jerusalem in Jewish tradi-
tion is evident in IQapGen 22:13, which
adds "that is, Jerusalem," to a reference to
Salem, in 7g. Onq., which renders it simply
as ‘Jerusalem’, and in Josephus (Anr. 1:180).
It is attested in the Amama Letters as u-ru-
sa-lim (EA 290:15). Owing to the likely
connection between Salem and Jerusalem, a
number of scholars have supposed Melchi-
zedek to be the representative of a dominant
Jebusite cult of El-‘Elyén from which Israel
drew much of its theological inspiration
after the city’s capture by David (e.g.
SCHMID 1955:168-197; CLEMENTS 1965:43-
48).
Although this supposition is not without
merit, Genesis 14 provides the only evi-
dence to link the cult of El-‘Elyén with
Jerusalem. On the other hand, significant,
though not decisive, evidence may be ad-
duced that would render an easy association
between El-'Elyón and the Jebusite cult
open to question. One notes that the name
Salem suggests links to the astral deity
Salim (-Shalem). Further, the names
Melchizedek (‘My king is Sedeq') and
297
ELYON
Adonizedek (‘My Lord is Sedeq’, Josh
10:1)—both identified as kings of Jerusa-
lem—suggest links to the West Semitic
deity Scedeq (-*Righteousness), who may
also. be an astral deity (note also David's
high priest Zadok). These deities. Shalim
and Sedeq, are at least as likely to have
been central to the pre-Israelite Jerusalem
cult, as it is that the cult of El-'Elyón was
the dominant religious institution (sce fuller
discussion in SEow 1989:43-47). One notes
that; even if the existence of a Jebusite cult
of El-‘Elyén is granted, it is unlikely that the
Israelite identification of Yahweh as El-
‘Ely6n derives its origin from this tradition.
The presence of ‘Ely6n in Deut 32 and Num
24, which may in some form be pre-mon-
archical, gravitates against such a hypoth-
esis. Further, as Seow has convincingly
argued, Yahweh is likely to have been
venerated as El-‘Ely6n at the sanctuary of
Shiloh well before David's capture of
Jerusalem (SEow 1989:11-54, esp. 41-54).
As an epithet applied with a significant
degree of fluidity throughout the West Sem-
itic region, it is easy to understand how
*Elyón may have made a relatively easy
transition from El-veneration to Yahwistic
cultic tradition in early Israelite religion.
Curiously, the OT traditions rarely attest
*Elyón standing alone, without modification.
In the Aramaic sections of Daniel, however,
references to Yahweh as ‘Elyon (‘ly’AI’h)
often stand independently, without modifi-
cation, although the intended referent is
clearly Yahweh (Note that qdySy ‘lywnyn is
also attested). A similar phenomenon is evi-
denced in the frequent references to *Elyón
(Aypsistos [altus in 2 Esdr]) in the apo-
cryphal books (1 and 2 Esdr, Tob, Jdt, Add
Esth, Wis, Sir, Pr Man, 2 and 3 Macc). In
Sir, it is the most common divine name after
kyrios. The epithet also occurs in varous
pseudepigraphical works, particularly in 7.
12 Patr.
In the NT, Aypsistos is a decidedly Lucan
title for God (TREBILCO 1989:58). Used five
times in the Gospel of Luke (1:32, 35, 76;
6:35; 8:28) and twice in Acts (7:48; 16:17),
hypsistos is only attested in two non-Lucan
contexts—once in Mark (5:7), and once in
Hebrews (7:1, which is a quotation of Gen
14:18). In Luke's Gospel, the term is
employed in the angel’s announcement to
- Mary that her child will be called ‘Son of
the Most High' (/iuios hypsistou; Luke 1:32)
and that the ‘power of the Most High’ will
come upon her (dynamis hypsistou; Luke
1:35). In 1:76, Zechariah predicts that his
son will be called ‘prophet of the Most
High' (prophetes hypsistou). Those who
love their enemies are called ‘children of the
Most High’ by —Jesus (huioi hypsistou;
Luke 6:35), and the Gerasene demoniac
identifies Jesus as ‘son of the Most High
God’ (huie theou tou hypsistou; Luke 8:28
par. Mark 5:7; cf. Matt 8:29). In Acts,
Stephan asserts that ‘the Most High’ (ho
hypsistos, Acts 7:48) does not dwell in
houses made with human hands, and a slave
girl from Philippi declares that Paul and his
group are ‘servants of the Most High God’
(douloi tou theou tou hypsistou; Acts 16:17).
Although there is not enough evidence to
make a firm case, it would appear as if Luke
employs the term /iypsistos or ho hypsistos
in Jewish contexts, and ho theos ho
hypsistos in Gentile ones. As TREBILCO
(1989:58-59) suggests, this may be because
Luke was aware of the non-specific nature
of the tenn Aypsistos in a Gentile setting and
sought to avoid confusion by employing a
superlative of more significance for Gen-
tiles. [For a further discussion of the Greek
data see >Hypsistos]
IV. Bibliography
N. AviGap, Excavations in the Jewish
Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem (1971;
IEJ 22; 1972) 193-200; R. E. CLEMENTS,
God and Temple (Philadelphia 1965) 40-62,
esp. 43-48; F. M. Cross, Yahwch and the
God of the Patriarchs, HTR 55 (1962) 225-
259; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic (Cambridge, MA 1973) 44-60; G. L.
DELLA Vipa, El *Elyon in Genesis 14:18-
20. JBL 63 (1944) 1-9; O. EissrELDT, El
and Yahweh, JSS 1 (1956) 25-37; J. A.
EMERTON, Some Problems in Genesis XIV,
Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emer-
ton; Leiden 1990) 73-102; L. R. FISHER,
298
EMIM — EMMANUEL
Abraham and His Priest-King. JBL 81
(1962) 264-270; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aram-
aic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome 1967); J.
Hackett, The Balaam Text From Deir ‘Alla
(HSM 31: Chico 1984); C. E. L'HEUREUX,
Rank Among the Canaanite Gods (HSM 21;
Missoula 1979); H. A. HoFFNER, Jr., The
Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered, RHA 76
(1965) 5-16; HorrNEn, Hittite Myths
(Atlanta 1990); H. INGHOLT et al, Recueil
des tesséres de Palmyre (Paris 1955); R.
Lack, Les origines de Elyon, le Trés-Haut,
dans la tradition culturelle d'Israël, CBQ 24
(1962) 44-64; P. D. MiLLER, ’El, The Cre-
ator of Earth, BASOR 239 (1980) 43-46; E.
T. MULLEN, Jr.. The Assembly of the Gods
(HSM 24; Chico 1986), H. NiEHR, Der
Höchste Gott (Berlin 1990); R. A. ODEN,
Ba'al Samém and "El, CBQ 39 (1977) 457-
73; H. Orren, Ein kanaaniischer Mythus
aus Boğazköy. MIO 1 (1953) 125-150; S. B.
PARKER, KTU 1.16 III, the Myth of the
Absent God and 1 Kings 18, UF 21 (1989)
283-296; M. H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic
Texts (Leiden 1955) 55-58; R. RENDTORFF,
The Background of the Title 79) [8 in Gen
XIV, Fourth World Congress of Jewish
Studies vol. | (Jerusalem 1967) 167-170: J.
J. M. Roperts, The Davidic Origin of the
Zion Tradition, JBL 92 (1973) 329-344; G.
RvcKMANS, Les noms-propres sud-sémi-
tiques, Vol. 1 (Louvain 1934); H. SCHMID,
Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jeru-
salem, ZAW 67 (1955) 168-97; C. L. Seow,
Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David's
Dance (HSM 46; Atlanta 1989); F. STOLZ.,
Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jeru-
salem (BZAW 119; Berlin 1969) esp. 134-
137; P. R. Tresitco, Paul and Silas—‘Ser-
vants of the Most High God’ (Acts
16:16-18). JSNT 36 (1989) 51-73: R. DE
Vaux, Ancient Israel (London 1961) 289-
311: H. ZoszL, 1T 22, TWAT 6 (1987) 131-
152.
E. E. EtNES & P. D. MILLER
EMIM -> REPHAIM
EMMANUEL “Ss 522 'Eppavovjnà
I. In Isa 7:14, the prophet Isaiah
announced the birth of a child whose name
will be '/mmániél ("God with us') its
mother is designated as 'the young woman'.
This birth will be a sign to the wavering
King Ahaz of Judah at the time King Rezin
of Syria and King Pekah of Israel had gone
up to attack Jerusalem. The name returns in
Isa 8:8, whereas in 8:10 the expression ‘God
with us’ is used as an assurance of God’s
protection for Israel. Isa 7:14 reappears in
Matt 1:23 as one of the formula quotations
characteristic of this gospel. Isaiah’s proph-
ecy will be fulfilled in the binh of -Jesus
from the virgin -Mary. after being con-
ceived from the Holy Spirit. Matt. 1:23
retrieves the term /ié parthenos (the virgin)
found in the LXX and uses the Greek trans-
literation Emmanouél; and explains: "which
means ‘God is with us".
II. The notion that God is with human
beings. personally and collectively. is very
prominent in the OT. It is found in divine
promises, in wishes and promises uttered by
human beings: and in solemn assertions that
‘God is with him, you, me, us’. It is an
expression of God's guidance and assistance
of prominent Israelites like the patriarchs,
Joseph, Gideon or David, and also of the
people as a whole. Hence ‘God with us’ can
be used as an affirmation of trust in Isa
8:10, just as the refrain "The Lonp of hosts
is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge"
in Ps 46 (see vv 8 and 12). The notion is
found in all parts of the OT, as well as in
Jdt 5:17: 3 Macc 6:15; in Qumran (1 QM
12:7-9; 19:1), and its use is continued in the
NT (see e.g. Acts 7:9-10; 18:9-10; Rom
15:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9; 2 Thess 3:16).
Whilst central to Israelite religion as re-
flected in the OT few direct parallels have
been found in religious texts of surrounding
peoples (see Preuss 1968:161-171; 1973:
487).
III. The exact interpretation of Isaiah 7
and 8 is beset with difficulties. We do not
know who is meant by ‘the young woman’
in Isa 7:14, but there is no indication that
there will be anything abnormal or special
about her pregnancy (present or immanent)
299
ENDS OF THE EARTH
or the birth of her child. The birth of the
child (in the royal family of David?) and his
name will be a sign from the Lord. Before
the boy will know how to refuse the evil
and to choose the good, the threat from the
two enemy kings will be removed. In
Judaism, Isa 7:14 is not used in connection
with a future messianic saviour.
For Matthew's interpretation of the pas-
sage, it is essential that the young woman is
a virgin whose pregnancy is due to divine
intervention. And, whereas in Isa 7:14 it is
the young mother who chooses the name of
the child, Matt 1:23 stipulates that the name
Emmanuel will be given by others: “they
shall name him Emmanucl"—not by Mary,
or Joseph (who. in v 21, receives the com-
mand to call Mary's son -*Jesus, "for he
will save his people from their sins"). Pre-
sumably the ‘they’ of v 22 are ‘his people’
of v 21. Many people of whom it is said that
God was with them are portrayed as having
been specially endowed with the Spirit (e.g.
Joseph in Gen 41:38; Gideon in Judg 6:34;
Saul in 1 Sam 10:6.7; David in 1 Sam 16:
13). Hence Matthew may have seen the role
of the -*Holy Spirit in the birth of Jesus as a
decisive factor for his life in an intimate
relationship with God (Matt 3:16-17; 11:25-
30; 12:17-21.28; 16:16; 17:5; 26:39). In this
way, Jesus’ activity represents God's pres-
ence among his people. The gospel ends
with the assurance “l am with you always to
the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20, cf. 17:17,
18:20, 26:29). Later Christians mention
Emmanuel as the name of the Incarnate
Word (-*Logos) (LPGL 454).
IV. Bibliography
A. Laatto, Who is Immanuel? The Rise and
Foundering of Isaiah's Messianic Expecta-
tions (Abo 1988); H. D. Preuss, “...ich will
mit dir sein!", ZAW 80 (1968) 139-173; H.
D. Preuss, TWAT | (1973) 485-500; W. C.
VAN UNNIK, Dominus Vobiscum. The
Background of a Liturgical Formula, Sparsa
Collecta 3 (NovTSup 31; Leiden 1983) 362-
391.
M. DE JONGE
ENDS OF THE EARTH [^8 "CER
I|. The expression 'apsé ’eres, ‘The ends
of the —Earth' occurs 16 times in the OT,
mainly in poetic texts (e.g. Deut 33:17; Isa
45:22; 52:10; Mic 5:3; Zech 9:10; six times
in the Pss). The first element of this con-
struct chain, "epes, denotes the end or limit
of space or time. The noun has cognates in
Ug ’ps, ‘upper edge’, (KTU 1.6 i:61); Phoen
*ps, ‘end’, adverbially used as ‘finally; even’
in KA/ 26 IV:1, and in the Canaanite noun
upsu, ‘extremity’, (EA 287:70'; 289:50; 366:
34; R. DEGEN, WdO 6 [1971-72] 60). Not
convinced by a Semitic etymology for ’epes,
some authors have suggested a relation with
Mesopotamian Apsu, the deified subter-
ranean waters (WENSINCK 1918:21; Pope
1955:71-72). An improbable etymology has
been offered by SCHUMAN (BiOr 33 [1976]
161) who construed a common etymology
for Mesopotamian Apsu and the WSem
noun ’ps in Proto-Semitic *kabas-, ‘sur-
rounding fence or wall’.
IIl. The Akkadian noun apsu is a loan-
word from Sum abzu, (2 ZU-AB) or ab.zu,
‘subterranean waters’. The pronunciation
with a /p/ is confirmed by its occurrence as
‘Anaowv in Greek tradition (Damascius, De
principiis § 125). In Mesopotamian mythol-
ogy, Apsu was regarded as the abode of
strange composite creatures of different
kinds. They could be of benevolent or of
malevolent character. In Maqlû VIII 38, the
Apsu is the abode of the ‘Wise Apkallu’
(-*Apkallu). The Apsu was the realm and
the home of Enki/Ea, the god of wisdom.
—=Marduk, the son of Ea, was born and
raised in the Apsu, according to Enuma
Elish (Ee 1 77-88; cf. R. BORGER, /nschrifte
Asarhaddons [AfO Beiheft 9; Graz 1956] 8
61:20; E. EBELING, Stiftungen und Vor-
schriften für assyrische Tempel [Berlin
1954] 4:8). The Apsu is not identical with
the underworld which was located even fur-
ther down. In some traditions a river, the
-*Hubur, had to be crossed in order to reach
the underworld. This river is sometimes
identified with or incorporated in the Apsu.
In Enuma Elish Apsu appears as a god
acting in a primeval drama. He was the
300
ENOCH
lover and husband of -*Tiamat, the salt-
water ocean. They engendered the first
generation of deities: -^Lahmu and Lahamu;
Anshar and Kishar; Anu and Nudimmud/Ea
(Ee 1 9-18). These younger gods rebelled
against Apsu and Tiamat. Against the will
of Tiamat, Apsu plotted against the gods his
offspring. Thereupon, Ea—by means of a
magic spell—made Apsu sleep forever and
took away from him his symbols of power:
his crown and his cloak of fiery rays (Ee I
55-71; JaCOBSEN 1976).
In ancient Greek mythological thought,
the edges of the earth are seen as sur-
rounded by an Ocean that could not be
crossed by mankind, and near it there lived
strange beings, such as the Hyperboreans
and the Kynokephaloi (RoMM 1992). WEsT
(1963) has argued that in early Greek cos-
mologies the concept of Ocean as primordial
water inhabited by monsters and -*giants—
to be overcome before the universe is
properly ordered—has been borrowed from
ancient Near Eastern myths.
III. In the OT ‘the ends of the earths’ do
not have a mythological bias. In several
texts they are mentioned to emphasize the
worldwide character of the rule of
-—Yahweh (1 Sam 2:10; Isa 45:22; 52:10;
Jer 16:19; Ps 22:28; 59:14; 67:8; Prov
30:14; Sir 36:22) or his carthly representa-
tive (Deut 33:17; Mic 5:3; Ps 2:8; 72:8;
98:3). In parallellism with other geographic
designations 'ends of the earth' indicates in
a merism 'the whole earth' (with -*Sea and
—River: Zech 9:10; Ps 72:8; Sir 44:21). A
connection with Mesopotamian Apsu seems
unlikely. Etymologically there is no necess-
ity to relate "epes with apsu. In the OT other
expressions for ‘ends of the earth’ are found
(qéséh hd adres (e.g. Deut 13:8), yarkéte
"áres (e.g. Jer 6:22; 25:32); kanpót há'áres,
'hems/edges of thc earth', Job 37:3; 38:13;
Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2). In the NT the expres-
sions €og £oxátov tf; yns, 'to the end of
the earth’ (Acts 1:8; 13:47) and neipata ms
yn¢ (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31) occur.
IV. Bibliography
V. Hamp, ’epes, TWAT | (1971) 389-391;
T. JAcoBsEN, 7he Treasures of Darkness
(New Haven/London 1976) 168-172; P.
JENSEN, Apsü, RLA 1 (1928) 122-124; M.
H. PoPE, El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup 2;
Leiden 1955) 71-72; J. S. Rom, The Edges
of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Princeton
1992); A. J. WENSINCK, The Ocean in the
Literature of the Western Semites (Amster-
dam 1918); M. L. West, Three Presocratic
Cosmologies, CQ 13 (1963) 154-176.
B. BECKING
ENOCH Tui
I. The enigmatic reference to Enoch in
Genesis 5:24 has generated a welter of spec-
ulation about his person and a range of lit-
erature attributed to him which is found in a
variety of forms. Our knowledge of its early
form has been transformed by the discovery
of the fragments from Cave 4 at Qumran,
many of which correspond to what we know
as ] Enoch. This apocalypse is extant in its
complete version in Ethiopic and includes a
variety of material from different periods
(the chapters 37-71, which speak of the
-*Son of Man and Enoch's identification
with this heavenly figure, appear not to have
been known at Qumran).
II. The legend of Enoch's righteousness,
his position in —heaven and his wisdom,
provide opportunities for displaying a vast
array of information in the apocalyptic mode
concerning astronomy, eschatology and
paraenesis. The reference in chapter 5 of
Genesis already suggests that at the time of
the redaction of this chapter, probably
during the Exilic period, speculation about
Enoch was well established. The allusion to
the 365 days of the year in the length of life
accorded to him hints at the calendrical wis-
dom which was to be such an important
component of the ideas about him in later
Jewish tradition (see the summary in Pirke
de Rabbi Eliezer 9a).
The discovery of the Enoch fragments
from Qumran have added weight to the view
that there was a wide range of speculation
about Enoch of which the brief mention in
Genesis is by no means the only or even the
earliest example. Possibly the earliest evi-
301
ENOCH
dence for speculation outside the Bible is to
be found in / Enoch where, as a scribe, he
is located in a privileged position (7 Enoch
12). Such a position gives him access to God
with whom he intercedes on behalf of the
— Watchers (7. Enoch 12), the fallen angels
of Gen 6:1-4. For this purpose Enoch
ascends to heaven and, in a description
reminiscent of the visions of Ezekiel and
Isaiah and a prototype of later visions of
God in apocalyptic literature and in the
Jewish mystical (Hekaloth) tradition, he
ascends through the palaces of heaven to
receive a message of judgement from God
on the Watchers (/ Enoch 14). Following the
heavenly ascent Enoch wanders the carth
and visits many places including the Para-
dise of Righteousness. His position as scribe
is echoed in Jub. 4:17-21 (cf. T.Abr., B 11),
in which he is said to have been the first to
have learnt writing and the signs of heaven.
His final dwelling-place is in the Garden of
Eden (see also T. Benj. 10.6 and Christian
testimony to Enoch's place in the heavenly
paradise in Apoc. Paul 20, Clementine
Recognitions 1.52, Acts of Pilate 25 and the
Ascension of Isaiah 9.6). Here he writes
down the judgement and condemnation of
the world and acts as a priest "burning the
incense of the sanctuary, sweet spices,
acceptable before the Lord on the mount"
(Jub. 4:23-24). This priestly role is one that
is reflected in several later sources (e.g.
Apostolic Constitutions 8.5; the Cave of
Treasures and the Book of the Rolls).
In the Hebrew of Sirach, at 44:16,
Enoch's perfection is stressed and he is
called a sign of knowledge ('ót da'at) for
every generation (cf. Jub. 4:17). In the same
book, at 49:14, his ascent to God is referred
to allusively (nilgah pdnim, evidently a
technical term meaning something like
“taken into the divine presence”). In the
Greck of Sirach, at 44:16, Enoch heads the
list of famous men, the text claiming for
him that he “pleased the Lord, and was
translated, being an example of repentance
to all generations”, a theme reflected in
Philo’s Questions on Genesis 1.82. At 49:14
his translation is again noted, and the great
men named after him include -*Joseph,
—Shem and -*Seth. He is said to have been
unique (“none was created like him”), which
is proved by his translation from the earth
(anelémphthé, cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). In the Wis-
dom of Solomon Enoch is seen as the
example of the nghteous man whose death
is mistaken as judgement but in whom in
reality the wisdom and righteousness of age
reached fruition in youth. Here he is said to
have been snatched away (hérpagé), a verb
used in the New Testament as a technical
term for the ascent to heaven (sce 2 Cor
12:2-4; 1 Thess 4:15-17; Rev 12:5). His pri-
vileged position in heaven made him a
resource which succeeding generations
might hope to benefit from as the fragmen-
tary Genesis Apocryphon 2 demonstrates (cf.
1 Enoch 106:7). Enoch's opportunity to con-
sult the heavenly tablets gave him a position
of wisdom and insight (cf. J Enoch 103).
Josephus speaks of Enoch as returning to the
divinity (exactly the same words he uses of
the end of —Moses in Antiq. 1.85, cf. Ant.
4.326). In describing the end of -*Elijah
Josephus links him with Enoch and speaks
of both as becoming invisible (aphaneis),
since no one knew of their death. Philo's
view of Enoch in part anticipates the line
which will be found in the isolated refer-
ences in the rabbinic midrash: Enoch be-
comes upright when he became a father, and
Enoch's repentance led to constancy in
uprightness for which he was rewarded.
The speculation about Enoch continued in
the literature attributed to Enoch which
emerged over a period of about four hun-
dred years at the beginning of the Christian
era. The carliest material, much of which
has parallels in fragmentary form among the
Aramaic fragments from Qumran Cave 4, is
to be found in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of
Enoch. This is a mixture of visions and
paranaesis on subjects as diverse as escha-
tology and astronomy. In the Slavonic Apo-
calypse of Enoch (2 Enoch) Enoch ascends
through seven heavens, in a heavenly jour-
ney in which the component parts of the
heavenly world and their inhabitants are
briefly described. His return to earth is the
302
ENOCH
opportunity for a discourse of a testamentary
kind. In the Hebrew Book of Enoch (also
known as 3 Enoch), a solitary example of
the extravagant Enochic speculation pre-
served in the Jewish tradition, Enoch is
transformed into the angel Metatron (an
event with a parallel in / Enoch 71 where
Enoch seems to become the heavenly Son of
Man referred to in earlier chapters). The
transformation of the antediluvian hero into
an exalted angel and a position on a throne
like that of God is the highwater mark of the
Enoch legend. Even in this work the dangers
of such speculation are recognised and
Enoch-Metatron is humiliated when he fails
to stand in face of the confused early second
century CE tanna Elisha ben Abuyah who,
when he ascends to heaven, mistakes Enoch-
Metatron for a second God and supposes
that there are two powers in heaven (3
Enoch 16 and b. Hagigah 15a). Surprisingly
Enoch makes little appearance in the Heka-
loth tradition where the role as mystagogue
is given to famous tannaitic figures like
Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiba. The ex-
travagant claims about Enoch are not echoed
in other Jewish sources, In commenting on
Gen 5:24, Bereshith Rabbah 25 demystifies
Enoch completely by suggesting that his
removal was the result of death. In the
Targumim we have a variety of interpreta-
tions of Enoch’s end. His death is empha-
sised by Onkelos in line with attempts to
play down Enoch's role. In the Fragment
Targum mention is made of Enoch's wor-
ship of God (identical in wording with Ps.
Jonathan) but this targum seems to be
agnostic about Enoch's end merely speaking
of him being taken away. Neofiti is similar.
As one might expect, Ps. Jonathan is much
more extensive and reflects the more ex-
travagant Enochic speculation. Like Jub.
4:23 it has Enoch taken from the dwellers
on earth to become a heavenly scribe, but it
also speaks of his being taken up to the
firmament and his name being “Metatron the
great scribe” ( b. Hagigah 15a and 3 Enoch
16; cf / Enoch 12).
HI. In the Christian tradition there is
occasional interest in Enoch. He is cited as
an example of faith manifest in the fact that
he was pleasing to God (Hebrews 11:5-6).
The Enochic literature is treated as prophecy
in Jude 14 (the authority of Enochic litera-
ture often being supported in various pre-
Nicene sources e.g. Epistle of Barnabas
4.16; Tertullian de cultu feminarum 1.3;
Apostolic Constitutions 6.16). There has
been debate over the extent of the indebted-
ness to the figure of Enoch in the New Tes-
tament. lt is likely that the Last Judgement
scene in Matt. 25:31-46 is indebted to the
son of man figure (subsequently identified
with Enoch) in / Enoch 37-71, especially
69:27. though in Matthew, of course, it is
Jesus as heavenly son of man who so sits.
John 3:13 has been taken as an indication of
polemic against the contemporary claims
made on behalf of figures like Enoch and
Moses to have ascended into heaven by
asserting the superiority of Jesus the Son of
Man's ascent and descent (cf. the similar
contrasts in Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheti-
cal Lectures 14:25; Ambrose, De fide 4.1).
In 1 Pet 3:16.18-22 Christ's proclamation to
the imprisoned spirits may reflect Enoch's
proclamation of judgement to the Watchers
who had been imprisoned and sought
Enoch's intercession (J Enoch 12-16 cf.
Hippolytus, Antichrist 45). Like Enoch
—Christ passes through the heavens and
attains a position of pre-eminence in the
process (1 Pet 3:22). In the book of Revel-
ation John of Patmos is appointed as a
scribe to write to the angels of the seven
churches in Asia, emulating the role of
Enoch. In later interpretation of Rev. 11 the
two witnesses mentioned there are identified
with Enoch and Elijah. They are sent to con-
vict the -*Antichrist (Hippolytus Aztichrist
43; Historia Josephi 25; John of Damascus,
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.26;
Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter 2; Ephraem,
Discourse on the Consummation 11). In the
Samaritan literature Enoch is said to have
opened the storehouse of righteousness and
fed his soul on the provisions of eternal life
(Tibat Markah 4.9), and like Adam, wor-
shipped at Mount Gerizim (Markah 2.10). In
the Samaritan targum to Gen 5:24 Enoch is
303
EQUITY — EROS
said to have been taken by an angel. In the
Qur'an Enoch (= Idris) is called a man of
truth who was raised to a lofty place for his
steadfastness and patience.
IV. Bibliography
R. H. CHARLES, The Book of Enoch (Oxford
1912); J. Drusius, Henoch. Sive de patri-
archa Henoch, eiusque raptu et libro quo
Judas Apostolus testimonium profert: ubi de
libris in scriptura memoratis, qui nunc
interciderunt-(Franeker 1615); J. A. FABRI-
CIUS, Codex pseudepigraphicus veteris Tes-
tamenti, collectus, castigatus testimoniisque,
censuris et animadversionibus | illustratus
(Hamburg 1722-1741); P. GmELor, La
légende d'Hénoch dans les apocryphes et
dans la Bible: origine et signification, RSR
46 (1958) 5-26; 181-210; E. G. HinscH,
Enoch, The Jewish Encyclopedia 5 (New
York 1903) 178-179; H. L. JANSEN, Die
Henochgestalt: Eine vergleichende reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Oslo
1939); J. T. MiLiK, Books of Enoch: Ara-
maic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford
1976); H. ODEBERG, Enoch, TDNT 2 (Grand
Rapids 1964) 556-560; J. C. VANDERKAM,
Enoch and the Growth of the Apocalyptic
Tradition (Washington 1984); VANDERKAM,
1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in
Early Christian Literature, The Jewish Apo-
calyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (eds.
J. C. Vanderkam & W. Adler; Assen 1996)
33-101.
C. ROWLAND
EQUITY -* MISHARU
EROS “Epws
I. Eros is passionate love or desire and
also the Greek god of love (frequently but
not always the son or companion of -*Aph-
rodite, other candidate mothers including
Eileithyia, Iris and Nyx). As so often in
Greek (and Roman) religion, in this case
as well, the deity and his domain coincide
terminologically ('Person-Bereichdenken"),
because the Greeks drew no sharp distinc-
tion between the passionate desire and the
deity who brought it about. In the Bible,
Eros does not occur as a deity or demon, but
in the two passages where eros is mentioned
(Prov 7:18 and 30:16 LXX), its dangerous
and insatiable character is emphasized.
II. Although in Homer Eros does not yet
occur as a personification, Homeric passages
do indicate that eros is an overwhelming
physical desire that induces humans and
gods to undertake actions that seem to be
beyond their control (see e.g. /l 3:442;
14:294; Od. 18:212). Only slightly later,
however, Hesiod attributes to Eros a pivotal
role in his cosmogonic theory (Theog. 116-
122). Although still much like Homer he
describes Eros as the power that “loosens
the limbs and overpowers the minds of all
gods and men" (121-122), he drastically
transforms the Homeric concept (without
giving any reasons for it) by making Eros,
together with Tartarus and Gaia, the oldest
(and most beautiful!) of gods and onc of the
primeval cosmic powers. These powers have
no parents and everything is a product of
their activity. So without Eros there would
have been no cosmos. West (Hesiod. The
Theogony [Oxford 1966] 195) rightly
remarks that Eros’ position in the very first
generation “strongly suggests a quasi-demi-
urgic function.” Even though Eros is not
mentioned again in the Theogony, “he is
nevertheless present throughout as the force
of generation and reproduction” (ibid. 196).
Also in early Orphic cosmogonic specula-
tions Eros seems to have played a role as a
primeval force of paramount importance
(see the parody in Aristophanes, Aves 692-
702; WAsER 1907:486), as he/it did in Par-
menides' philosophy (in his fragm. 28B13
Eros is ‘the first of gods’). All this formed
the background for the famous discussion of
Eros in Plato’s Symposium (with its six lau-
datory speeches on Eros), where
Diotima/Socrates pictures the deity as the
personification of human strivings after
(knowledge of the Idea of) the Good. Less
philosophically minded authors, esp. poets
from the Hellenistic and Roman periods,
seem to have entertained a more playful
image of Eros when portraying him as a
young and beautiful winged god who liked
304
EROS
to create frenzy and confusion in humans
(and gods) by piercing them with his arrows
(FAUTH 1975:362). Not infrequently the
poets mention a plurality of Erotes. Occa-
sionally critical voices could be heard: Some
Stoics and Cynics polemicized against the
overrating of eros implicit in its deification:
see, e.g., the scathing remarks by Antisthe-
nes to the effect that ill-natured people who
succumb to their sexual desire (eros), “call
this disease a god" (ap. Clement of Alex-
andria, Strom. 1l 107,3). Eros had only a
few cultic sites: a very old cult in Thespiae
(Boeotia), where his image was only a
rough stone; also a joint cult with -*Aphro-
dite on the Acropolis in Athens, where phal-
lic symbols were found in their sanctuary;
further one in Parion (Mysia. in the Troad);
he had images in gymnasia, and he enjoyed
individual worship as well. In spite of all
this, how-ever, it has to be stressed that it
was Aphrodite who remained the deity of
love par excellence, Eros being mainly a
creation of poets, philosophers and artists,
rather than of religion (SCHNEIDER
1966:306; and see the collection of quotes in
Stobacus, Anthol. 1V 20). On Eros and his
‘Verkindlichung’ (Nock 1924) in figurative
arn (Cupido, putto) see A. RuMPr, Eros
(Eroten) II (in der Kunst), RAC VI (Stuttgart
1966) 312-342; BOARDMAN & La Rocca
1978; BLanc-Gury 1986.
III. The first occurrence of Epws in the
Greek Bible is Prov 7:18, in a passage
where the behaviour of a prostitute is descn-
bed. She addresses a young man by saying.
inter alia: "Come, let us enjoy love (axoA-
avowpey odias) till the morning! Come on,
let us drown ourselves in passion (€y«v-
AvoO@yev Epwti)!" The second one is Prov
30:16 (LXX), a passage that does not have
an exact parallel in the Hebrew Bible (cf.
24:51), where the translator enumerates ex-
amples of insatiability, among which Hades
and passion for a woman (€pws yuvatKds).
It is clear that the author/translator views
eros in a very negative light. So does the
first. century. Graeco-Jewish wisdom poet
Pseudo-Phocylides, a writer who more than
most of his Jewish contemporaries (apart
from Philo) devoted himself to drawing
attention to the dangers of submitting to
eros. He denies in a typically Jewish anti-
Hellenistic way Eros' divinity: "Eros is not
a god, but a passion that destroys all men!
[or: a destructive passion of all men]" (193-
194; see the comments by P. W. vAN DER
Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides
[Leiden 1978] 240-241). He also strongly
warns against immoderate and shameful
expressions of sexual desire (61, 67, 214).
The desire for virtue (Epws apetis, 67),
however, is honourable (a distinction found
already in Euripides et al.). Also his con-
temporary Philo of Alexandria distinguishes
between honourable and dishonourable
forms of eros. He uses the term as a vox
media, alternatingly in malam and in bonam
partem depending upon the context (e.g.
Epas Ndovis versus Epws Sixarvoovvns; see
the many references in J. LEISEGANG, Indi-
ces ad Philonis Alexandrini opera (Berlin
1926], vol. 1, 298-299). :
Eros does not occur in the NT, but as
early as the beginning of the second century
cE we find bishop Ignatius of Antioch sta-
ting that his eros has been crucified (Ep.
Rom. 7:2), meaning that his bodily desires
no longer exist. In later Christian authors,
however, Eros could be divergently inter-
preted as a symbol of God Almighty or of
the devil, and Christian poets made freely
use of the mythological imagery of Eros for
theological purposes (SCHNEIDER 1966:310-
312; voN HARNACK 1894).
IV. Bibliography
N. Branc - F. Gury, Eros, LIMC IHI 1
(Zürich-München 1986) 850-1049; J.
BoARDMAN & E. La Rocca, Eros in Gree-
ce (London 1978); C. CALAME, L'Eros dans
la Grèce antique (Paris 1996); W. FAuTH,
Eros, KP Il (Stuttgart 1975) 361-363; A.
FURTWANGLER, Eros, ALGRM 1 1 (Leipzig
1886) 1339-1372; A. voN HARNACK, Der
Eros in der alten christlichen Literatur (Sit-
zungsberichte Akad. Wiss. Berlin; Berlin
1894); F. LASSERRE, La figure d'Eros dans
la poésie grecque (Lausanne 1946); A. D.
Nock, Eros the Child, CR 38 (1924) 152-
155; C. ScuNEIDER, Eros, RAC VI (Stutt-
305
ESAU — ESHMUN
gart 1966) 306-312; O. Waser, Eros, PW
VI 1 (Stuttgart 1907) 484-542.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
ESAU 322
I. Esau, twin brother of -*Jacob is
known as thc eponym of the béné ‘ésaw
(Gen 25:19-34; 36:1-43) and the father of
- Edom (Gen 36:9.43; Akk Udumu; Ug udin
(? 0) Eg idm; Gk ldoumaia). His name,
sometimes connected to Ar a‘ta, ‘to be
hairy’ (Gen 25:25), is more likely explained
as a hypocoristicon of ‘Jsw or ‘Isy J(HALAT
845; cf. epigraphic Hebr ‘fw; Nabataean
‘sw). Early critical scholarship surmised
behind the saga of Jacob and Esau a mythol-
ogical tale of twin rivalry (GOLDZIHER
1876; MEvER 1906). Frequent reference has
also been made to the culture myth of
Samémroumos and Ousóos as narrated by
Philo of Byblos (H. W. ATTRIDGE & R. A.
ODEN, Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician
History. Introduction, Critical Text, Transla-
tion, Notes [CBQ Monogr. Ser. 9; Washing-
ton 1981] 43-44). Esau was identified with
this cultural hero Ousóos, hunter and inven-
tor of cloths made of animal hides. Further-
morc, his name has been connected with an
Asiatic goddess *‘Sit depicted as a hunting
and horse-riding deity in New Kingdom
texts and iconography (MEYER 1906:278-
279 n.2).
II. A relation between Esau's name and
the Asiatic goddess *‘Sir does not exist. Her
name ought to be read as ‘Sty (presumably
pronounced ‘Ashtay), which originated as a
scribal and phonetic variant of Semitic
—Astarte (R. STADELMANN, Syrisch-Palásti-
nensische Gottheiten in Ägypten [Leiden
1967] 99-101). The connection between
Ousóos and Esau is highly questionable, too,
notwithstanding some motives shared be-
tween myth and saga. Ousóos is more prob-
ably Greek for Uzu or Ushu, the ancient
name of the mainland settlement opposite
Tyre (ANET? 287.300.477; M. Nom, Über-
lieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs [Stutt-
gan 1948] 105-106), whereas Samémrou-
mos is reminiscent of imum nnm 'Shamem
romim', a temple quarter in or near Sidon
(KAI 15; see also §mm ?drm KAI 14:16; O.
EISSFELDT, Schamemrumim “Hoher Him-
mel", ein Stadtteil von Gross-Sidon, FF 14
[1938] 171-173 - KS 2, 123-126; GESE,
RAAM, 147-148; ATTRIDGE & ODEN, Philo
of Byblos: The Phoenician History 82-83
n.56). ‘
III. Biblical tradition connects Esau, and
thus also the béné ‘ésdw, to the land of
Edom and the mountains of Seir (Gen 36:1-
8). There is a distant memory of blood-ties
between Jacob and Esau (e.g. Gen 36:6;
Deut 23:7; Amos 1:11; Ob 10), presumably
dating back to their Transjordan symbiosis
(Gen 32-33; MEYER 1906; NotH, Uberlie-
ferungsgeschichte, 104-108). A kind of kin-
ship continued to be felt even after Esau's
migration to the south (Gen 36:6-8). Clans
of the 'Edomite' tribe of Kenaz (Kenizzites)
developed close ties with Judah in and
around Hebron (Num 32:12; Josh 15:13-19;
Judg 1:10-15; MEYER 1906:348-354; DE
Vaux 1971:496-501). The mention of yhwh
tmn (‘Yahweh of Teman’) in the texts from
Kuntillet Ajrud (Horvat Teman, in the
Negev) also indicates ancient cultural and
religious ties between Israel and Edom. No
clear memories about Esau’s tomb and
ancestral cult have survived in the biblical
accounts. There is a Jewish legend relating
the death of Esau at Machpelah because of
his infamous claim to the Cave (bSotah 13a;
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer XXXIX). According
to this story, his head was kept at
Machpelah and his body sent back to Seir.
IV. Bibliography
I. GOLDZIHER, Der Mythos bei den
Hebrüern und seine geschichtliche Entwick-
lung (Leipzig 1876; reprint 1987); E.
MEYER, Die Israeliten und ihre Nach-
barstümme (Halle 1906).
M. DIJKSTRA
ESH -* FIRE
ESHMUN “Eonovvos
I. The name of the Phoenician god of
health, Eshmun ("$mn), has been used by
306
ESHMUN
some scholars to explain the hap. leg. of Isa
59:10 C^Z3ÀN as an abstract plural meaning
'health'. Eshmun has also been connected
with -*Ashima, the deity of the settlers from
Hamath referred to in 2 Kgs 17:30.
II. From the 8th century BCE onward,
the cult of the god Eshmun is attested in
Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, Egypt, Carthage
and other Punic cities. In a broken context,
the Treaty of Ashumerari V with Mati-ilu of
Arpad mentions %/a-su-mu-na in the list of
divine witnesses next to Melqart (SAA 2
no. 2 vi 22); so does the treaty between
Esarhaddon of Assyria and Baal of Tyre
(SAA 2 no. 5 iv 14’). The reading ^3mn on
an 8th century BCE fragment of pottery from
Shiqmona is doubtful (B. DELAVAULT & A.
LEMAIRE, Les inscriptions phéniciennes de
Palestine, RSF 7 {1979} 17 no. 33a). The
name Eshmun might be connected with a
Semitic stem denoting fatness and health
(SMN with prothetic aleph); the common
Semitic word for ‘oil’ derives from the same
root. Eshmun should thus be explained as
‘healing god, healer’ (XELLA 1991 and pre-
viously BAUDISSIN 1911; LipiNsk! 1973 and
others). If this etymology is correct, the god
may have ancient antecedents. Since the
Eblaite onomasticon contains theophoric
names compounded with Sum i-gi§ (‘oil’) or
Eblaite si/ziminu (‘oil’?), it could be argued
that divine figures resembling Eshmun, if
not identical with him, were already wor-
shipped at Ebla. A forerunner of Eshmun
was probably known, too, at Ugarit and Ibn
Hani, where a god Sn is attested in some
ritual texts (for lit. see D. PARDEE, Ugaritic
Proper Nouns, AfO 37/37 [1989-90] 458 s.v.
SMN).
In Graeco-Latin sources Eshmun is
identified with Asclepius/Aesculapius, which
confirms his character of superhuman healer,
also attested by a 2nd century BCE trilingual
inscription (Punic/Greck/Latin: KAI 66,
from S. Nicoló Gerrei, Sardinia), which
explicitly associates the god Eshmun/
Asclepius/Aesculapius Merre, with healing
(“He heard his voice and healed him”).
Some scholars identify Eshmun with the
Greek hero Iolaos, who brought — Heracles
to life by means of a quail. The ties of
Eshmun with healing are perhaps implied
already in the Esarhaddon Treaty: he is
called upon to punish any violation of the
treaty with deprivation of food, clothing and
oil for ointment.
Already in antiquity, the name Eshmun
received explanations other than those con-
nected with ‘oil’ and healing. Philo Byblius
(in his Phoenician History quoted by
Euseb., P.E. 1 10,25 and 38) adopts an inter-
pretation of the name derived from the num-
ber cight (šěmöneh in Hebrew); he makes
Asclepius the cighth brother of the Cabiri,
sons of Sydyk (the ‘Just One’; -*Zedeq).
Also Damascius (Vita Isid. 302, ed. Zintzen,
307-308) who considers the Esmounosi
Asclepius in Beirut to be the cighth son of
Sadykos, after the -*Dioskouroi or Cabiri, is
aware of this explanation of the god's name.
Despite his relatively late appearance in
the Phoenician records, Eshmun appears to
have had an important role. His cult is at-
tested epigraphically in Syria-Palestine at
Amrit (BoRDREUIL 1985), in the 6th-Sth
century BCE; at Sarepta and Nebi-Yunis he
seems to be mentioned as well (B. DELA-
VAULT & A. LEMAIRE, Une stèle molk” de
Palestine dédiće à Eshmoun? RES 367
reconsidéré, RB 83 [1976] 569-583) in the
3th-2nd century BCE. His cult enjoyed par-
ticular importance at Sidon, where Eshmun
was the chief deity since about 500 Bce. He
had a temple in the centre of town where he
was worshipped together with -*Astarte, and
another sanctuary not very far from the city
(at Bostan esh-Sheikh), near a spring (sec
KAI 14.15.16 and elsewhere). The inscrip-
tions qualify Eshmun as the 3r qd$, 'Holy
Prince' according to current opinion (a read-
ing Sd qd, ‘holy spirit’, might also be con-
sidered), and b‘! sdn, ‘Lord of Sidon’ (KAI
14:18). Eshmun occupied a special place
also in the Phoenician colonies of the
ancient Mediterranean world, whether alone
or in the company of Melqart (c.g. C/S I 16,
23-28, 42-44, from Kition, Cyprus), or
Astarte (e.g. CIS 1 245, from Carthage).
The classical tradition ascribes to the
Phoenician Asclepios a premature death and
307
ESHMUN
a marvellous revival: Damascius reports that
Asclepios of Beirut was a young hunter
beloved by the Phoenician goddess Astronoe
(probably to be identified with Astarte),
mother of the gods; in order to escape her
amorous overtures, he emasculated himself
with an axe. Our rash hero died, but
Astronoe, greatly grieved, brought him back
to life and made him into a god. The tale
appears to be an etiology of Eshmun’s di-
vinization (for this story of a ‘dying god’
see S. RiBiCHiNI, Poenus Advena. Gli dèi
fenici e l'interpretazione classica (Roma
1985] 43-73). Some sec a relationship
between Astronoe's quickening warmth and
the reviving warmth associated with Eshmun
(so LiriSskK1 1973:166).
HI. In Isa 59:9-15 there is a description
of the hopeless situation of the prophet's
audience. In Isa 59:10 two conditions are
contrasted with each other; the second is
that of the dead (basohdrayim), while the
first is said to be bá'asmanním. In view of
the context, this hapax legomenon seems to
denote a condition of strength and vigour.
IQIsa? reads CZY2ON, with a clear waw (M.
BEEGLE, BASOR 123 [1951] 26-30), which
recalls also the non-Phoenician transcrip-
tions of the divine name ’Smn (esp. in the
personal names: cf. Akk Sa-mu-na-ia-tu-ni,
Gk Eopovvos, EoupoeAny, ABdutuovvoc,
Lt Asmunis, -ismunis, -usmyn; see F. L.
BENZ, Personal Names in the Phoenician
and Punic Inscriptions [Rome 1972] 278-
279). LXX interprets ba@’aSmannim as a verb
(cteva5ovoiv). and Vg renders in cali-
ginosis (quasi mortui), "in mist, in obscur-
ity". Gescnius would explain it as an elative
of the adjective Samen ‘fat’; modern
scholars usually translate it as an adjective,
‘stout’ or ‘lusty’, and RSV renders “among
those in full vigour we are like dead men”.
According to W. F. ALBRIGHT, the term
ba'a$mannim is very likely based on the
name of the Phoenician god Eshmun; it
means ‘well-being. in good health’.
ALBRIGHT compares the name of the Black
Nightshade, dotipopovvip, ‘(herb of) good
health’, mentioned by Dioscurides, De
materia medica IV 70 and already inter-
preted on the basis of the Hebrew by S.
Bochart, as Goip éopovvi (ALBRIGHT 1946;
see also LipiNsxt 1973:167). The common
elements of the biblical and the Greek terms
are obviously the plural form and the
semantic evolution of *imn, from 'fat, oil
to 'healer. In this connection it seems
appropriate to note the etymological expla-
nation of Eshmun by Damascius (Vita Isid.
302): "He was named Esmounos by thc
Phoenicians with reference to the warmth of
life’ (Eopouvov rò Oowixov Qvojaoc-
pévov Ext ty 8£pun t; Gorg) Note that
also Pausanias (VII 23, 7-8) quotes a Sidon-
ian interpretation of the god Asclepios, asso-
ciating the god with the ability ‘to impart to
the air its healthiness’. In the light of these
facts E. LipiNsxkt renders the biblical hapax
as ‘healers’ (‘among healers we are as dead
men’ 1973:179), and supports his rendering
by referring to the expression cited by Dios-
curides, which he translates ‘healer’s herb’.
He also observes that “there is no reason to
suppose that the Hebrew writer would have
employed the name of the Phoenician deity
as a poetic word for ‘physician’, even if
Eshmun were known at that time in South-
ern Palestine. The use of the plural form of
the noun in the Punic name /idsir ’eSmunim
and the rather clear semantic evolution of
§mn, ‘oil’ > ‘anointer’, i.e. ‘healer’, seem to
show with sufficient evidence that "e3mun
was at first a common noun. It then became
an epithet of the Sidonian god and finally a
divine name of its own" (LiriSKsi. 1973:
180).
The parallel with Ashima is a different
and more hypothetic case. According to R.
ZADOK (Geographical and Onomastic Notes,
JANES 8 [1976) 118-119), the resemblance
of the two divine names may be merely
morphological, having no bearing upon their
characters, powers or functions.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the Re-
ligion of Israel (2nd ed., Baltimore 1946)
196 n. 25; *W. W. BAUDISSIN, Adonis und
Esmun (Leipzig 1911); A. 1. BAUMGARTEN,
The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos.
A Commentary (EPRO 89; Leiden 1981)
308
ETEMMU
190, 228-231; P. BoRDREUIL, Le dieu Ech-
moun dans la région d'Amrit, Studia Phoen-
icia HI. Phoenicia and its Neighbours (Leu-
ven 1985) 221-230; T. K. CHEYNE, A Dark
Passage in Isaiah, ZAW 25 (1905) 172; E. J.
& L. EDELSTEIN, Asclepius. A Collection
and Interpretation of the Testimonies, 1-Il
(Baltimore 1945); *E. Lipinski, Eshmun
‘Healer’, AJON 33 (1973) 161-183; S. V.
McCasLAND, The Asklepios Cult in Pales-
tine, JBL 58 (1939) 221-227; O. Masson,
Pélérins chypriotes en Phénicie (Sarepta et
Sidon), Sem 32 (1982) 45-49; E. WILL, Esh-
moun, LIMC IV 1, 23-24; P. XELLA,
D'Ugarit à la Phénicie: Sur les traces de
Rashap, Horon, Eshmun, WO 19 (1989) 45-
64; *P. XELLA, Etimologie antiche del
teonimo fenicio Eshmun, Atti del Sodalizio
Glottologico Milanese 39 (1988[1991]) 145-
151; XELLA, Eschmun von Sidon. Der phó-
nizische Asklepios, Mesopotamica — Ugarit-
ica - Biblica (M. Dietrich & O. Loretz eds.;
FS Bergershof; AOAT 232; Neukirchen
Vluyn 1993) 481-498.
S. RIBICHINI
ETEMMU Cos
I. Etemmu is the main term for ‘ghost’
in Akkadian. It is the primary Akkadian
equivalent or translation of Sum gidim,
from which word it may derive. The term
efemmu seems to underlie the biblical 7istim
in Isa 19:3, where however the final mem is
treated as if it were the Hebrew marker of
the masculine plural.
II. Eremmu is a spirit, more properly a
ghost. Wind imagery is associated with
ghosts (and demons)—note the use of Ii for
‘ghost’ (Lilith). Ghosts are heard, felt and
especially seen, particularly in dreams.
Ghosts are also designated by or associated
with ‘divinity’. Of particular significance is
the etiology of efemmu found in the Old
Babylonian Atrahasis epic 1 206-230. There,
mankind is created from a mixture of clay
and the flesh and blood of a slain god. This
god's name is Wé-ilu, and he is character-
ized as one who has sému, ‘understanding,
intelligence’ or perhaps even ‘psyche’. Note
the similarity in sound and the punning
between awilu and wé(-)ila and between we-
e... féma and efemmu. Thus, when alive,
mankind receives both its life and the name
awilu, *man', from this god (a)wé-ilu. But
also because of this god and man's divine
origin, mankind survives after death in the
form of a ghost, and this too is signalled by
a name; for this text implicitly treats
efemmu, ‘ghost’, as having been formed
from the combination of the Wé of the god’s
name and his fem.
After death, what remains is the lifeless
body and some form of intangible, but vis-
ible and audible ‘spirit’. The body must be
buried; otherwise, the ghost will have no
rest and will not find its place in the com-
munity of the dead, usually associated with
the netherworld. In addition, the dead are to
be the recipients of ongoing mortuary rites,
which include invocations of the name of
the deceased, presentation of food and liba-
tion of water. In this way the dead are cared
for and their memory is preserved. The dead
may be remembered as individuals for up to
several generations and then become part of
the ancestral family (efem kimti). It needs
always to be emphasized that Mesopotamian
burial and mortuary rituals as well as beliefs
about the dead are not simply an auton-
omous area of religious life; they also reflect
social structure and psychological experi-
ence. In any case, care for the dead may
provide an occasion for the maintenance of
social bonds. The living and dead maintain a
permanent relationship and form an ongoing
community. Dead and living kin in Mes-
opotamia are dependent upon each other and
therefore their relationship will naturally
reflect or express both hostility and love.
Normally the dead body was buried and
bunal allowed for the preservation and
maintenance of the deceased's identity after
death and for his continued connection with
both the living and dead members of the
family. Burial is crucial, for if a corpse is
left unburied and/or is destroyed by animals,
fire, or the like, the dead person cannot be
integrated into the structured community of
the dead and thereby into the ongoing and
309
ETEMMU
continuous community of the living and the
dead. He loses his human community and
human identity. This is not only the fate of
those who do not receive burial immediately
after death. The same fate awaits the dead
who are disinterred and whose skeletal
remains are destroyed. In some cases, the
remains are so totally transformed and disin-
tegrated that the dead loses all vestiges of
human identity.
The unburied or disinterred may become
roaming and troublesome ghosts; more
important, some texts suggest that they are
relegated to the formless and chaotic world
sometimes associated with steppe and
winds, and may even become part of the
demonic world that is neither human nor
god, male nor female. Hence gidim/efemmu
may become associated with the demonic
class udugyutukku and even be so designated.
Lack of burial and/or destruction of the
body will often occur accidentally and
belongs psychologically together with the
fear of premature death; such treatment of
the body may also be imposed as a punish-
ment for a crime. [t is among the most
dreadful sanctions of Mesopotamian society.
Information about the condition of the
dead is found in a variety of sources. Par-
ticularly worthy of note are a) rituals, espe-
cially therapeutic ones, that deal with ghosts
and their effects on humans, b) ‘descents’ to
the netherworld, and c) curses that describe
the various evils which may befall human
beings.
a) Magical and medical texts that deal
with ghosts usually focus on those ghosts
who plague the living. The topos of a rest-
less and troublesome ghost is particularly
prevalent. Ghosts who plague the living may
either belong to one’s own family or be
strangers*who have attached themselves to
the victim. These ghosts are often said to
have not been provided with mortuary rites
or, even worse, to have not received a
proper burial in the first place. Mention
must also be made of the dead who had led
unfulfilled lives and are drawn back to the
world of the living, either out of envy or
malice, or out of the desire to complete
‘unfinished business’. Various physical and
psychological symptoms are attributed to
ghostly seizures in therapeutic texts. No-
table, in addition, is the frequent mention of
visions of the dead, often in dreams. Some
therapeutic texts prescribe material cures
(e.g. potions, salves); others operate more in
the magical and symbolic realms and try to
rid the victim of the ghost either by provid-
ing the ghost with proper burial and/or mor-
tuary treatment or by performing some other
form of expulsion.
In other instances, ghosts—usually the
family manes (etem Kimti )—are invoked to
help the living by taking one or another
form of evil down to the netherworld. Of
great interest, especially in view of the
aforementioned biblical passage (and similar
passages which mention the 'ób and yid-
dé6ni though not the 7iffim), are attempts to
raise the dead for purposes of necromancy.
One designation of the necromancer is
mušēli etemmi.
b) Among the 'descents', pride of place
should perhaps go to the descent of Enkidu
to the netherworld in the Sumerian
Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld
(//Gilg. Tablet XII) and in the later Gilg.
Tablet VII. In the former—which represents
an early text—the state of the dead is de-
scribed in terms of and related to the human
support system (e.g. number of children),
the manner of death and the treatment of the
body. In the main, the dead are pale imi-
tations of the living—they are human in
form but seem to lack animation and energy.
In later descriptions, by contrast, the vision
of the dead is more horrific and shows us a
netherworld inhabited by monsters and
demons and dead who no longer look
human. Here, mention should be made espe-
cially of The Netherworld Vision of an
Assyrian Prince as a late text which exhibits
this horrific vision of the netherworld (SAA
3 [1989] no. 32).
Equally illuminating historically as re-
gards changes in the idea of the netherworld
is the graphic description of the dead and of
the netherworld in the opening lines of the
Descent of Ishtar: To the dark house, dwell-
310
ETEMMU
ing of Erkalla’s god / To the house which
those who enter cannot leave / On the road
where travelling is one-way only / To the
house where those who enter are deprived of
light / Where dust is their food, clay their
bread / They see no light, they dwell in
darkness / They are clothed like birds, with
feathers / Over the door and the bolt, dust
has settled. (S. DALLEY, Myths from Mes-
opotamia (Oxford/New York 1989] 155:4-
11) Here I would make several historical
observations. Firstly, it is significant that the
older Descent of Inanna (from which the
Descent of Ishtar derives) does not focus
upon or even contain this type of descrip-
tion. Moreover, in the later text, the dead are
described as birds and not humans. Further-
more, the description of the netherworld in
the later text is itself a later image, one that
has been superimposed upon the carlier
vision of the netherworld as a city which is
entered through gates and in which the dead
are housed or even imprisoned. Its second-
ary nature is clear from the fact that the
house of the dead is here described as onc
whose door and bolt are covered with dust,
for the earlier image—an image which is
even used of Ishtar's own descent later in
the text—is that of gates through which the
dead constantly go and which therefore
would not be covered by dust. This image of
the dusty netherworld and with it the image
of the dead as birds would scem to derive
from that of a tomb or even a ruin and/or a
cave. More than the earlier texts, these later
visions serve to draw a sharper line and a
greater contrast between the living and the
dead.
c) Often, texts whose purpose is to main-
tain or protect the ‘status quo’ (c.g. bound-
ary stones, treaties, laws, building and tomb
inscriptions, etc.) include sanctions in the
form of curses. Notable among these curses
are various threats associated with death:
death itself, denial of burial, destruction of
the corpse. deprivation of rites which pro-
vide care for the dead. Most powerful are
those curses which seem to suggest that the
transgressor will not only suffer death but
will also be excluded, one way or another,
from the organized community of the dead.
On occasion, it appears that the trans-
gressor is punished whether he is dead or
alive; he does not escape retribution. Thus,
the living criminal is killed, his ghost made
to wander, and even his remains destroyed.
For his part, the criminal who had died
before being punished is deprived of mor-
tuary rites; moreover, his burial may be
reversed by exhumation and, occasionally,
his remains destroyed. His ghost, too, is thus
excluded from the community of the dead
and made to wander. (Passages such as CH
rev. xxvii, 34-40 and VTE 476-477—
“above, among the living, may he (Shamash)/
they (the great gods) uproot him/you; below,
in the earth, may he/they deprive his/your
ghost of water"—may stipulate not only two
sequential punishments for the same person,
but also two separate, parallel punishments
for either eventuality). The efemmu, then,
does not escape punishment and may even
lose its human identity. In this construction,
as I understand it, the criminal must not
only be killed but must also be kept from
being integrated or reintegrated into the
netherworld. For the netherworld and the
heavens form a connected structure or even
continuum, and if the criminal were allowed
to remain in the netherworld, he would find
a place in the cosmic state.
This approach to sanction involves the
exclusion of the transgressor from the or-
ganized cosmos of the divine, the living, and
the dead. It forms one of the underlying
principles of Sargonid treaty ideology and
explains the ‘vengeful’ behaviour of Esar-
haddon and Assurbanipal to the corpses and
skeletons of those who violated their treaty
obligations. It operates no less in the
symbolic sphere as evidenced, for example,
by the anti-witchcraft ceremony Maglü
(‘Burning’). Magli took place at the time of
the annual reappearance of ghosts in Abu.
One of its central purposes was to ensure
that all witches be expelled and kept outside
the organized social and cosmic community.
‘Live’ witches were judged and destroyed;
‘dead’ witches were captured and expelled.
Thus, all witches were to be prevented from
311
ETERNITY
having a proper burial. They were deprived
of burial in order to prevent them from
finding a place in the netherworld and con-
sequently in the cosmic state.
II. In the Hebrew Bible the 7iftim are
mentioned only in Isa 19:3: in an oracle
against Egypt it is stated that Yahweh will
“frustrate the spirit of Egypt and destroy
their plans". In a reaction to this prophecy
of doom the Egyptians are expected to
intensify their divinatory practices, among
which are "the consulting of mediums and
the asking of "iftím for advice".
IV. Bibliography
T. ABUSCH, Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft
Literature: Texts and Studies. Part I: The
Nature of Magifi: Its Character, Divisions,
and Calendrical Setting, JNES 33 (1974)
251-262, esp. 259-261; ABuscH, Ishtar's
Proposal and Gilgamesh’s Refusal: An
Interpretation of The Gilgamesh Epic, Tablet
6, Lines 1-79, HR 26 (1986) 143-187;
ABUSCH, Observations on the Cosmology.
Imagery, and Social Setting of Magli, un-
published paper (1990), to be included in
my forthcoming Towards an Understanding
of MaqlQ (HSS), M. BayLiss, The Cult of
Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia, /raq 35
(1973) 115-125; J. BOTTÉRO, La mythologie
de la mort en Mésopotamie ancienne, Death
in Mesopotamia (ed. B. Alster, Mesopot-
amia 8; Copenhagen 1980) 25-52; BOTTÉRO,
La création de l'homme et son nature dans
le poème d'Arraliasis, Societies and Langu-
ages of the Ancient Near East, Studies in
Honour of I. M. Diakonoff (Warminster
1982) 24-32; Botréro, Les morts et l'au-
delà dans les rituels en akkadien contre
l'action des ‘revenants’, ZA 73 (1983) 153-
203; E. Cassin, Le mort: valeur et repré-
sentation en Mésopotamie ancienne, La
mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes
(eds. G. Gnoli & J.-P. Vernant; Cambridge
1982) 355-372; H. R. Conen, Biblical
Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian
and Ugaritic (SBL DS 37; Missoula 1978)
42; I. L. FINKEL, Necromancy in Ancient
Mesopotamia, AfO 29-30 (1983-1984) 1-17;
S. A. GELLER, Some Sound and Word
Plays in the First Tablet of the Old Babylon-
ian Atramhasis Epic, The Frank Talmage
Memorial Volume | (ed. B. Walfish; Haifa
1993); B. GRONEBERG. Zu den mesopota-
mischen Unterweltsvorstellungen: Das Jen-
seits als Fortsetzung des Diesscits, AoF 17
(1990) 244-261; T. JaconsEN, The lil; of
JEn-lilj Dumu e2-dub-ba-a, Studies in
Honor of Ake W. Sjöberg (eds. H. Behrens
et al.; Philadelphia 1989) 267-276. esp. 271-
275; J. ScurLocx, Magical Means of
Dealing with Ghosts in Ancient Meso-
potamia (unpublished dissertation, Univer-
sity of Chicago 1988); K. SPRONK, Beatific
Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East (AOAT 219; Ncukirchen-Vluyn
1986) 96-125; A. TsuKIMOTO, Untersuchun-
gen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten
Mesopotamien (AOAT 216; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1985).
T. ABUSCH
ETERNITY [2D
I. The Hebrew term ‘dlam, customarily
translated as ‘eternity’, corresponds ctymo-
logically with the divine name Oulomos
occurring in a Phoenician cosmology attri-
buted to Mochos of Sidon. Although the
authenticity of this deity has long been a
matter of uncertainty, the occurrence of the
theonym Halma in texts from Emar shows
that a god ‘Eternity’ was indeed part of the
West Semitic pantheon. His name occurs in
first millennium cunciform texts from Nine-
veh as Alam and Alama. Whilst the occur-
rences of ‘“6lam in the Hebrew Bible show
little to no trace of a mythological back-
ground, the divine name -*El-olam may well
retain a reminiscence of the god Eternity.
II. The god Oulomos is mentioned in a
Phoenician cosmology, transmitted by
Damascius, Dubitationes et solutiones de
primis principiis 125c, and attributed by him
to Mochos of Sidon. Damascius, a fifth or
sixth century Neo-Platonist writes: “At first
there was Aether and Aer (...) from which
Oulomos (OvApos), the god perceived by
the intellect, was created. (...) They say that
from him, when he had intercourse with
himself, there was born Chousor, the first
opener, and then the egg” (translation by H.
W. ATTRIDGE & R. A. Open, Philo of
312
ETERNITY
Byblos (CBQMS 9; Washington 1981] 101-
102). The syncretism of these cosmological
views is evident: the notion of Oulomos as
“the god perceived by the intellect” is Neo-
Platonist, whilst the ideas of Oulomos’
autofertilization and the appearance of the
egg go back to Egyptian mythological lore.
The name Oulomos, however, is most likely
interpreted as Semitic; its spectrum of mea-
nings ranges from ‘cternity’ to ‘world’ and
‘underworld’ (for lit. on “Im as ‘underworld’
see D. PARDEE, Les textes paramythologi-
ques de la 24e campagne (1961) [RSOu IV;
Paris 1988] 90). The god Oulomos mentio-
ned by Mochos correponds with Atdv
(~Aion) in the Phoenician cosmology as
reported by Philo of Byblos (FGH IIIc no.
790, p. 807, lines 20.21; A. I
BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History of
Philo of Byblos {EPRO 89; Leiden 1981]
146-148).
The authenticity of a West Semitic god
**ilàmu (of which Oulomos is the Greek
version, and Aiwv the Greek translation) has
been established by the occurrence of a god
Halma (Shal-ma) in various cuneiform texts
from Emar (Emar 287:6; 373:93; 378:12;
393:9; 446:95'). These l4th-13th cent. BCE
attestations of Halma must be distinguished
from the references to a god Halam or Il-
Halam in Early Dynastic tablets from Mari
and theophoric names from Ebla (e.g. Igris-
Halam). The deity Halam or Il-Halam owes
its name to the toponym Halam/Halab, the
ancient name of Aleppo. and stands for the
storm god (-*Hadad) of Aleppo (LAMBERT
1990). He occurs in the Emar texts under
the form 4[hJal-la-a-ba (Emar 373:127’),
with the normal -b- of ‘Aleppo’. Halma, on
the other hand, corresponds with West
Semitic *SAlma/“Alama, ‘Eternity’ (cf. the
occasional cuneiform writing ¢Yanat for the
goddess —Anat). The name lies at the origin
of the artificial divine pair da/-mu and da/al-
la-mu, whose names are written ha-al-ma
and fa-la-ma in an unpublished Old Babylo-
nian list from Nippur (LAMBERT 1995:90).
Although West Semitic *Salma/‘alama may
have the meaning ‘world’, the rendering
‘eternity’ finds support in the lexical series
Malkuziarru, where ullû (‘from long since,
from eternity’) is given as the synomym of
almá (STT 394:110). Lampert (1995:90)
notes a correspondence between
Almu/Alamu and = Duri/Dari, ‘Eternity’
(LAMBERT, Gdttergenealogie, RLA 3 [1971]
470). Unlike Düri/Dari, however, the god
Balma/Almu/Alamu had a certain currency
in Near Eastern cults of the second millenni-
um. He is one of the Syrian gods worship-
ped in Hittite religion (V. Haas, Geschichte
der Hethitischen Religion (HdO 1/15; Leiden
1994] 401 and 921 s.v. Halma), and he was
apparently known at Sidon as well. Contrary
to the claim by Danoop (Psalms 1l [AB 17;
Garden City 1968] 312). the Ugaritic texts
have yielded no evidence of ‘Im as a theo-
nym (the reading of KTU? 1.10 IH 5 is
uncertain; if the text has fm] it is best
taken as an adjective to gnyn).
III. Taken by itself, the Hebrew term
*ólàm does not possess any connotation of
divinity. M. Dahood regarded *ólàm as an
archaic divine appellation, ‘the Eternal’, and
referred to many psalms in support of hts
contention (M. DanooD, Psalms 1 (AB 16;
Garden City 1965] xxxvii, with ref. to Pss
24:7.9; 52:11; 66:7; 73:12; 75:10; 89:3; cf.
also his interpretation of Ps 110:4). Unfortu-
nately, however, Dahood was forced to
emendate or reinterpret the Masoretic text in
many cases (so in Pss 31:2 // 71:1; 52:11;
75:10; 119:111.160). The alternance posited
by him between ‘6lam,‘the Eternal One’,
and zâ lě“ôlām, ‘the One of Etermity’ (Ps
12:8), does nothing to reinforce his case
either. Nor does the expression zéó?ót folam
in Deut 33:27 mean 'the arms of the god
Olam' (pace A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les
dieux des patriarches, BeO 162 [1990] 36).
The God of Israel may be reverentially
qualified as ‘eternal’, but there is no biblical
text which uses the abstraction 'eternity' as
a divine designation.
The existence of a West Semitic deity
**3lámu throws an intcresting light upon the
divine name -*El-olam. Contrary to a wide-
spread opinion (cf. A. DE Pury 1995:551-
552), Olam (or rather his Phoenician name-
sake) is attested as an independent deity.
313
EUPHRATES
One cannot rule out the possibility, there-
fore, that the biblical theonym El-olam is an
attempt at domesticating this god by turning
him into a manifestation of El. This hypo-
thesis has a certain plausibility in view of
the fact that the term ->Shadday is known to
occur as independent theonym as well, not-
withstanding the construction of the name as
El-shadday in the Book of Genesis.
IV. Bibliography
W. G. LAMBERT, Halam, Il-balam and Alep-
po. MARI 6 (1990) 641-643; LAMBERT,
Review of D. E. Fleming, The Installation
of Baal's High Priestess at Emar, BiOr 52
(1995) 87-90, esp. 89-90; A. DE Pury, El-
olam, DDD! (Leiden 1995) 549-555.
K. VAN DER TOORN
EUPHRATES 775
I. The MT refers to the Euphrates as
Pérát, ‘Euphrates’, néhar Pérat, ‘River
Euphrates’, and as (han)ndhar, *(the) River’.
The designation hanndhar haggadol, ‘the
Great River’, was applied to the Euphrates
(Gen 15:18: Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4) as well as
to the Tigris (Dan 10:4). The two streams
appear as a pair in the dual nahárayim, "the
two rivers', confined to the expression "áram
nahdrayim, ‘(Western) Mesopotamia’.
Hebr Pérát (and its Qumran variant
Purat, WWD, 1QapGen xxi 12.17.28; 1QM ii
11) derives from Akk Puratt <Purantu, cf.
the forms Purantum in the Mari letters and
Puranatu(m) in Ebla lists (a bü-la-na-tim z
mawi Puranatim, ARET 5 [1984] no. 3 iv 2-
3 & p. 23) and first millennium texts from
Assur (Arr. 149). The Hurrian forms are
Puranti and Uruttu, whilc the river occurs in
Hittite texts as Purana (RGTC 6 [1978] 396-
398). The Akkadian designation is likely to
go back to a pre-Sumerian name. The fe-
male ending, characteristic of the Akkadian
form but lacking in the Hittite variant
Purana, shows that the Euphrates was con-
ceived as a female entity. It should be noted
that not all rivers are female, cf. -*Hubur.
The name Euphrates comes from Gk Evopa-
tn; which. in its turn, is based on Old-Pers
Ufrátu.
The Euphrates occurs as a divine name
outside the Bible in Mari and Babylonia.
II. Whereas in Akkadian texts from
2000 BCE onward the Euphrates is never
preceded by the divine determinative (in
contrast to the -*Tigris), the river occurs as
a deity in pre-Sargonic lists from Mari
(written SKIB-nun-a, MARI 5 [1987] 72 no.
7 ii 5-6. cf. W. G. LAMBERT, MARI 6
[1990] 642 n. 4. The presumed occurrence
of dPà-ra-AN-AN [I. J. GELB. Mari and the
Kish Civilization, Mari in Retrospect (ed. G.
D. Young; Winona Lake 1992) 134]. based
on the photograph in Syria 41 [1964] 8, is a
misreading for KA UNKEN dingir.dingir,
sce MARI 5 [1987] 106 no. 8). The evidence
for the deification of the river is thus limited
to the West, though this may be sheer coin-
cidence. As a deity, the Euphrates appears in
these early texts as a numen loci, compara-
ble to -*Assur, -*Hubur, etc.
Judging by the epigraphical evidence of
the second and first millennium BcE, the
Euphrates lost its divine aura. In a greeting
formula in a Middle Babylonian letter there
is a reference to ‘the gods of the Euphrates’
(BE 17/1 [1908] no. 87:5). The expression is
curious, but does not seem to imply that a
divine nature was ascribed to the river,
though an echo of its earlier deification can
still be heard in some of the anthroponyms.
In the Old Babylonian names Mar-Purattim,
'Son-of-Euphrates', and = Purattum-ummi,
‘Euphrates-is-my-mother’ (RGTC 3 [1980]
305) and the North Syrian name [§-Puratte
[z*'it-Purattu, *The-Euphrates-is-present , cf.
such names as "'Et-Ba'al] (Emar no. 138:
34), the name of the river functions as a
theophoric element, witness the comparison
with analogous names. The fact that the
name does not bear a divine determinative
indicates that people were no longer aware
of its original significance.
A mythological speculation found in
Enüma eli$ V 55 says that the Euphrates and
the Tigris sprung from the eyes of -*Tiamat,
the divine antagonist of Marduk. An eso-
teric commentary from the first millennium
BCE specifies that “the Tigris is her right
eye, the Euphrates is her left eye” (SAA 3
314
EUPHRATES
[1989], no. 39 r.3). Since both Tiamat and
the Tigris are known as deities, such specu-
lation may imply the same for the Euphra-
tes. The gradual reduction of the Babylonian
pantheon did not leave room for the Euphra-
tes as an independent deity. But it retained a
divine function, as is shown by a statement
in a theological speculative text saying that
it is the Euphrates “which served Shamash”
(RA 60 [1966] 73:10). The justification for
this view seems to have been the practice of
the water ordeal (River), an important
judicial instrument and as such associated
with the god of justice (Sun).
The analysis of the place of the Euphrates
in Mesopotamian mythology is complicated
somewhat by the fact that the god
Nirab/Irhan has been identified with the
Euphrates. Nirah/Irhan is both a river-god
and a snake-god. Apparently 4Nirah is the
deified snake and 4Irhan is the deified river
Euphrates represented as a snake (WIGGER-
MANN 1997:43 n. 89). In an Akkadian hymn
to Nisaba, the grain-goddess, he is called
‘father of all the gods’, which shows that he
is a form of the primeval River (RLA 6,
220). The lexical series Antagal identifies
him with the Euphrates (MSL 17 [1985] 233
no. 24.2:6'); the series Erimhus with the
Arahtu, a branch of the Euphrates passing
through Babylon (MSL 17 [1985] 82:48).
Identification with the Euphrates suggests
that Irhan came to be regarded as female. In
incantations, she is referred to as “river
Irhan with her banks" (CT 23 PI. 1:7; 2:20;
BAM no. 124 iv 7//127:7) and credited with
powers of healing. since a drawing of Irhan
is used in therapeutic rituals (CT 23 PI.
1:2.12). Rabbinical tradition on the
beneficial effects of “bathing in the waters
of the Euphrates" (b. Ketub. 77b) probably
preserves the Babylonian view.
Despite the occasional identification with
the god Irhan, the Euphrates cannot have
been commonly regarded as divine in the
second and first millennia BCE. In current
usage, the name of the river never bears the
divine determinative. Though originally
belonging to the pre-Sargonic pantheon of
Mari and Ebla, the river was only deified in
later times inasfar as it was conceived as a
manifestation of the god Naru (-*River) or
Irhan. The latter were forms of the primeval
River. It had an important place in the cos-
mology of the ancients, being the frontier
between the earth and the netherworld (cf. J.
Borréno, CRRA 26 [1980] 31).
IH. In the morc than fifty passages where
the Euphrates is mentioned in the Bible, the
river is never ascribed divine status. It
occurs mostly as a topographical point of
referencc. As such it marks the northern
border, ideally, of the promised land (e.g.,
Gen 15:18). From the perspective of the
Deuteronomists, it is the frontier between
two distinct cultures (cf. Josh 24:2.3.14.15).
In a few instances, however, the Euphra-
tes takes on mythological dimensions. In the
Paradise Myth, the Euphrates is onc of the
four branches into which the stream spring-
ing from Eden divides (Gen 2:14). Eden, the
“garden of God” (Ezek 28:13), equivalent to
the “mountain of God” (Ezek 28:16), is to
be located in the North (Isa 14:13), more
specifically in the Northwest, the region of
the Amanus and Antilebanon mountains
(-*Lebanon). According to a semi-mythical
topography, the sources of the four life-
giving waters of the universe, one of which
was the Euphrates, are here. Together with
the Pishon, the Gihon and the Tigris, the
other Paradisiac streams, the Euphrates is
mentioned in Sir 24:25-27 as an image of
the overflow of Wisdom bestowed by the
Law.
The Euphrates, being a branch of the pri-
meval river, could be associated with an
unknown land inhabited by people long
since vanished. It is in this sense that the
apocalyptic writings elaborated upon the
Isaianic prophecy according to which the
remnant of Israel in Assyria would return by
way of the Euphrates, smitten into seven
channels (Isa 11:15). In Rev 16:12, the
dried-up bed of the Euphrates functions as a
highway for “the kings from the east", per-
haps a designation of the rulers of the nether
world. In Rev 9:14, the river is the boundary
between the world of the living and the
realm of the dead: four death-dealing angels
315
EVE
were kept in check on the Euphrates.
According to 2 Esd 13:39-45, finally, the
Israelites, whom Shalmaneser took captive,
found refuge in Arzarcth, “a region where
no human being had ever lived”, which they
reached by the narrow passages of the
Euphrates. This ‘Other Land’, as Arzareth
can be rendered (Hebr ’eres ’aheret), stands
for the nether world, from which the dis-
persed Israelites would return in the end of
time. On their way back, “the Most High
will stop the channels of the river again” (2
Esd 13:47), so that they might pass the river
of death. This concept might be based on an
interpretation of 2 Kgs 17:6 // 18:11 in
which the Habur river near Gozan, to which
the Israelite were exiled, is interpreted as the
Hubur, river of death.
To some extent, then, the view of the
later Biblical writings reflects Babylonian
mythology. To the Mesopotamians of the
first millennium BCE, the Euphrates is divine
inasmuch as it is an aspect of the primeval
river linking the earth with the underworld.
Though the Euphrates never has divine
status in the Biblical texts, it does have a
mythological significance inasmuch as it is
considered to be a branch of the Primeval
River and marks the line of transition
between the world of the living and the
regions beyond: that is, the kingdom of the
dead.
IV. Bibliography
T. S. FRYMER-KENSKY, The Judicial Ordeal
in the Ancient Near East (Yale 1977) 583-
596; M. KREBERNIK, Die Beschwórungen
aus Fara und Ebla (Hildesheim, Zürich &
New York 1984) 298-300; G. MEIER,
Eufrat, RLA 2 (1938) 483-484; F. A. M.
WIGGERMANN, Transtigridian Snake Gods,
Sumerian Gods and Their Representations
(CM 7; ed. I. L. Finkel & M. J. Geller; Gro-
ningen 1997) 33-55.
K. VAN DER TOORN
EVE mī
I. Eve is mentioned by name four times
in the Bible, twice in Genesis and twice in
NT. It is after the ‘fall’ narrated in Gen 3:1-
19 that the Man (/ià?àdàm) names his wife
Hawwá ('Eve', LXX Zoe); because ‘she was
the mother of all living things’ (Ai hi? hayérd
'ém kol-hay). The tradition understands a
significant link between name and function,
suggesting that /tawwá is to be related cty-
mologically to hayâ, ‘live’ (old hayin waw
for later hayin yodh). Cf. Ugaritic Ayy/liwy
(UT §19. 856). WALLACE (1985:151) sees a
Ugaritic noun wt, meaning ‘life’, in such
passages as KTU 2.27. 2, 15 etc. This may
not be the scientific etymology, but is the
theological link made by the author. She is
‘bom’ from the Man’s side, being formed
from a rib (Gen 2:21-23). Within the
confines of this story, Eve is the prototypical
woman, and is wholly created. (The Man is
also her ‘mother’ in a sense.) Many com-
mentators have noted Aramaic /tewya’ and
variants, and Arabian /tayya, meaning 'ser-
pent'. WALLACE (1985:148) draws attention
to Gen. Rab. 20. which gives a rabbinic
assessment: 'the serpent is your (sc. Eve's)
serpent and you are Adam's serpent'. The
Theban ‘Qadeshet’ stelac have also been
adduced as parallels. But WALLACE's
attempt to link these to Ugaritic Athirat on
the basis of the term qd, (1985:155) is mis-
conceived. The Egyptian form is gd3t.
II. It is evident, that despite Eve's pres-
ent creaturely status, various fragments of
mythological tradition are present in the
Story, and various scholars have concluded
from these that a goddess lies behind Eve.
Thus, the Sumerian divine name nin.ti,
'Lady of Life' (AGE 419), which is struc-
turally similar to the aetiology for Eve
offered above, and is itself ambiguous in
meaning, having also the sense "Lady of the
Rib’, is cited by GASTER (1969:21). KIKA-
WADA (1972:33) draws attention to the
Akkadian formula bélet kala ili, ‘Mistress of
all the gods’, applied to the goddess Mami
in Atr. 1 246-248, and suggests that Mami
underlies Eve, who is however supposedly
demythologised (34-35). We may also add,
from a nearer cultural milieu, the epithets of
Ugaritic Athirat (—Asherah) qnyr ilm
(‘Progenitrix of the gods’, KTU 1.4 1:22
etc.) and um illm], (‘mother of the gods’,
316
EVERLASTING GOD —
KTU 2.31. 43). A goddess named Hw? ap-
pears in KA/ 89. 1, in a votive stela from the
Carthaginian necropolis, beginning with the
invocation rbr ft 7/t mikt...: ‘Great Lady,
Havvat. Goddess, Queen(?)!" Hrozny (1932:
121-122) proposed that /nvt is related to the
Hurrian divine name —Hebat. She was the
consort of Teshub, the Hurrian storm-god.
III. The second OT reference to Eve (MT
Hawwá, LXX Ena) is in Gen 4:1, where on
giving birth to —Cain, Eve cries in triumph
“I have given birth to a man by Yahweh!”
or “I have acquired a husband, Yahweh!”
Both senses are possible, though hardly the
usual meaning adduced, “I have acquired/
begotten a man with the help of Yahweh!”
unless it be conceded that the implications
of the phrase are not compatible with
—Adam’s patemity. Whether Yahweh is the
father of the man she has begotten or the
husband she has acquired, the implication is
that Eve plays the role of, indeed is, a god-
dess. It is all the more remarkable that MT
has preserved such clear echoes in contra-
diction of the opening phrase “the Man had
intercourse with his wife Eve”. Since Cain
bears many features of a ‘first Man’, how-
ever, it is not unreasonable to see the gener-
ations preceding him—Man ('Ádám) born
from the soil (?ddamd), Woman (isa) born
from man ('í3)—as being originally divine
generations in an old theogonic tradition, of
which mere echoes survive. A further hint
of this perspective is supplied if we enquire
into the origins of Cain's wife who abruptly
appears in 4:17; the simplest solution is to
understand her to be his mother, so that
human origins go back to an incest myth
which is at the same time the epitome of the
sacred marriage (WvArrT 1986; cf. the story
of Lot and his daughters in Gen 19:30-38).
It is also of interest, in view of the different
scenarios offered for the origins of Yahwism
(with Moses, Exod 3:13-15; 6:2-3; Abram,
Gen 12:7; Cain or Enosh, Gen 4:26 [see
Lewy, VT 6 [1956] 429-435), that Eve
refers to the deity by name.
In much of this discussion, the symbolic
elements emerging suggest a link of some
kind between Eve and the goddess Asherah:
EVIL INCLINATION
wife of Yahweh, linked to a tree, the mother
of a ‘primal man’ (sc. royal) figure, auto-
chthonous (thus legitimizing territorial con-
trol) etc. Tantalising though this is, how-
ever, it is difficult to prove any links, not
least because of the problematic status of
Asherah in Israel and Judah.
The NT references to Eve, in 2 Cor 11:3
and 1 Tim 2:13, offer nothing in the present
context, simply providing the classical
Christian interpretation of the Eden narrative
as the ‘fall’, with Eve (the prototype of all
women) primarily culpable because she
yielded to the serpent’s seduction. In medi-
aeval hermeneutics much was made of
Mary's role as the antitype of Eve (‘the
second Eve’), and the old ideological sym-
bols are reinforced (cf. O’REILLY 1992).
IV. Bibliography
T. H. GASTER, Myth, Legend and Custom in
the Old Testament (London 1969) 21; H.
GRESSMANN, Mythische Reste in der Para-
dieserzihlung, ARW 10 (1907) 345-367; J.
HELLER, Der Name Eva, ArOr 26 (1958)
636-656; B. HROZNY, Une inscription de
Ras-Samra en langue churrite, ArOr 4
(1932) 118-129; I. M. KiKAWADA, Two
Notes on Eve, JBL 91 (1972) 33-37; J.
O’REILLY, The Trees of Eden in Mediaeval
Iconography, A walk in the garden (eds. P.
Morris & D. Sawyer, JSOTSup 136; Shef-
field 1992) 167-204; J. SKINNER, Genesis
(ICC; Edinburgh 1910) 85-87; N. WALKER,
Adam and Eve and Adon, ZAW 74 (1962)
66-68; H. N. WALLACE, The Eden Narrative
(HSM 32; Atlanta 1985) 147-181; C.
WESTERMANN, Genesis 1-11 (London 1984)
268-269; A. J. WILLIAMS, The Relationship
of Gen 3:20 to the Serpent, ZAW 89 (1977)
357-374, N. WyatTr, Cain’s Wife, Folklore
97 (1986) 88-95, 232.
N. WYATT
EVERLASTING GOD ~> EL-OLAM
EVIL INCLINATION 2^3 ^s
I. The concept of an evil inclination is
typically rabbinic. This notion does not
occur in the Bible, but the rabbis did derive
317
EVIL INCLINATION
it from biblical texts (esp. Gen 2:7; 6:5;
8:21). This inclination or drive is sometimes
personified as a demonic figure or the
— Satan.
II. The widespread Gocthean concept
'zwei Seelen gibt's in meiner Brust [two
souls are in my breast]' was given expres-
sion by the early rabbis in a theory of two
yesarim (‘inclinations, desires, drives, bents
of mind"), namely the yeser ha-tov (the desi-
re to do good) and the yeser ha-ra‘ (the
desire to do evil); sce, e.g., m. Ber. 9:5. This
theory may have had precursors in writings
such as Test. Asher 1:3-9 and 1QS 3:13-14,
but nowhere else do we find a comprehens-
ive theory such as we have it in rabbinic lite-
rature. The notion of two opposing inclina-
tions is a major feature of the anthropology
of the rabbis (UrBACH 1975:471-482). They
found biblical support for it in the fact that
in Gen 2:7 (‘the Lord God formed
[wayyeser] man") the verb ‘formed’ is writ-
ten not with one but with two yods, which is
unusual and hence loaded with meaning: It
was God himself who had created human-
kind with two yesarim, a good one and a
bad one (see b. Ber. 61a; Sifre Deut. 45,
according to b. Sukk. 52a and j. Ta'an. 66c
God regretted having created the evil one).
Moreover, Gen 6:5 and 8:21 state explicitly
that the inclination (yeşer) of the human
heart is continually evil (ra*), and that from
its youth (cf. b. Sanh. 91b). Further biblical
passages taken into service by the rabbis
include Gen 4:7, Deut 31:21 and Ps 103:14
(SCHECHTER 1909:242-243; MOORE
1927:479-480). Even though there is somc
debate among the rabbis about the moment
of the association of the evil inclination with
humans, the general notion seems to be that
ithe accompanies a person from his or her
earliest beginnings to old age, and for that
reason ithe has a priority of 13 years over
the good inclination who only makes his
appearance at the age of the bar miswah
(SCHECHTER 1909:252-255). According to
the rabbis the good inclination induces
humankind to keep God’s commandments,
but the evil one is the source of rebellion
against God (though never the good once res-
ides solely in the soul and the evil one only
in the body!). Even so the evil inclination is
a necessary and even essential clement in
human life on earth in that it is also the
source of the sexual passion and hence of
procreation (see Gen 1:28, and D. Boyarin,
Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic
Culture [Berkeley 1993] 61-67). Life with-
out the driving force of the evil inclination
would be good but it would also be uncre-
ative. For that reason the evil inclination
will not be eradicated before the realization
of the world to come (‘6lam ha-ba’; see b.
Sukk. 52a; cf. Ber. 17a). According to a
legend in b. Yoma 69b, the Men of the Great
Synagogue wanted to kill the evil inclina-
tion, but 'he' warned them that, if they
would do so, they would bring about thc
world's ruination (cf. Gen. R. 9:7). In gener-
al, however, the evil inclination is perceived
as a threat to life according to God's will,
since apart from sexual desires the concept
also includes other strong physical appetites
in general, the passion to worship idols,
anger, aggression, hatred, vanity, and
unbridled ambition (e.g., b. Shabb. 105b;
Gen. R. 22:6; Sifre Deut. 33; sce JACOBS
1995:608; SCHECHTER 1909:250-252). The
only means of control are the precepts of the
—Torah (b. Qidd. 30b; Sifre Deut. 45; cf.
Ben Sira 21:11). It is therefore incumbent
upon the believers to attempt to subdue it
(m. Avoth 4:1) and to exercise severe self-
control with the help of Torah study. Scho-
lars are especially prone to submit to the
evil yeser, since the greater the man the
stronger his evil inclination (b. Sukk. 52a),
but serious study of Torah is sufficient to
overcome it. The evil inclination was some-
times identified with Satan or the Angel of
Death or a strange god (e.g., b. Ber. 61a;
Sukk. 52a-b; BB 16a; j. Ned. 41b; Shem. R.
30:17). In parallel passages Satan and the
evil impulse may interchange, as elsewhere
do evil impulse and sin (MOORE 1927:492).
In this way it comes very close to the Paul-
ine concept of personified -*Sin (c.g. Rom
7:13-25). But in general the evil inclination
is viewed as impersonal and equated with
"the heart of stone’ in Ezek 36:26 (e.g..
318
EVIL SPIRIT OF GOD
Tanhuma B: Wayyiqra 12; Cant. Rabba 1
2,4).
HI. Bibliography
G. COHEN Stuart, The Struggle in Man
berween Good and Evil. An Inquiry Into the
Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yetser
Hara (Kampen 1984); L. Jacoss, The
Jewish Religion: A Companion (Oxford
1995) 608-611; G. F. Moore, Judaism in
the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol.
I (Cambridge, Mass. 1927) 474-496; S.
SCHECHTER. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology:
Major Concepts of the Talmud (New York
1909, repr. 1961) 242-292; E. E. UnBACH,
The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs
(Jerusalem 1975), vol. I, 471-483.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
EVIL SPIRIT OF GOD MN TATE A
I. There are references to ‘an evil
spirit’ (riiah ra‘a) sent by God in Judg 9:23
and | Sam 16:23. In the latter case, the
spirit which afflicts Saul is also called riiah
'élóhim rá'á, ‘an evil spirit of God" or ‘evil
divine spirit’ (1 Sam 16:15.16; 18:10), rüah
YHWH rá'á, ‘an evil spirit of Yahweh’ (1
Sam 19:9), and, in its first occurrence, riiah
rüà'ü meet YHWH, ‘an evil spirit from
Yahweh' (1 Sam 16:14).
Riiah, the Hebrew word commonly trans-
lated ‘spirit’, has primary meanings of both
‘breath’ and ‘wind’. The notion of ‘spirit’
arose in part from an abstraction of the con-
cept of breath as the animating force of a
living being. Spirits retain the character of
winds inasmuch as they move about invisibly.
II. Other ancient Near Eastern civili-
zations shared this understanding of spirits.
Winds that affect human fortunes are de-
scribed in Mesopotamian texts in terms of a
contrast between the ‘good wind’ (Saru
fabu) and the ‘evil wind’ (dri lemnu or
Saru la tabu), the latter being exemplified
especially by a group of seven evil spirits
deemed responsible for a variety of human
afflictions and miseries (see R. C. THomp-
SON, Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia
(New York 1976 repr.] 1: xLvir-xtvi). A
proposal (RIESSLER 1911:118) to recover an
allusion to this group in Mic 5:4 by revocal-
izing MT Sib‘a rd‘im, ‘seven shepherds’, as
Sib‘G rá'im, ‘seven evil (spirits), has re-
ceived only limited acceptance (cf. SELLIN
1922:290; SARACINO 1983:265-266). Simi-
larly, Egyptian texts associate diseases with
wind-born evil spirits, agents of the lion-
goddess Sekhmet, who surreptitiously intro-
duce afflictions into the body via the left ear
(cf. P. GuaLiounGui, Magic and Medical
Science in Ancient Egypt [London 1963} 74-
75).
I The rah, ‘spirit,’ ‘wind’ or ‘breath’,
of ^Yahweh or God is often mentioned in
the OT as a vehicle of divine intervention in
human affairs (1 Kgs 18:12; 2 Kgs 2:16).
The spirit of Yahweh enables individuals to
assume roles of leadership (Num 11:17.24;
Judg 3:10); the spirit of God inspires them
to prophesy (Num 24:2) and may manifest
itself in berserk or frenzied behaviour (Judg
14:19; 15:14-15). On a small number of
occasions, God sends a spirit that is harmful
or hostile, that is, 'an evil spirit" (rial rà'á).
As stated explicitly in Judg 9:24.56-57, the
purpose of the evil spirit that God places
between Abimelech and the lords of
Shechem (v 23) is to punish Abimelech for
the assassination of his brothers (v 5) and
the people of Shechem for their complicity
in the fratricide. The evil spirit that afflicts
Saul seems to come to him as a replacement
for the spirit of God that entered him when
he was chosen by Yahweh to lead Israel (1
Sam 11:6) and, at least initially, expressed
itself in the form of prophetic frenzy
(10:6.10; cf. 19:19-24). This spirit of God
departed from Saul after Yahweh rejected
him (1 Sam 16:14). So the evil spirit serves
in the narrative as an objectification of
Yahweh’s abandonment of Saul; especially
in contrast to David who has been chosen to
supplant him. David is brought to court to
alleviate Saul's suffering by playing the lyre
(1 Sam 16:16), and at first the music causes
the evil spirit to depart (v 23). Because of
David's achievements on the battlefield,
however, his popularity grows and Saul
becomes increasingly jealous (1 Sam 18:6-
9). When the evil spirit torments him again,
319
EXALTED ONES
he goes berserk and attempts to kill David
while he is playing (1 Sam 18:10-11; cf.
19:8-10).
Neither the evil spirit in Judg 9 nor the
evil spirit in 1 Sam 16-19 is personified. The
former manifests itself in an attitude of hos-
tility between Abimelech and the lords of
Shechem; the latter in Saul’s unstable
psychological condition. On the other hand,
“a certain spirit" (hdriah) introduced in 1
Kgs 22:21, although never explicitly de-
scribed as ‘evil’, might be cited as an
example of an evil spirit that is personified
and depicted as at least partly independent
of Yahweh. In the vision of Micaiah, son of
Yimlah (1 Kgs 22:19-22), this spirit steps
forward before the throne of Yahweh in the
heavenly courtroom and volunteers to entice
Ahab to take part in the battle of Ramoth-
gilead, where he will be slain (cf. 2 Kgs
19:7). The spirit does this by acting as ‘a
lying spirit (rüah Seger) in the mouth of all
[Ahab's] prophets' (vv 22.23). Another rüah
that should be mentioned in this regard is
the ‘wind’ that brushes the face of Eliphaz
in his sleep, stops at his bedside and
expounds on the subject of the impossibility
of human perfection in light of the failings
of angels (Job 4:12-21). This spirit, which
seems to operate quite independently of
God, has a discernible form (témfind, v 17),
so that what Eliphaz sees can be called an
apparition, comparable to the appearance of
the ghost or spirit of Samuel to Saul (1 Sam
28:8-19), though this is not characteristic of
encounters with a spirit in the OT.
IV. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ & C. WESTERMANN, rwh
THAT 1I (1971) 726-753; C. DonmĪmeNn, r“
TWAT 7 (1990-1992) 582-611, esp. 600-
601; H.-J. Fasry, rvh TWAT 7 (1990-1992)
385-425, esp. 411-12 [&lit]; F. LiNDSTRÓM,
God and the Origin of Evil (ConB, OT
Series 21; Lund 1983); P. RiESSLER, Die
kleinen Propheten (Rottenburg 1911); F.
SARACINO, A State of Siege: Mi 5 4-5 and
an Ugaritic Prayer, ZAW 95 (1983) 263-269;
E. SELLIN, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT
12; Leipzig 1922).
P. K. McCARTER
EXALTED ONES 0°30
I. The expression bégereb — $ànim,
occurring twice in Hab 3:2 and traditionally
rendered as 'within ycars; in the midst of
the years' or the like (HALAT 1478), has
been interpreted as referring to deities:
‘when the Exalted Ones are approaching ...'
(REIDER 1954; WiEDER 1974) or as an epi-
thet for —Yahweh ‘The Exalted One’
(HAAK 1992). This proposal is connected
with the interpretation of a Ugaritic cpithet
for >El ab 3nm which is then supposed to
mean ‘Father of the Exalted Ones’.
II. The translation ‘father of the years’
for ab $nm read as *abu Sanima being an
epithet for El as the oldest among the Ugar-
itic gods (-*Ancient of Days), is not unchal-
lenged. Two different objections are made.
1) The plural of the Ugaritic noun for
‘years’ is normally construed in the femi-
nine int and not with the masculine šnm.
Therefore, scholars have been arguing for
different interpretations of the noun (see D.
PARDEE, UF 20 [1988] 196 n. 2 for the
manifold proposals). 2) $nm occurs as the
second element in the binomial deity Tkmn-
w-Snimn, -Thukamuna; -*Shunama. H. GESE
(RAAM 97-98, 193-104); A. JiRKU (Sum
(Schunama), der Sohn des Gottes °Il, ZAW
82 [1970] 278-279) and C. H. Gorpon (El,
Father of Šnm, JNES 35 [1976] 261-262)
read the expression ab $nm as *the father of
Shunama'.
One of the alternative interpretations of
$nm is to construe it as a noun meaning ‘the
Exalted Ones’ (e.g. REIDER 1954; Pope
1955:33; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan
[VTSup 5; Leiden 21965) 189. 205; WIEDER
1974). The interpretation implies a root III
SNH ‘to be exalted’ which is attested in
Hebrew (Prov 24:21. 22; Esth 2:9) but does
not occur in Ugaritic (pace J. A. EMERTON,
VT 24 [1974] 25-30; Sntk in KTU 1.2 1:10;
1.16 vi:58 means ‘your years’; cf. ARTU 30,
223). Moreover, two remarks should be
made. 1) The epithet ab šnm occurs only in
a formulaic sentence: “She/He/They ap-
peared in the encampment of El and entered
the camp of the King, the Father of Years”
(Baal-epic: KTU 1.1 iii:23-34; 1.2 v:6; 1.3
320
EXOUSIAI
v:7-8; 1.4 iv:23-24; 1.5 vi:1-2; 1.6 i:35-36;
Aqhat KTU 1.17 vi:48-49). 2) Although
inm is not the regular plural for the femi-
nine noun ‘ycar’, it should be noted that
other nouns have variant plural-forms; e.g.
ri§, ‘head’, is attested in the plural as rift as
well as rifm. These remarks imply that the
interpretation ‘Father of the Exalted Ones;
Exalted Father’ is less probable than the
rendering ‘Father of years’.
IHI. The expression in Hab 3:2 is best
understood when reading bigrob Sanim, ‘In
the approaching of the years ...' (c.g. B.
MARGULIS, ZAW 82 (1970) 413). An inter-
pretation of Sanim as referring to a deity is
not supported by the ancient versions
(CorELAND 1992).
321
IV. Bibliography
P. E. CorELAND, The Midst of the Years,
Text as Pretext (FS R. Davidson; R. P.
Carroll ed.; JSOTSup 138; Sheffield 1992)
91-105; R. Haak, Habakkuk (VTSup 44;
Leiden 1992) 79-80; M. H. Pope, El in the
Ugaritic Literature (VTSup 2; Leiden 1955)
33; J. REIDER, Etymological Studies in
Biblical Hebrew, VT 4 (1954) 283-284; A.
A. WIEDER, Three philological Notes, Bull-
etin of the Institute of Jewish Studies 2
(1974) 108-109.
B. BECKING
EXOUSIAI > AUTHORITIES
FACE 0°35
I. In quite a number of biblical texts the
panim of YHWH is YHWH's hypostatic
Presence. Thus it serves the same function
as Sém —'Name' in Deuteronomistic theol-
ogy, Kábód —'Glory' in the Priestly tra-
dition, and Shekinah in later Jewish writ-
ings. By recourse to such concepts, the
ancient Israelites were able to speak of the
deity's simultaneous transcendence and
immanence.
II. Elsewhere in the ancient Near East,
pan 'face' or 'presence' is also used in the
sense of the persona or some representation
of deity. So the goddess Tannit is frequently
known in Punic inscriptions as pn b'l (KAI
78:2; 79:1, 10-11; 85:1; 86:1; 87:2, 88:1;
137:1). The literal meaning of the epithet pn
b‘l is ‘the Face of —^Baal' (i.e. pane ba'l).
rather than ‘the Pearl of Baal’, as it is some-
times supposed. This is evident from the
alternate spelling p‘n b'l (KAI 94:1; 97:1;
102:1; 105:1) and from the Greek tran-
scriptions of the name as phané bal (KAI
175:2) and phené bal (KAI 176:2-3). Some
scholars have argued that pn b'l is to be
interpreted as a place name like péni?él
(‘the Face of God") in the Bible, and they
cite Prosépon Theou (‘the Face of God’),
said to be the name of a promontory north
of Byblos (HALEvy 1874). But coins from
the Roman period depicting a warrior god-
dess have been found in Palestine stamped
with the name phanébalos, evidently the
Greek form of Semitic pané ba‘l (HILL
1914). Indeed, one of the coins bears both
the name of the deity and a triangular sym-
bol identified as ‘the sign of Tannit’
(DOTHAN 1974). Thus, pn b'l is probably
not a place-name, but an epithet. This
designation of the deity as pn b'l is very
similar to the epithet of the goddess ‘Attart/
‘AStart šm b‘l “the Name of Baal” attested in
the Eastern Mediterranean coast (KTU 1.16
vi:56 [cf. 1.2 iv:28]; KAI 14:18). The simi-
larity of the epithets of these goddesses is
particularly intriguing in the light of the
name tnt‘$irt ‘Tannit-‘AStart’ found in a
Phoenician inscription from Sarepta
(PRITCHARD 1978). Indeed, it is possible that
the role of ‘Attart/‘Agtart in the Eastern
Mediterranean world was replaced in North
Africa by the goddess Tannit, a development
evidenced in part by the dominance of
Tannit in the texts along with the persistence
of theophoric ‘A&tart names (Cross 1973).
In any case, pn b'l appears to be the equiv-
alent of 5m b'l (cf. also the Hebrew proper
names pénit'él and 3émitel).
One may surmise that ‘name’ and ‘face’
mean the same thing essentially, inasmuch
as each is representative of its subject. Thus,
as ‘Attart (~-Astarte) in Ugaritic mythology
represents Baal-Hadad, so one may assume
that Tannit somchow represents -*Baal-
Hamon in North Africa. Furthermore, ‘face’
(presentation > appearance) may be seman-
tically related to ->‘image’ (representation >
likeness). If so, one may also consider
Akkadian personal names like 4pE-sal-mu- *
DINGIR.MES ‘(the god) Ea is the image
(representative) of the gods’ (see CAD S 85).
Greek lexicographers identify a certain god-
dess known as Salambas (Etymologicum
Magnum) or Salambo (Hesychius), names
which are universally recognized by
scholars as coming from Semitic sim b'l
‘Image of Baal’. This deity is identified in
the sources as the goddess -*Aphroditc-
Astarte. As is well attested in Akkadian lit-
erature, the salmu ‘image’ represents or sub-
stitutes for the presence of kings and deities.
So, too, Aphrodite-Astarte was recognized
as representing Baal in some way. The epi-
thet sim b‘l is in fact analogous to Phoen
sml bl 'statue/image of Baal’, which ap-
322
FACE
pears in an inscription from the Roman
period dedicated "to our lord and to the
image of Ba‘l” (KA/ 12:3-4; cf. the personal
name Pnsmit ‘presence of the image’ in KAI
57). In sum, the expressions pn-DN, $m-DN,
sml-DN, and slm-DN in each case refer to a
representation or a representative of the
deity in question.
III. As in many other languages, the
Hebrew word for ‘face’ (pdanim) may be
used in the broader sense of ‘presence’. The
word may also be a metonym for ‘person’.
Thus, in secular usage, ‘bind their faces’
(Job 40:13) means ‘bind their persons’,
hence ‘bind them’ (// tomném ‘hide then).
By the same token, Hushai's political coun-
sel to Absalom was issued thus: "] advise
that all Israel from Dan to Beersheba be
gathered to you—as numerous as the sand
by the sea—and that you personally (lit.
'your face/presence') go into battle" (2 Sam
17:11). A similar usage of the word may be
discerned in Pss 42:6 (reading yésii‘6r padnay
wé'lóhay), 12; 43:5: Prov 7:15. The Greek
word prosópon may, likewise, refer to the
whole person (1 Thes 2:17; 2 Cor 5:12).
Since páním may mean personal pres-
ence, the idiom panim ’el panim “face to
face” (also panim bépanim in Deut 5:4)
signifies the most direct and personal en-
counter, but, curiously, only of human
beings with the numinous (Gen 32:30; Exod
33:11; Deut 34:10; Judg 6:22; Ezek 20:35;
cf. Gk prosépon pros prosépon in | Cor
13:12). It is in this sense of a direct encoun-
ter that the Bible sometimes speaks of see-
ing the ‘face’ of the deity, despite the tradi-
tion asserting that no one can see the face of
the deity and live (Exod 33:10). The idiom
is rooted in cultic language articulating the
personal experience of divine presence, per-
haps in a theophany or vision (Pss 11:7;
17:15; cf. 42:3). The related expression ‘to
seek the face’ of the deity, similarly, means
to seek divine presence, as the parallelism in
Ps 105:3 suggests. In various Akkadian
texts, too, the idiom amdru pani ‘to see the
face of NN' means to visit someone per-
sonally and it is used of encounters with
kings and deities (CAD A/II. 21-22). It is
from the cultic use of the idiom that per-
sonal names of the types Pdn-DN-limur
"May | see the face of DN” and Pdn-DN-
adaggal "I will look upon the face of DN"
are derived (STAMM 1969). The Akkadian
idiom ‘to see the face (of the deity)’ prob-
ably had its origin in the confrontation of
the cult image (salmu) in the sanctuary;
those who went to the temple literally ‘saw’
a representation of the deity. Israel’s strong
tradition of aniconism, of course, does not
permit such a literal interpretation of the
related Hebrew idioms. On the other hand,
the technical term lipné YHWH "before
->YHWH' (lit. ‘at the face of YHWH’) very
often implies some kind of representation of
YHWH's presence, notably the Ark, the
functional equivalent of the cult image in
ancient Israel. Thus, David danced “before
YHWH” (2 Sam 6:5.14.16.21), Hezekiah
prayed “before YHWH" who is said to be
enthroned on the cherubim in the temple
(Isa 37:14-20 = 2 Kgs 19:14-19), and the
Israelites passed on “before YHWH” as they
crossed the Jordan (Num 32:21.27.29; cf.
“pass on before the Ark of YHWH” in Josh
4:5). Various ritual acts are said to be per-
formed “before YHWH” (Lev 1:5; Josh
18:6; Judg 20:26). It has been argued, there-
fore, that lipné YHWH ëlōhîm in cultic con-
texts is virtually synonymous with ‘before
the Ark’ (Davies 1963). Thus, all occur-
rences of "before YHWH" and "before
—God" in the Enthronement Psalms are
thought to allude to the presence of the Ark
(Pss 95:6; 96:13; 97:5; 98:9), and the plac-
ing of cultic objects "before YHWH" is
taken to mean that they were placed before
the Ark (Exod 16:33, an anachronistic text;
cf. v 34). Others consider the expression
typically to imply the presence of a sanctu-
ary, but that conclusion cannot be sustained
(FOWLER 1987). One can only say that
pánim is closely associated with divine pres-
ence, which is at times symbolized by the
presence of cultic objects. It is not amiss, in
any case, to observe that the Jlehem
(hap)panim “bread of Presence” (Exod 25:
30; 35:13; 39:36; 1 Sam 21:7; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2
Chron 4:19) was placed in the tabernacle
323
FACE
and its table was known as 3ulhan happànim
*the table of Presence" (Num 4:7; cf. 2 Chr
29:18).
The usage of páním for divine presence is
most evident in Exod 33:14-16, where it is
said that the deity’s pdnim will go with the
people. There pdnim means divine Presence;
the idiom pdnim hélékim in this context
does not mean simply ‘to go before’ and
hence ‘to lead’ (SPEISER 1967), for the deity
is said to be ‘with’ the people, not ‘before’
them (vv 14-16). The LXX takes pdnim in
this context to refer to God personally,
translating the term as autos su ‘you your-
self’; but Targ. Onkelos takes it as a refer-
ence to the Shekinah, God's hypostatic Pres-
ence (so Rashi). It is not clear that páním
herc is a hypostasis; it may well be that the
meaning is that YHWH will go with the
people personally (cf. 2 Sam 17:11). Never-
theless, the text goes on quickly to ensure
that the deity's transcendence is not for-
gotten; it makes clear that the accompanying
Presence does not mean that mortals can
literally see the deity's face (v 20). Moses
asked only to see God's Kabód -'Glory' (v
18), and the deity willed only that his füb
‘Goodness’ should pass by and his Sem
-'Name' is proclaimed (v 19). Clearly, the
passage speaks of the deity's immanence,
but not at the expense of the notion of tran-
scendence.
Other passages that mention the deity's
pánim likewise reflect this theological ten-
sion between transcendence and immanence.
So -*Jacob is said to have seen God “face to
face" (Gen 32:30), but the account of his
encounter at Jabbok speaks of the opponent
only as 7i§ ‘a person’ and later traditions
refer to the stranger as mal’ak ‘an —angel’
(Hos 12:5). In Deut 5:4, YHWH spoke to
—Moses “face to face" but the words came
out of the fire, and elsewhere it is em-
phasized that Moses heard only the voice
out of the fire “but saw no form” (Deut
4:12.15). Moreover, in contrast to Exod
33:14-16, it is not the pdnfm itself that goes
with the people; rather, YHWH is said to
have led the people out of Egypt with his
pàním (Deut 4:27). This is another attempt
to preserve the notion of transcendence. The
páním here represents the deity's presence;
it is not literally the deity's person, but the
divine persona, as it were.
Isa 63:9 is most suggestive in this regard,
although the interpretations of the MT (sup-
ported by 1QIsa®) and LXX are at variance.
The former suggests that it is the “angel of
Presence" (mal'ak pánáyw) that delivered
Israel from Egypt. The latter, however, con-
trasts angels with YHWH's pàním: "not an
angel or a messenger; his Presence delivered
them”. Here the LXX interprets pdnim as
Autos (the deity himself), as in Exod 33:14.
In either case, pdnim refers in some sense to
YHWH’s presence to save (cf. Odes Sol.
25:4). Elsewhere, however, the deity's
panim is also capable of destruction. Thus,
in Lam 4:16 it is YHWH's pànim that
destroys people (cf. Ps 34:17), and people
perish at the rebuke of YHWH’s pdnim (Ps
80:17).
IV. The Hebrew Bible uses the term
panim to speak of the presence of God,
sometimes obliquely: the panim cither is, or
represents, the appearance of the deity.
Later Jewish literature, however, gocs be-
yond the idea of hypostatic Presence to
designate a distinct celestial creature known
as mal'ak pánim ‘(the) angel of Presence’.
The concept appears to be a development of
Isa 63:9, according to the tradition preserved
in the MT and | Qlsa®, which attributes the
deliverance of Israel to the ‘angel of Pres-
ence’—probably a circumlocution for the
deity’s very presence. Later Jewish texts,
however, speak not only of ‘the angel of
presence’ in the singular (Jub. 1:27, 29; 2:1;
1QSb iv 25), but of several ‘angels of pres-
ence’ (Jub. 2:2, 18; 15:27; 31:14; T. Judah
25:2; T. Levi 3:5; | QH vi 13). The ‘angels
of Presence' minister to God in the heavenly
abode and, as such, they are known as 'the
ministers of Presence' or 'the ministers of
the Glorious Presence’ (4QSirSabb 40:24).
In the angelic hierarchy, they and ‘the
angels of sanctification’ are superior to all
others (Jub. 2:18; 5:17). The literature even
asserts that the elect will share a common
lot with these ‘angels of Presence’ (1 QH vi
324
FALSEHOOD
13) and become princes among them (Jub.
31:4; 1 QSb iv 25-26).
V. Bibliography
F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1973) 28-36; G. H.
Davies, The Ark in the Psalms, Promise
and Fulfillment (Edinburgh 1963) 60-61; *E.
DHoRME, L'emploi métaphorique des noms
des parties du corps en hébreu ct en akka-
dien. III. Le Visage, RB 30 (1921) 374-399;
M. DorHAN, A Sign of Tanit from Tel
'Akko, /EJ 24 (1974) 44-49; M. D. FOWLER,
The Meaning of lipné YHWH in the Old
Testament, ZAW 99 (1987) 384-390; J.
HALEvy, Mélanges d'épigraphie et
d'archéologie sémitiques (Paris 1874) 42-
48; G. F. Hitt, Catalogue of the Greek
Coins of Palestine (London 1914) 115-139;
F. O. HvipBERG-HANSEN, La déesse TNT
(Copenhagen 1979) I, 15-18; F. NÓTSCHER,
"Das Angesicht Gottes schauen" nach bib-
lischer | und — babylonischer — Auffassung
(Würzburg 1969); J. B. PRITCHARD, Re-
covering Sarepta, A Phoenician City
(Princeton 1978) 104-106; J. REINDL, Das
Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des
Alten Testaments (Leipzig 1970); E. A.
SPEISER, The Biblical Idiom pánim hólekim,
The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of
the Jewish Quarterly Review (Philadelphia
1967) 515-517; J. J. STAMM, Die akkadische
Namengebung (Darmstadt 1968) 195.203.
C. L. SEow
FALSEHOOD “70
I. The basic meaning of the verbal root
Sqr, attested inter alia in Hebrew, Old Aram-
aic. Jewish Aramaic, and Syriac is: ‘to
deceive, act perfidiously’, with correspond-
ing nominal derivations (cf. HALAT s.v.
Seqer), not ‘to lie’, as has been established
by KLOPFENSTEIN (1964; cf. KLOPFENSTEIN
1976:1010). In combination with the word
rûah, ‘spirit’, Seger can personify the notion
of falsehood in the Hebrew Bible. The
Hebrew qitl-nominal-formation Seger ‘false-
hood, deceit, perfidy’ is often used in regard
to false prophecy: the adversaries of Jere-
miah ‘prophesy falsehood’ (Seger Jer 14:14),
or ‘by (in the sense of: based on) falsehood’
(bas$seqer 5:31; 20:6, béseqer 29:3). or 'for
falsehood’ (laššeqer 27:15); their divinations
originate in ‘fraudulent dreams’ (hălömôt
Seger 23:32; cf. obAog Sveiposg below sub
II) or in ‘a fraudulent vision' (/idzón Seger
14:14). Isaiah speaks about ‘prophets who
teach falsehood’ (Isa 9:14); according to
Micah, a false prophet ‘comes about with
wind' (hálak rüal) and ‘lies falsehood’
(Seger kizzéb), preaching on beer and wine
(2:11). For the holophrastic use of Seger in
the sense of ‘that is not true’ cf. 2 Kgs 9:12;
Jer 37:14; 40:16. From phrases like that, we
understand that the phenomenon of false sal-
vation-prophecy is reflected as the outcome
of rûah Seqer ‘a deceiving spirit’ in | Kgs
22:19-23, an expression which is without
any direct equivalent inside and outside the
Bible; it is an ad hoc concept meant as a
mythic means to come to terms with the
perplexing way of God’s economy. The
same is true, on the other hand, when /iokmá
‘wisdom’ has the connotation of ‘truth’ as in
Job 28; even hokmét ‘Lady -*Wisdom' Prov
1:20; 9:1; 14:1 (fikmh Sir 24) need not be
modelled after a consistent divine figure
such as -*Isis; it could be a personification
of a common wisdom notion, a personi-
fication which later became conventional.
II. The only functional parallel to the
rtiah Seger of 1 Kgs 22 is the otAog éveipos
‘fraudulent dream’ in Homer’s /liad 11:6.9;
cf. the /idlómót Seqer Jer 23:32 mentioned
above. By this misleading omen, Agamem-
non is summoned to undertake a battle
which destiny determines to be unsuccess-
ful; this trick enables -Zeus to extract him-
self from an embarrassment in which he got
involved because of the quarrel and distrust
of the Olympians, especially on the part of
the divine ladies. The motif is an attempt to
overcome the ambivalent character of real-
ity, disappointment at unforsccable and
senseless misfortunes or at the nonfulfilment
of oracles for instance—namely by its pro-
jection into the world of the gods.
The ‘divine trickster’ known from the
phenomenology of religion is no parallel:
this one is an inferior god or demon stand-
325
FAMILIAR SPIRIT — FATHER
ing on the side of men to support them by
deceiving the great gods or one of them—as
does Prometheus, for example.
III. In 1 Kgs 22, we are told that the
‘king of Israel’, who, according to v 20, is
to be identified with Ahab, has been seduced
to enter into a hopeless battle by a band of
false prophets; hopeless is the battle as
Yahweh and his council had doomed it to
be so. The King of Israel is nevertheless
guilty since he did not believe what the only
authentic prophet of Yahweh, Micah ben
Yimlah, was able to reveal about acts that
really happened in the divine council; more-
over, he ventured to outwit his destiny by
manipulating his outward appearance (vv
30-37).
Yahweh himself sent one of the deities
forming ‘the -*host of heaven’ to become ‘a
deceiving spirit” in the mouth of the king’s
official prophets. The motif of a divine or
human emissary sent out from a divine or
human royal council is attested in Sumerian,
Akkadian, Ugaritic as well as in Biblical
texts (cf. Rev 5:1-5); its object is to intro-
duce an unforeseen change of plot or fate,
especially in an epical procedure (see A. B.
LORD, The Singer of Tales [Cambridge
Mass. 1960]; MOLLER 1974; 1992). In 1
Kgs 22:19-23, it is the problem of theodicy
which has to be solved in that way: why
does God deceive his people by a seducing
prophecy speaking of salvation where there
is none? The answer: it was not Yahweh
himself but one of his subordinate servants
who did so. And above all: there was one
right prophet who saw through the fraud of
the riiah Seger, but nobody was prepared to
hear him. The question remains: why was
God able to admit and even cause all this?
The function of the ráah Seger of 1 Kgs
22 has a parallel in the role of Isaiah as it is
seen in his vocation narrative (chap. 6).
However, Isaiah must not seduce his people,
rather he must make it stubborn, and that
not by false salvation-prophecy, but by an
ambivalent proposition both of salvation and
disaster in his proclamations during the
Syro-Ephraimite war (734 BCE), proclama-
tions which we hear about in Isa 7:2-8:18.
Again, it is the problem of theodicy which
Isaiah confronts: why did Yahweh send a
prophet to his people although he was not
willing to make them listen to him? Why
does he misuse his servant to increase his
people's misfortune instead of preserving
them from disobedience by means of his
very words and deeds? The answer is that
he wanted to do so; it is not his powerless-
ness that forced him. The question of his
grace and righteousness, on the other hand,
remains equally open since Yahweh caused
à prophetic mission which. obviously, was
not to be taken seriously.
IV. Bibliography
S. BEYERLE & K. GRONWALDT, Micha ben
Jimla, TRE XXII 4/5 (1992) 704-707; M. A.
KLOPFENSTEIN, Die Liige nach dem Alten
Testament (Zürich & Frankfurt M. 1964);
M. A. KLOPFENSTEIN, “PU sqr täuschen,
THAT II (ed. E. Jenni & C. Westermann;
München 1976) 1010-1019: H.-P. MÜLLER,
Glauben und Bleiben. Zur Denkschrift Jesa-
jas Kapitel vi 1 - viii 18, Studies on Proph-
ecy (ed. P. A. H. de Boer; VTSup 24; 1974)
25-54; MÜLLER, Sprachliche und religions-
geschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 6,
ZAH S (1992) 163-185, esp. 173-178 [& lit];
G. QureLL, Wahre und falsche Propheten
(Beitrige zur Fórderung christlicher Theo-
logie 46/1; Gütersloh 1952) 71-85; J. J. M.
Roserts, Does God lie? Divine deceit as a
theological problem in Israelite prophetic
literature, Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986
(ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 40; 1988) 211-
220; M. WAGNER, Beiträge zur Aramaismen-
frage im alttestamentlichen — Hebrüisch,
Hebrüische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum
$0. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner,
(VTSup 16; Leiden 1967) 355-371, esp.
364-365.
H.-P. MULLER
FAMILIAR SPIRIT > WIZARD
FATHER Z8
I. Heb ’ab, ‘father’ (a primitive Semitic
noun, with idiosyncratic plurals), is of un-
known etymology but is widely taken to
represent a child’s early stammer. ’Ab and
its congeners refer to the biological or social
326
FATHER
father—ancestral figure, protector—and are
used as an honorary title for men of import-
ance, such as elders or the king, and for dei-
ties. In the Bible, ‘father’ occurs frequently
as a divine epithet and as a theophoric el-
ement in personal names.
II. In religious conceptions worldwide,
various divine powers, especially creator
gods, are described as ‘father’. In ancient
Mesopotamia, e.g. ‘father’ occurs as a di-
vine epithet expressing the divine-human
relationship—e.g. ‘father of the ‘dark-
headed" people’; ‘father of the land/the
(four) regions’—and as a simile—e.g. the
deity is ‘like a (merciful) father'—although
it is much less commonly used than many
other epithets (AKKGE 1-2). In the Ugaritic
texts, one of the titles of >El is ab adn,
'father of humankind'. -*Chemosh, the
Moabite deity, is pictured as a father of the
Moabites (Num 21:29). In Egypt as well,
various deities have the title ‘father (and
mother) of humankind’. Moreover, ‘father’
occurs frequently as a theophoric element in
personal names throughout the ancient Near
Eastern world. Such usage is more reflective
of popular piety than of the literary tradi-
tion.
II. ‘Father’ occurs throughout the Bible
as an epithet of —God. In contrast to the
biblical Umwelt, where the epithet ‘father’
occurs especially of creator gods with ref-
erence to other gods, in the Bible the epithet
occurs with reference to people. The
operative analogy is that of parental or
parental-type authority, care, and protection.
In ancient Isracl the epithet does not occur
as frequently in the texts as it does in per-
sonal names. Apart from ’él, ‘god’, and
variations of - Yahweh, ’ab is the most
common theophoric element in personal
names, occurring in more than thirty names
in the Bible and in ancient Hebrew in-
scriptions (ZADOK 1988:178; Stamm 1965:
59-79). These names celebrate a deity as a
gracious protector or provider (e.g. Abi-
nadab, 'My [divine] Father has been Gener-
ous', 3 men; Abihail, 'My [divine] Father is
Strength’, 3 men; Abitub, ‘My [divine]
Father is Good’), or as involved in the cre-
ation of the child (e.g. Abiasaph, ‘The [di-
vine] Father has added {a Child]’; Abigail,
‘My [divine] Father rejoices [at the Birth]’,
2 women). (‘Father’ also occurs in names
that designate a child as a substitute for a
deceased [grand]father; e.g. Jeshebeab, ‘The
Father remains [Alive]’, or ‘He (God) has
restored the Father’).
In spite of the popularity of the epithet
‘Father’ in personal names, the epithet is not
common in the texts. God can be addressed
as ‘My/Our Father’ (Jer 3:4.19; Isa 63:16;
64:7[8]) and can be characterized as a
father/creator, with Israel as his son/children
(Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1; 32:6.18; Hos 2:1
[1:10]; 11:1; Isa. 1:2; 45:10-12; Jer 31:9;
Mal 1:6; 2:10; cf. Num 11:12; Ps 68:6[5]).
Another illustration is Jeremiah's accusation
that some people address a piece of wood
with “You are my father’, or a bit of
stone with “You gave birth to me” (Jer
2:27), using language that should be re-
served for God only. In the texts, God is
also identified as ‘like a father’ (Ps 103:13;
Prov 3:12), and, in keeping with the parental
model, even as a -*mother (Isa 42:14;
45:10; 49:15; 66:13), but various other
metaphors are more frequently used. As
'father', the emphasis is on God as protec-
tive and compassionate. Israel was reluctant
to describe God as a physical father, except
in an ultimate sense. In particular, God is
described as father of the Davidic king (2
Sam 7:14; | Chr 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:27-28[26-
27]; Isa 9:5[6]). who in turn may have the
title ‘Eternal Father’ (Isa 9:5[6]). The em-
phasis, however, is on sonship via adoption:
“This day have I given birth to you" (Ps
2:7).
At least one scholar has viewed ’Ab,
‘Father’, as an old Hebrew deity, citing the
personal name Eliab (borne by several per-
sons), interpreted as 'My God is Ab', rather
than "My God is a Father’ (or ‘El is a
Father’), i.e. an epithet that becomes a di-
vine name (BARTON 1894:26-27), but this is
a rare and unconvincing opinion.
‘Father’ (Aram abba, Gk patér) occurs as
a divine epithet in the Apocrypha (Tob 13:4;
Wis 14:3; Sir 23:1, 4; 51:10; STROTMANN
1991), in Philo and Josephus, but is espe-
cially noteworthy in the NT. The
327
FATHER OF THE LIGHTS
conception remains basically the same, but
with well over 200 occurrences—more than
120 in the Johannine corpus alone—the epi-
thet ‘Father’ virtually explodes in popular-
ity. While remaining primarily an epithet,
‘Father’ is also used in direct address to
God. The use of this title in the Aramaic-
speaking circles of the early Christian com-
munity is retained in the double invocation
“Abba, Father” in a Gethsemane prayer by
~Jesus (Mark 14:36) and in the Spirit cry,
cited by Paul (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In John
8:39-47, we find an intriguing range of
application: persons can use the title ‘father’
with reference to Abraham (the biological
or traditional father), God (the loving,
redemptive father, especially connected with
Jesus), or the -*devil (the murderous, lying
authority). Indeed, in John 8:44 the devil is
described as "a liar and the father of it
(lying)". The emphasis in the use of the
metaphor ‘Father’ for God in the Bible, just
as in the case of the use in personal names,
seems to be the personalized relationship
between God and the people.
IV. Bibliography
G. A. BarRTON, Native Israelitish Deities,
Oriental Studies: a Selection of the Papers
Read Before the Oriental Club of Phila-
delphia (Boston 1894) 86-115; J. JEREMIAS,
The Prayers of Jesus (London 1967); H.
RINGGREN, 2N, ?àb, TDOT 1 (1977) 1-19;
G. ScHRENK & G. QUELL, natip, TDNT 5
(1967) 945-1014; J. J. Stamm, Hebriiische
Ersatznamen, Studies in Honor of Benno
Landsberger (AS 16; Chicago 1965) 413-
424 = Beiträge zur hebräischen und alt-
orientalischen Namenkunde (OBO 30; Frei-
burg 1980) 59-79; A. STROTMANN, “Mein
Vater bist Du!” (Sir 51,10). Zur Bedeutung
der Vaterschaft Gottes in kanonischen und
nichtkanonischen frühjüdischen Schriften
(Frankfurter Theologische Studien 39;
Frankfurt 1991); R. ZADOK, The Pre-hellen-
istic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosop-
ography (Louvain 1988).
H. B. HUFFMON
FATHER OF THE LIGHTS ramp tov
Oatav
I. James 1:17 is the only biblical text
where God is called the “Father of the
Lights” (ramp töv oatwv). Most scholars
agree that the expression means “the creator
of the celestial bodies”, i.e. of the heavenly
beings. In early Judaism there was a wide-
spread belief that -*stars were -*angels
(SCHRENK 1954:1015 n. 410; DIBELIUS-
GREEVEN 1964:130-131). That God created
the heavenly bodies is a commonly accepted
belief in the OT and in ancient Judaism (c.g.
Gen 1:14-18; Ps 136:7; Sir 43:1-12; see ta
oota avtov in LXX Jer 4:23; Philo, De
Abrahamo 156-159), but the expression of
this idea by means of the term “Father of
the lights” is very rare (although the idea
that God himself is -*Light is current; cf.
Philo, De somniis | 75 ó 0cóz óc £ouv,
with SricQ 1982: 681-2). The only instance
is in the Greek Life of Adam and Eve 36:3,
where the sun and the -*moon are said to
look like two black Ethiopians (35:4) who
"are not able to shine because of the light of
the universe, the Father of the lights, and
therefore their light has been hidden from
them". The words "the Father of the lights"
are omitted herc in a number of mss (sec D.
BERTRAND, La vie grecque d'Adam et Eve
[Paris 1987] 98, 139; in 38:1 the words are
weakly attested as a variant), but they seem
to belong to the original text (STROTMANN
1991:294-296). Here, too, ‘father’ has the
connotation of ‘creator’, upon whom the
luminaries are dependent. The same applies
to Testament of Abraham rec. B 7:6, where
the expression xatnp tov dwtdg is used of
God in the sense of ‘creator’, although some
take it to refer here to an angel or the
archangel Michael (for this and the text-
critical problem involved see STROTMANN
1991: 207-209; ibid. at 360-361 onc finds a
survey of various word-combinations in
which ‘father’ means ‘creator’; in CD 5:18
and 1QS 3:20 sar ’é6rim, ‘prince of lights’,
may refer to an -*archangel or to God). This
Jewish terminology is used in Jas 1:17,
where the train of thought seems to be that,
although God is the Father of the lights, he
is nevertheless fundamentally different from
these heavenly bodies, because they are con-
stantly moving but God is unwaveringly the
328
FEAR OF ISAAC
same: “there is no variation or shadow due
to change with him" (1:17; cf. for a similar
contrast Philo, De posteritate Caini 19).
II. Bibliography
M. DiBELIUS & H. GREEVEN, Der Brief des
Jakobus (KEK 15; Góttingen 1964); R. P.
Martin, James (WBC 49; Waco 1988); G.
SCHRENK, namp, TWNT (1954) 1015-1016;
*C. Spica, Notes de lexicographie néotesta-
mentaire IIl: Supplément (Fribourg-Göt-
tingen 1982) 674-691; *A. STROTMANN,
Mein Vater bist Du (Sir 51,10). Zur Bedeu-
tung der Vaterschaft Gottes in kanonischen
und nichtkanonischen frühjüdischen Schrif-
ten (Frankfurter Theologische Studien 39;
Frankfurt 1991).
P. W. VAN DER Horst
FEAR OF ISAAC pits’ ma
I. No definite interpretation can be
given for the expression pahad yishdq. It
only occurs in Gen 31:42.53 (in the latter
verse as pahad ’dbiw yishaq). Pahad yishaq
Was interpreted as a divine name by ALT
(1929) because of its archaic impression (cf.
*dbir ya‘agob) and because of its apparent
resemblance to divine names of the “God of
X” type. This designation was used for the
god of Isaac, which Alt thought belonged to
the category of the God of the Fathers.
Il. The interpretation of the expression
as a divine name, as well as the definition of
the role and character of the deity in
question, depend upon the interpretation of
the genitive and of pahad.
The expression may be translated in
terms of a genitivus subiectivus or auctoris,
i.c. "Schrecken, der von Isaak ausgeht”
(HOLZINGER 1898; STAERK 1899). The anal-
ogous phrase pahad yhwh points in this
direction; it clearly characterises the terror
worked by -*Yahweh in Isa 2:10.19.21; Ps
64:2 and 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Chr 14:13; 17:10
etc. In this case there would be no relation
to the alleged God of the Fathers. LUTHER
(1901) and MEvER (1906:255), however,
thought Isaac (as the patriarchs in general)
to have been an originally Canaanite local
deity. This far-flung conclusion was dis-
missed for good by researchers starting with
Alt. Alternatively, the expression can be
understood in terms of a genitivus
obiectivus: One was to interpret pahad
yishdg “als archaische Bezeichnung des
Numens (...), dessen Erscheinung Isaak in
Schrecken gesetzt und eben dadurch fiir
immer an sich gebunden hat" (ALT 1953:26,
so again ALBERTZ 1992:54 [without further
information on how one is to conceive God
in terms of numinous terror]). BECKER plays
down the numinous, preferring to under-
stand pahad in terms of cultic “Ehrfurcht,
Verehrung" (1965:178). Yet, there is only
scanty and late evidence for this (G.
WANKE, TWNT IX, 200, only cites 2 Chr
19:7; Ps 36:2). MULLER (1988:559-560)
translates the phrase in terms of a genitivus
possesivus, meaning Isaac to be “der Nutz-
niesser eines an Feinden wirksamen numi-
nosen Schreckens”. Since Alt’s interpreta-
tion hardly fits in with the other
characteristics of the ancestral deities des-
cribed by him, ALBRIGHT traced pahad back
to the Palmyrene word pahdé, i.c. ‘family,
clan, tribe’, to Ar fahid, ‘a small branch of a
tribe consisting of a man's nearest kin’ and
to Ug phd (‘flock’). He suggested the rende-
ring ‘the kinsman of Isaac’ (1946:327). This
would square well with the personal names
rooted in the same milicu, whose theophoric
elements were formed in using terms of
kinship (like ‘am, ’a@b, ’ah, Kinsman [->Am],
—Father, -Brother). Alt thought Albright's
interpretation noteworthy; O. EISSFELDT (KS
lII [Tübingen 1966] 392), R. DE Vaux (His-
toire ancienne d'Israël [Paris 1971] 256-
261) and others agreed with it. Philological-
ly speaking, however, this interpretation is
not valid. Albright's explanation implies an
irregular phonetic shift from Proto-Semitic d
to Hebrew d where one would expect z. Ug
phd does not have anything to do with phd
in the sense of ‘thigh, clan’. Finally, “in no
Semitic language is there a pahad, ‘kins-
man’. Only in Arabic, and in Palmyrene as a
loan word, is there a pahad meaning ‘clan,
tnbe’” (HILLERS 1972:92; cf. Puech 1984
and MOLLER 1980, with detailed analysis of
the philological problems).
Some exegetes work from an Aramaic
root PHD II (cf. Ar fahid) in the sense of
329
FEAR OF ISAAC
‘thigh’ (BRASLAVI 1962; KGCKERT 1988;
Kocu 1980 = 1988; MaLuL 1985) which
occurs in Job 40:17 (HILLERS 1972:91, also
with reference to the Tg of Lev 21:20,
which mentions pahdin, ‘testicles’). Their
reason for doing so is that pahad cannot be
linked to a positive experience of God
coming close (Kocu 1980:207) and that
there is no evidence supporting the trans-
lation of pahad as 'kinsman'. Provided that
it is correct to start from the Aramaic root
PHD'II, one could read Gen 31:53 to the
effect that Jacob is swearing "bei der Lende
oder dem Zeugungsglied seines Vaters
Isaak", whose procreative capacity "sich
sogar in der Fruchtbarkeit und Zeugungs-
kraft der zum Haus gehórenden Tiere aus-
wirkt v. 42" (KocH 1980:212). MALUL
(1985:200), following BRASLAVI (1962) puts
it slightly differently: "'The thigh of
Isaac’... symbolizes the family and ancestral
spirits of Isaac". They were invoked for the
“protection of their descendants". He
explains the use of the Aramaic loan-word
with a reference to the Aramaic context of
the scene. In this interpretation pahad
yishdg has got nothing to do with a term
characterising an ancestral god in the sense
of Alt; the oath by the pahad ’abiw may
belong to the ancient fund of family relig-
ion, though. In Gen 31 the pahad of the
father is not linked to his corporal presence.
This is why UTZSCHNEIDER (1991:81) inter-
prets it in terms of a ‘numinoses alter ego’
of the pater familias who plays an important
part in the protection of family and property.
His parallel is the ancient Roman Genius
representing the procreative capacity and
personality of the master of the house and to
whom the members of the houschold take
the oath (1991:84 with reference to G. Wis-
SOWA, Religion und Kultus der Römer
(München 1902] 141-149).
Objections have been raised on philol-
ogical and technical grounds against deri-
vation from Aram phd ('thigh, procreative
capacity’). The shift from Heb z (from
Proto-Semitic d) to Aram d is said to have
occurred as late as the 7th century BCE
(ALBERTZ 1992:54 n. 28, with reference to
I. KorrsiEPER, Die Sprache der Ahiqar-
spriiche [Berlin & New York 1990]), where-
as the composition Gen 25-32* dates back—
according to E. BLUM (Die Komposition der
Vätergeschichte [Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984]
202-203)—to the late 10th century BCE.
MOLLER (1988:561) says that one would
rather expect -Laban to use an Aramaic
loan-word, as is shown in v 47. The ceremo-
nies of oath-taking that Kocu (1980=1988)
and MaLu. (1985; 1987) refer to for anal-
ogies (Gen 24:2.9 and 47:29) mention yarék
(not pahad), whereas conversely, neither
yárék nor the phrase “put the hand under the
thigh" can be found in Gen 31 (MOLLER
1980). Obviously, they must be lacking
because the father whose pahad Jacob
swears by is not corporally present in Gen 31.
It is doubtful whether pahad itself can be
understood in terms of a divine name. The
personal and tribal name s/p/id (Num 26:33;
27:1; 36:10; Josh 17:3) as vocalised by LXX
provides too slim a basis. Besides, it is
ambiguous (BECKER 1965:173; LEMAIRE
1978:323-327; MÜLLER 1980:120: "[schüt-
zender) Schatten des Pahad’, cf. however
PuECH 1984:360 n. 10: “La crainte divine
est un refuge”). This is why it is doubtful
whether pahad might be justifiably com-
pared to the god Phobos in Greek folk-
religion. The latter is mentioned after
Zeus, though in advance of all other gods
in a votive inscription at Selinunte dating
back to the Sth century BCE. At Sparta, a
temple proper is said to have been dedicated
to him (PW XXI1:309-318). In Hellenistic
days, Phobos is reduced to a mere bogy as
shown in 1G XIV:2413,8 (on an amulet
stone) (cf. pahad layla in Ps 91:5 -*Terror
of the Night and Cant 3:8).
If, because of the philological problems,
one does not want to interpret pahad as
‘thigh’, it is advisable to start from paltad’s
original meaning ‘terror’ as attested in
Hebrew and to interpret the phrase pahad
*abiw (which in terms of tradition history, is
the more original one, KOCKERT 1988:62) in
the context of Gen 31 (H. GUNKEL, Genesis
(1910, 3rd ed.] 349). In the narrative, the
introduction of paliad ’abiw is prepared for
330
FIRE
by the nocturnal appearance of Jacob's
family god in vv 24 and 29. In fact, this is
about the fear with which the god threatens
Laban to the advantage of (cf. Ayh li v 42)
Jacob and his kin. In confirming the terms
of contract with an oath to the pahad ’abiw
(v 53), Jacob will draw the fear upon him-
self (in the context of the conditional curse
uttered against oneself as implied by an
oath) if he breaks the contract. We must
leave it open, though, whether the fear
worked by the deity watching over the con-
tract, has “animatisiert” “zu einer eigen-
ständigen Gestalt, dem 'Schrecklichen'"
(MOLLER 1988:560) or is “a principal at-
tribute of the God of Isaac, whose protective
power sows terror among all his enemies”
(PUECH 1992:780).
Hl. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Religionsgeschichte Israels in
alttestamentlicher Zeit 1 (ATD Erg. Bd. 8/1;
Göttingen 1992) 53-54; W. F. ALBRIGHT,
From the Stone Age to Christianity (Balti-
more 1946) 188-189; A. ALT, Der Gott der
Viäiter (BWANT III/12; Stuttgart 1929 = KS
| [München 1953] 1-77) 24-29; J. BECKER,
Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament (AnBib 25;
Rome 1965) 177-179; Y. BRasLaAvi, Phd
yshq and the Blessing of Ephraim and
Manasseh, Beth Mikra 14 (1962) 35-42; D.
R. Hitters, PAHAD YISHAQ, JBL 91
(1972) 90-94; H. HOLZINGER, Genesis
erklürt (KHC E; Freiburg 1898) 206; M.
KÓCKERT, Vütergott und — Vüterverheis-
sungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit A. Alt
und seinen Erben (FRLANT 142; Güttingen
1988); K. Kocn, pahad yişhaq - eine
Gottesbezeichnung?, Werden und Wirken
des Alten Testaments (ed. R. Albertz: FS C.
Westermann; Göttingen 1980) 107-115 =
Kocn, Studien zur alttestamentlichen und
altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (Gót-
tingen 1988) 206-214; A. LEMAIRE, Les
Bené Jacob, RB 85 (1978) 323-327; LE-
MAIRE, A propos de pahad dans l'onoma-
stique ouest-sémitique, VT 35 (1985) 500-
501; B. LuTHER, Die israelitischen Stämme,
ZAW 21 (1901) 1-76; M. MALUL. More on
pahad yishaq (Genesis xxxi 42, 53) and the
Oath by the Thigh, VT 35 (1985) 192-200,
MALUL, Touching the Sexual Organs as an
Oath Ceremony in an Akkadian Letter, VT
37 (1987) 491-492; E. MEYER, Die /srae-
liten und ihre Nachbarstdimme (Halle 1906)
253-259; H. P. MÜLLER, Gott und die Göt-
ter in den Anfängen der biblischen Religion.
Zur Vorgeschichte des Monotheismus,
Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner
Umwelt (ed. O. Keel; Fribourg 1980) 99-
142; MÜLLER, pahad, TWAT VI (1988) 552-
562; E. PUECH, “La crainte d'Isaac” en
Genèse xxxi 42 et 53, VT 34 (1984) 356-
361; PuECH, Fear of Isaac, ABD 2 (1992)
779-780; H. P. STÄHLI, phd beben, THAT II
(München 1976) 411-413; W. STAERK,
Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte
des Alten Testaments 1 (Berlin 1899) 59-61;
H. UTZSCHNEIDER, Patrilincaritit im alten
Israel—cine Studie zur Familie und ihrer
Religion, BN 56 (1991) 60-97.
M. KÖCKERT
FIRE oS
I. The Hebrew word for ‘fire’, ’é5, is
common Semitic (with the exception of
Arabic) but there is not a strong tradition of
deified fire in the ancient Near East. Any
echoes of this tradition in the Bible, there-
fore, are harder than usual to detect. In spite
of an apparent similarity with the Semitic
word for ‘fire’ and even some association
with fire (ROBERTS 1972), the Babylonian
god Išum was not a god of fire. However,
1-Sa-tti does occur as a divine name in Ebla
(PETTINATO, OrAnt 18 [1979] 105) and ist is
a goddess in Ugaritic mythology.
II. The Ugaritic goddess is; 'fire',
glossed klbt ilm, ‘Divine Bitch’ (KTU 1.3
iii:45), is listed among the deities defeated
by Anat. Otherwise, she is unknown and
has no role in Ugaritic religion. The Sumer-
ian names for the fire-god are gibil or girra
(Akk. girru), the son of the sky-god Anu;
his mother, possibly Sala, is probably of
Hurrian origin. Also associated with fire was
the god Nusku (Old Aram nsk). Philo lists
the three Phoenician gods Phos, ->‘Light’,
Pyr, ‘Fire’ and Phlox, ->*Flame’ (Phoenician
History in Eusebius, PE I 10.9) and the se-
FIRST BORN OF DEATH
cond can perhaps be identified with Ug ist.
III. In Ps 104:4 fire and flame (if read ?’š
<w> lht for MT "ei lóher, where ‘flaming’
[m.] is in gender disagreement with 'fire'
(f.].)) are Yahweh's ministers (mirt; here
pl), perhaps demythologized minor deities,
but more probably metaphors for lightning.
More vivid is the phrase “Fire (’é5) walks
ahead of him and sets ablaze his enemies
round about” (Ps 97:3). Joel 2:3 is less
clear. Yahweh uses fire as a means of
punishment (Gen 19:24; Num 11:1-3; Deut
32:22; Amos 1:4 ete.) or to consume
sacrifice (Lev 9:24; Judg 6:21). In addition,
Yahweh is portrayed as a --Humbaba-type
figure, breathing smoke, flames and fire, in 2
Sam 22:9 (= Ps 18:9); Isa 30:27.33; 33:11;
65:5. He manifests himself in fire: as the
“smoking fire pot and flaming torch” in the
covenant rite (Gen 15:17), in the burning
bush (Exod 3:2) and as the pillar of fire (e.g.
Exod 13:21). In Deut 9:3, “Yahweh your
god who crosses over [the Jordan] ahead of
you is a consuming fire (^5 *Alh)”.
IV. Bibliography
A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History
of Philo of Byblos. A Commentary {& lit]
(Leiden 1981) 152-153; R. S. HENDEL,
‘The Flame of the Whirling Sword’: A Note
on Genesis 3:24, JBL 104 (1985) 671-674;
W. G. LAMBERT, Fire Incantations, AfO 23
(1970) 39-45; *P. D. MILLER, JR., Fire in
the Mythology of Canaan and Israel, CBQ
27 (1965) 256-261; J. J. M. ROBERTS, The
Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of Sem-
itic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before
Ur IIl (Baltimore/London 1972) 40-41; M.
S. Surrü, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol 1
(VTSup 55; Leiden 1994) 306-307 and 306
n. 158.
W. G. E. WATSON
FIRST-BORN OF DEATH MA 23
I. Though the deity >Mot (‘Death’)
occurs frequently in Canaanite and Israelite
lore, the expression békér mdwet (translated
either ‘First Born of Death’ or ‘First Born
Death’) occurs only in Job 18:13 in a con-
text having to do with death and disease.
The Hebrew term békór (fem békirá)
clearly refers to the first-born (human or ani-
mal) as does the majority of cognate terms
(cf. Aram bitkra’, Ar bikr, Eth bakwr. OSA
bkr, Ug bkr). In contrast, the Akk cognates
bukru ('son, child, offspring’) and bukurtu
(‘daughter’) refer primarily to deities (rarely
to humans) and are not restricted to the first-
bom which is usually designated with the
addition of the modifier re3tá, ‘eldest’ (CAD
B, 309-310). Akk bakru (fem bakartu) is
used in MB personal names to refer to the
first-born.
II. In order to describe the ancient Near
Eastern background for the expression
‘First-born of Death’ scholars have looked
to the Ugaritic and Mesopotamian literature
which mention various deities associated
with death and disease. Three deitics (Mot,
—Resheph, and Namtar) have been pro-
moted as particularly relevant to understand-
ing the connotation of békór máwet in Job
18:13.
The Ugaritic texts are our single most
important source for depicting the Canaanite
deity Mot (‘Death’). Yet even in these texts
we are told little about Mot's immediate
family or ancestry. He bears the epithets
‘the son of —EI' (bn ilm) and ‘Beloved of
El’ (ydd/mdd il), yet no reference is made to
whether he was the eldest child. We have no
reference to any children of Mot first-born
or otherwise (although we do have the
curious Ugaritic personal name bn mr which
P. Watson (Mot, The God of Death at
Ugarit and in the Old Testament (diss. Yale
1970] 155) translates ‘son of Mot’, cf. the
Hebrew personal name "áhímót | Chron.
6:10). These data are congruent with what
we know to be an absence of a cult of Mot
at Ugarit. There is no mention of Mot in any
of the pantheon lists. His name is absent
from all the sacrificial and offering lists as
well. It is thus not surprising that we have
not found any sanctuary dedicated to him.
The cult of the Canaanite god Resheph is
well attested throughout Syria-Palestine and
far beyond (Egypt, Ugarit, Phoenicia,
Cyprus, and Mesopotamia) usually in syn-
cretism with other deities (see Y. YADIN, in
332
FIRST BORN OF DEATH
Biblical and Related Studies Presented to
Samuel Iwry [ed. A. Kort & S. Morschauser;
Winona Lake 1985] 259-274 [& lit]). Here,
it is relevant to note that Resheph in North-
west Semitic mythology was a god of pesti-
lence and, contrary to Mot, was thought to
have children (to judge from Job 5:7).
A pantheon list from Ugarit identifies
Resheph with -*Nergal, the Mesopotamian
deity of pestilence and the underworld.
Resheph is also associated with ‘arrows’ at
Ugarit (KTU 1.82:3) and in Cyprus (KA/
32:3-4) which some take to refer to his role
in bringing plagues (although S. Ivry con-
strued the arrows as a sign of luck because
of the practice of belomancy; cf. W. J.
Furco, The Canaanite God Rešep [New
Haven 1976} 49-51; J. C. pe Moor, UF 16
[1984] 239). Resheph's connection with
plagues and pestilence is also found in Hab
3:5 (cf. Deut 32:24) where he forms part of
Yahweh's chthonian entourage along with
~Deber (‘Pestilence’). Most noteworthy for
the present discussion is the reference to
'the sons of Resheph' in Job 5:7. Historians
of Israelite religion use Job 5:7 (and similar-
ly the békér māwet material [see below]) to
form one of two conclusions. They argue
that the expression 'the sons of Resheph'
refers either to (a) the children of Resheph
(= minor deities) who, like their father,
bring disease or (b) a transformed biblical
idiom (emasculating Canaanite myth) for
various forms of illness. But these are not
mutually exclusive positions. A vivid
mythology can still underlie figurative lan-
guage.
Namtar was a Mesopotamian deity asso-
ciated with bringing plague and pestilence.
He is best known as the sukkallu, vizier
(minister or 'lieutenant') and mar _ Sipri,
messenger, of Ereshkigal, the queen of the
underworld (cf. the Nergal and Ereshkigal
myth). He also bore the titles sukkal erseti
‘the vizier of the underworld' (CAD S, 359)
and ‘the offspring (ilittu) of Ereshkigal’.
Namtar is not explicitly called the first-born
of Ereshkigal. This has not prevented
scholars from drawing such a conclusion
(see below).
The Akk word namtaru (Sum nam.tar)
can also refer to ‘fate, destiny’ as well as a
group of demons who were harbingers of
death (CAD NI, 247-248). Thus illnesses
may be referred to in a personified form as
‘the sons of Namtar' who as messengers
leave the underworld and overcome humans
(S. MEIER, The Messenger in the Ancient
Semitic World [HSM 45; Atlanta 1988] 122).
III. Biblical scholars, depending on the
degree to which they think Canaanite myth
has penetrated the Bible, treat the expression
békér mawet in one of three ways.
1) The phrase ‘first-born of death’ is an
idiom for deadly disease. Even some scholars
who recognize the Canaanite imagery of
Mot behind this text conclude that the
expression here is largely metaphorical.
Thus M. H. Pore (Job (AB 15; Garden City
1973] 135) comments that “the view com-
monly held that the expression is a metaphor
for a deadly disease, or for the specific
malady that afflicts Job ... is probably cor-
rect". L. R. BaiLEY (Biblical Perspectives
on Death [Philadelphia 1979] 41), who
views the phrase 'the first born of death
consuming one's limbs' as a formalized
idiom for the deterioration of the body,
recognizes a vestigial usage behind Bildad's
speech, yet concludes that Bildad “likely
would not mean thereby what a Canaanite
might mean, that the god Mot (‘Death’), a
demonic, autonomous power, had seized the
person”.
Further support for békór máwet being an
idiom may be found in the expression
békéré dallim (‘the first born of the poor’)
in Isa 14:30; but the meaning of this expres-
sion is equally difficult. békéré dallim is
taken by some scholars to designate the very
poorest of society (parallel to 'ebyóním,
'destitute"). Similarly, békór màwet could
refer to the deadliest of discases. mdwer is
also used idiomatically on its own (without
bék6r) to represent superlatives with a nega-
tive sense (B. K. WaLTKE & M. O’Con-
NOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax [Winona Lake 1990] 269; D. W.
THomas VT 3 [1953] 219-224; VT 18
[1968] 122-123).
333
FIRST BORN OF DEATH
The phrase békér mdwer may find an
analogue in the expression ben mawet (lit. ‘a
son of death’) which refers to someone
deserving death (1 Sam 20:31; 26:16; 2 Sam
12:5; cf. TDOT Il 153). In these passages
ben máàwet certainly does not refer literally
to a son of Mot. If P. K. McCanrEn's (ll
Samuel [AB 9; Garden City 1984] 299)
translation of ‘scoundrel, damnable fellow’
would prove to be correct one could posit a
derived meaning.
2) The phrase ‘First-Born of Death’ is a
title referring to an offspring (representing a
particular disease) of a deity representing or
associated with death and/or diseases. This
interpretation relies heavily on the cognate
material from neighboring cultures men-
tioned above.
Namtar was a popular choice prior to the
discovery of the Ugaritic texts. E. DHORME
(A Commentary on the Book of Job [Nash-
ville 1984 from 1926 French original} 265),
for example, argued that “as a general rule,
the sukallu is the first born ... of the god
who employs his services”. Even after the
Ugaritic discoveries, a few scholars have
argued that a strong circumstantial case can
be built that the author of Job was referring
to Namtar. Most recently Burns (1987:363)
notes that Namtar is Ereshkigal’s offspring
(ilittu). He also argues that “in Mesopot-
amian mythology the first-born, if male, was
generally the vizier of his parent”. Reason-
ing in reverse direction, if we know that
Namtar was Ereshkigal’s vizier, then he may
have been her first-bom too. Thus BURNS
concludes that Namtar is ‘The First-Born of
Death’ in Mesopotamia and the likely deity
behind Job 18:13.
The weakness of this view is the lack of
attestation of Namtar bearing the explicit
epithet ‘first Born of Death’. If this epithet
was so well known that the author of Job
borrowed it, should not one expect to find at
least a single example of the epithet in the
extant Akkadian corpus? In addition, the
data are hardly precise. First, Namtar is
never called the ‘first-born’ of Ereshkigal
and secondly, Ereshkigal, the queen of the
netherworld, is not identical to a deity who
personifies ‘Death’.
The majority of biblical scholars have
been influenced by the Ugaritic texts and
their description of the activities of Mot, the
god of Death. Such scholars reject Namtar
as a likely candidate preferring to turn to
cognate evidence from an adjacent Canaan-
ite culture. U. Cassuto (The Goddess Anat
(Jerusalem 1971 from 1951 Hebrew orig-
inal} 63) was one of the first scholars to
bring in the Ugaritic data for Job 18:13. He
concluded that *rndwer is a distinct personal-
ity that has a first-born son, and this son is,
as it werc, the embodiment of the diseases".
Following Cassuro, Sarna (1963:316)
equated the -King of Terrors in Job 18:14
with Mot whose first-born son (békór
mawet) would “occupy the same position in
Canaan as did Namtar, the ... son of Eresh-
kigal in Babylonian mythology”.
The weakness of this view is the simple
fact that Mot is nowhere described as having
children. When the study of the Ugaritic
texts was still in its infancy, some scholars
(N. M. Sarna, JBL 76 [1957] 21 n. 54; but
cf. SARNA 1963:316 n13) thought that KTU
1.6 vi:7-9 may have described seven sons of
Mot, yet further studies have shown that the
seven lads (3b't glmh) mentioned in this text
are most likely servants of Mot whom he
consumes. Yet lack of any mention of Mot’s
offspring is not an insurmountable problem
and may be due to our limited number of
texts. PoPE (Job (AB 15; Garden City 1973]
135) admits Mot’s lack of children yet states
that “it is understandable that any death-
dealing force like disease or pestilence
might be regarded as his offspring”. Other
scholars would disagree, with some (BURNS
1987:363) suggesting that Resheph would
be a more likely candidate for a Canaanite
god of pestilence who has children.
3) Similar to the second view, the third
views looks to the mythological cognate
material (particularly the Ugaritic sources).
Yet this alternative differs in treating békór
māwet as an attributive genitive in which the
two words stand in apposition to each other
(cf. B. K. WAaLTKE & M. O'Connor, An
introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
[Winona Lake 1990} 149-150). Thus they
translate ‘Firstborn Death’ as a title of Mot
who, they posit, was the first-born of >El.
Wyatt (1990:208) remarks that, by see-
334
FLAME
ing Mot behind the term békór máwet, we
are free from the *wild goose chases' that
have to look far afield to come up with a
plausible offspring of a death deity. Further-
more he argues, death-like plagues are often
personified by Resheph who is nowhere
described as a child of Mot.
Though a circumstantial case can be built
for Mot being the first-born of El (WYATT
1990:210-211), we have no explicit evidence
that Mot was the first-born child of EI.
Ugaritic knows the concept of the first-born
(cf. KTU 1.13:28; 1.14 iit:40; 1.14 vi:25;
1.15 iii:16) yet never uses the term bkr to
refer to Mot, or for that matter, to any other
deity. We are also not certain about the
meaning of Mor's title *the Beloved of El’.
Rather than a term of endearment, some
scholars (BURNS 1987:362) think this title is
actually “a cuphemism for a feared and
repulsive divinity”. Wyatt (1990:21 1-212;
Bib 66 [1985] 112-125) counters that ydd/
mdd is not an expression of affection or a
euphemism, but rather a legitimation for-
mula, which “lends weight to the idea that
Mot (along with Yam) was understood in
Ugarit to be El’s first-born, even if the tradi-
tion did not actually say so”.
Grammatical analysis may present an-
other problem with this view. Attributive
genitives are very common in biblical
Hebrew, yet the noun which serves as the
attributive genitive is usually an abstract
noun of quality. Thus the use of the noun
mawet as an abstract genitive in the expres-
sion békér mawet would correspond to the
adjective ‘dead’. In short. if békér mawer is
an example of an abstract genitive, it would
more likely mean ‘a dead firstborn’ rather
than ‘firstborn Mot’. Furthermore, békór is a
relational term which seems to call for its
source to be expressed in the genitive. It is
hard to read békór mawet without asking the
question 'the first-born of whom?'
In conclusion, it is safe to say that
scholars will continue to analyze békór
mawet in one of these three ways depending
on the amount of Canaanite mythology they
find in the entire chapter of Job 18 which
contains other allusions to Mot such as the
King of Terrors.
IV. Bibliography
J. B. Burns, The Identity of Death's First-
Born (Job xviii 13), VT 37 (1987) 362-364;
N. M. SARNA, The Mythological Back-
ground of Job 18, JBL 82 (1963) 315-318;
N. Wyatt, The Expression Bekér Mawet in
Job xviii 13 and its Mythological Back-
ground, VT 40 (1990) 207-216.
T. J. Lewis
FLAME 27°
]. Three terms for ‘flame’ in Hebrew,
láháb, léhábá and Salhebet are all deri-
vations from the same root, LHB. Another
root is LHT, 'to blaze up, flame'. 'Flame' has
sometimes the traits of a deity in the Bible.
II. The only divine name for flame
attested outside the Bible is 4Na-ab-lun =
sukkal SBIL.GI.ke,(KID), ‘Flame’ = ‘vizier
of the Fire-god’, in a Babylonian god-list
(An = Anum II 342, cited CAD N/l. 26b).
Less clear is the Babylonian god Erra (per-
haps derived from *hrr, ‘to scorch, char’ [J.
J. M. Roserts, JCS 24 (1971) 11-12))
associated with [Sum (fire) in the Epic of
Erra and Isum. The Ugaritic word dbb,
usually taken to denote the deity ‘Flame’
because it occurs in parallelism with isi,
‘fire’ (XTU 1.3 iii:46), most probably means
‘Fly’ (W. van SoLpt, UF 21 [1989] 369-
373). In Egyptian, words for ‘flame’, such
as nsrt and nbit also occur as designations
for goddesses like Sachmet.
Hl. There are some indications that
‘flame’ (like 'fire') was some sort of lesser
deity subservient to -Yahweh, as in Joel
2:3: “fire devours in front of them (= the
approaching enemy) and behind them a
flame burns"; also Joel 2:19-20. Together
with fire, flame was a messenger of Yahweh
(Ps 104:4). In Gen 3:24, lahat hahereb ham-
mithappeket, “the flame of the whirling
sword” is stationed by Yahweh as a distinct
minor divinity alongside the -cherubim at
the entrance to the Garden of Eden. Al-
though various minor deities carry swords,
only the guardian god ‘flame’ has a whirling
sword. This is as typical of the flame-god as
the arrow is of -*Reshep (HENDEL 1985).
Other passages which can be cited where
a flame is used by God are Judg 13:20
(Yahweh's -*angel ascends in the flame);
335
FLOOD — FORTUNA
Isa 29:6; 30:30 and 66:15 (the flame of a
devouring fire accompanies theophany);
Ezek 21:3 (God threatens an unquenchable
flame); Ps 29:7 (Yahweh's voice flashes out
flames of fire); Ps 106:18 (fire and flame
consume the wicked), etc. Since there is no
strong tradition of a deity associated with
flame in the ancient Near East, it is not sur-
prising that there are so few echoes in the
Bible.
IV. Bibliography
*R. S. HENDEL, "The Flame of the Whirl-
ing Sword": A Note on Genesis 3:24, JBL
104 (1985) 671-674; P. D. MILLER, JR.,
Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,
CBQ 27 (1965) 256-261.
W. G. E. WATSON
FLOOD - ID
FORTUNA
I. Fortuna is the Roman personification
of good luck and success (from fero, ‘to
bring’; fors, ‘chance’, ‘luck’), which is also
expressed in the anthroponym Fortunatus, a
popular Latin name, especially during the
Hellenistic period. It occurs but once, how-
ever, in the Bible (I Cor 16:17).
IL. Fortuna's character, despite her Latin
name, may have originated with the well-
known and well-developed Etruscan notion
of fate (KAJANTO 1981:506-509). Her oldest
cult site may have been Praeneste, where
she was known as Fortuna Primigenia (CIL
14, pp. 295-296), under which name she
later had a sanctuary on the Capitol in Rome
(Plutarch, Fest. Rom. 322F). According to
Roman tradition, her cult was introduced to
the city during the period of Etruscan
dominance by Servius Tullius, sixth king of
Rome (578-535 BCE), to whom is attributed
the construction of the temples of Fors For-
tuna on the bank of the Tiber (Varro 200.
6.16; Dionysius Halic. 4.27.7; Ovid, Fasti
6.773-784; Plutarch, Fort. Rom. 5) and of
Fortuna in the Forum Boarium (Ovid, Fasti
6.569-636; Dionysius Halic. 4.40.7; Valerius
Maximus 1.8.11). Her temple in the Forum
Boarium stood next to that of the Mater
Matuta, a goddess of the Roman family
(Ovid, Fasti 6.473-568; Plutarch, Quaest.
Rom. 267D; Augustine, De Civ. D. 4.8) with
whom Fortuna originally may have been
associated as a deity of women, both
temples were simultaneously rebuilt shortly
following their destruction in the fire of 213
BCE (Livy 25.7.5; 24.47.15). Although there
is also a (later) Fortuna Virilis (Ovid, Fasti
4.145-150), Fortuna nevertheless retained
her status as primarily a goddess of luck.
Occasionally described in cult as a ma-
levolent power to avoid, Brevis, for example
(Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 281D) or Mala
(Cicero, Nat. D. 3.63, Leg. 2.28; Pliny, HN
2.16), Fortuna was almost always portrayed
as a benevolent figure, the protector of a
people and of their city or state: Fortuna
Populi Romani, for example (KAJANTO
1981:514), who had a temple on the
Quirinal (C/L 1.2, p. 319), and of their
rulers who embodied these political entities:
Fortuna Caesar, for example (Velleius
Paterculus 2.51.2; Plutarch, Caes. 38.3), or
especially Fortuna Augusta (KAJANTO 1981:
517-518). In addition to the fortune of
people or place. numerous other titles for
the Roman Fortuna have been identified in
accordance with the Roman practice of spec-
ifying the nature of deities by attaching epi-
thets to their names stipulating their varying
manifestations, for example: Aeterna, Anni-
potens, Bona, Dea, Domestica, Magna
(KAJANTO 1981:510-516). Fortuna was por-
trayed in cult with imagery taken over from
Greek representations of -*Tyche, the Greek
personification of capricious luck, good or
bad: the rudder, the cornucopia, and the
globe; in addition, the wheel, an image of
her transient nature, was a frequent literary
attribute of Fortuna (e.g., Cicero. Pis. 22;
Tacitus, Dial. 23; Ammianus 26.8.13).
In contrast to the beneficent Fortuna of
popular cult, the Roman literary tradition
increasingly evidenced the influence of
Tyche, the Greek personification of capri-
cious fortune. Consequently, Fortuna ac-
quired such attributes as ambiguity and
fickleness (e.g., Sallustius, Car. 8.1; Curtius
Rufus 4.5.2; Seneca, Benef. 2.28.2; Tacitus,
336
FORTUNA
Hist. 4.47; Firmicus Maternus, Math. 1.7.42:
Ammianus 14.11.29), and blindness (c.g.,
Pacuvius 41: Cicero, Phil. 13.10; Ovid.
Pont. 3.1.125-126; Pliny, HN 2.22; Apulci-
us, Met. 7.2; Ammianus 31.8.8; Isidorus,
Orig. 8.11.94). Tyche/Fortuna thus came to
embody the Hellenistic perception of exist-
ence as fortuitous or transitory (e.g., Apulei-
us, Met. 1.6), and constituted, thereby, a
dominant contextual or situational category
of this culture. She was so comprchensive.
albeit in an ambiguous way, that she was
seen by many as a surrogate for god (Pliny,
HN 2.5.22).
The cultic and literary traditions of Fortu-
na seem to merge in Apuleius’ second-cen-
tury CE novel, Metamorphoses, or The Gol-
den Ass, in which the effects of a capricious
Fortuna are overcome through initiation into
the cult of Isis, who undertook the role of
a good Fortuna "that is not blind, but can
sce" (Mer. 11.15). The philosophical tradi-
tion also, especially amongst the Stoics,
opposed perceptions of the random play of
fortune by emphasizing the human spirit and
rationality: "the sage is unconquered and
unsubdued and unharmed and unaffected by
chance" (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed.
H. von Amim [Leipzig 1903-1904]: 1.99.22;
see also Seneca, Ep. 16.5-6, 98.2, Prov.
4.12), as did the Epicureans (Epicurus, Ep.
Men. in Diogenes Laert. 10.133-135) and
the Neo-Platonists (Plotinus, Enn. 3.1.10).
The Church Fathers treated such notions as
“providence and fate and necessity and for-
tune and free will” as pagan, and therefore
as erroneous, explanations of what had been
revealed to Christians as the supreme
dialectic of power between “the Lord God
and his adversary the -*devil (Tertullian,
De Anima 20).
HI. According to 1 Cor 16:15-17, a cer-
tain Fortunatus (Phortounatos) was a mem-
ber of the Christian church in Corinth, the
capital of the Roman Province of Achaia
that included most of Greece and which was
also the residence of its governing Proconsul
(Acts 18:12). Fortunatus, together with his
fellow-townsmen, Stephanas and Achaicus,
constituted a delegation from the Corinthian
church to Paul in Ephesus. As the known
names of Christians from Corinth are mostly
of Roman or servile origin, it is possible that
Fortunatus and Achaicus (a freedman or
client of the family of L. Mummius, who
camed the name by his conquest of Achaia
in 146 BcE(?) (J. HASTINGS, A Dictionary of
the Bible [New York 1898-1902] s.v.
"Achaicus') belonged to the oikia (house-
hold) of Stephanas and were “the first con-
verts in Achaia” (1 Cor 16:15).
Although the name is otherwise unknown
in the New Testament, a Fortunatus appears
in the delegation sent by the Roman church
to Corinth (/ Clem, 65.1), though it is high-
ly unlikely that this common name refers to
the same person. The name was especially
popular among African Christians, especial-
ly as a martyr-name, and was the name of a
Manichacan presbyter opposed by Augustine
(Acta contra Fortunatum). Although theo-
phoric names ideally indicated alliance with
the deity from whom they were taken and
something of their “power and honour“
(Plutarch, Def. Orac. 421E), the uses of For-
tunatus in the Christian context are un-
doubtedly simply in the popular sense of
wishing good fortune.
IV. Bibliography
J. CHAMPEAUX, Fortuna: recherches sur le
culte de la fortune à Rome et dans le monde
romain des origines à la mort César: l. For-
tuna dans la religion archaïque, M. Les
transformations de Fortuna sous la Républi-
que (Rome 1982, 1987) [& lit}; W. Etsen-
HUT, Fortuna, KP 2 (1967) 597-600; W. W.
FOWLER, Fortune (Roman), ERE 6 (1913)
98-104; G. Herzoc-Hauser, Tyche und
Fortuna, Wiener Studien 63 (1948) 156-163;
I. KAJANTO, Fortuna, ANRW II 17., 1 (1981)
502-558 [& lit]; W. Orro, Fortuna, RE 7.1
(1910) 12-42; H. R. ParcH, The Tradition
of the Goddess Fortuna, Smith College Stu-
dies in Modern Language 3 (1922) 132-177;
R. PETER & W. DREXLER, Fortuna, ALGRM
1.2 (1886-1890) 1503-1515; F. RAUSA,
LIMC VIII (1997) 125-141.
L. H. MARTIN
337
GABNUNNIM C'Zz
I. The expression har gabnunnim in Ps
68:16, literally ‘mountain of peaks’ and
usually translated as ‘mighty mountain’
(RSV), is interpreted by DEL OLMO LETE
(1988:54-55) as ‘mountain of the Gabnun-
nim’, the latter being a designation of under-
world deities.
II. The reasoning that lies behind del
Olmo Lete’s suggestion is based on the
opposition in Ps 68 of Mt. Sinai versus Mt.
Bashan, the one being the holy mountain of
-*Yahweh, the other the holy mountain of a
group of Canaanite gods (vv 15-17). For his
interpretation of —Bashan as a dwelling-
place of gods, del Olmo Lete was able to
adduce the expression har-élohim in the
first half of v 16. The gods in question must
have been underworld deities, argues del
Olmo Lete, as Mt. Bashan is in the region of
Athtaroth and Edrei, the dwelling place of
Og, king of the -Rephaim. The ‘kings’
(mélakim) scattered by Yahweh (v 15) are
the deities that belong to the retinue of
->Milcom, the Canaanite god of the nether
world.
IH. Though Mt. Basan has undoubtedly
mythological overtones in Ps 68, the inter-
pretation offered by del Olmo Lete is
difficult to uphold. The root GBN (from
which Heb *gabnôn is derived) is known in
several Semitic languages. It basically de-
notes a marked elevation of the surface
(Ges.18 195; HALAT 167; J. HUEHNERGARD,
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcrip-
tion [HSS 32; Atlanta 1987] 115-116);
hence the translation ‘peaks’ for gabnunnim.
As‘ the traditional translations make perfect
sense, and since there is no further attesta-
tion of a group of gods called the Gabnun-
nim, del Olmo Lete’s proposal must be
rejected.
IV. Bibliography
G. DEL Omo Lere, Bašan o el ‘Infierno’
Cananeo, SEL 5 (1988) 51-60.
K. VAN DER TOORN
GABRIEL 78°52)
I. Gabriel appears in the Book of
Daniel as the -*angel who explains the
vision of the he-goat and the ram (8:16) and
the prophecy of the seventy (weeks of) years
(9:21). He is usually assumed to be also the
revealing angel of Daniel 10. In the New
Testament, he is the angel of the Annun-
ciation (Luke 1:19,26) and is identified with
"the angel of the Lord'. The name is usually
understood as 'man of God', but is better
taken as ‘God is my hero/warrior' (FrrZ-
MYER 1981: 328, who argues from the anal-
ogy of the first person plural suffix in the
name !Ré-i-na-dAdad, "Adad is our shep-
herd", at Ebla). In Daniel he is explicitly
said to have the appearance of a man (8:15)
and is referred to as “the man Gabriel”
ÈS UNT), probably because of the el-
ement 7133, man, in his name.
Il. Gabriel and ~*Michael are the only
angels mentioned by name in the Hebrew
Bible (Raphael is also mentioned in the
Book of Tobit). Both Michael and Gabriel
appear in the oldest extant list of four
—archangels in / Enoch 9:1 with Sariel and
Raphael. While the composition of this list
often varies in post-biblical Jewish writings,
Michael, Gabriel and Raphael are constant
members (1QM 9:14-16; 7 Enoch 40:9; 54:
6; 71:8; Life of Adam and Eve 40:3; Num.
Rabbah 2:10; Pesiqta Rabbati 46; Pirge de
Rabbi Eliezer 4; Uriel and Phanuel often
appear as the fourth archangel). Gabriel also
appears in the list of seven archangels in 7
Enoch 20, with Uriel, Raphael, Raguel,
338
GAD
Michael, Sariel and Remiel. He is one of “the
glorious ones of the Lord” in 2 Enoch 21:3.
The names of angels proliferated in the
Hellenistic period. The names themselves,
however, are typically archaic theophoric
names, ending with the name of the Canaan-
ite god >El, who was, of course, identified
with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. There is
no evidence, however, that these names are
in fact older than the Hellenistic period.
III. The primary function of Gabriel is
that of revealer. In the Book of Daniel he
interprets mysterious visions and prophecies.
In the Gospel of Luke he is a messenger
from God, and takes over the role of thc
‘Angel of the Lorn’ of the Hebrew Bible, in
announcing the birth of John the Baptist and
Jesus. He comforts Zechariah (father of
John) and Mary, and tells them not to be
afraid. In 2 Enoch 21, he has similar words
of encouragement for Enoch, and then he
carries him up, “like a leaf carried by the
wind", into the presence of the Lorp. In 7
Enoch 9, Gabriel and the other archangels
intercede for the earth, and ask the LORD to
punish the -*Watchers. In the following
chapter, Gabriel is charged to "proceed
against the bastards and the reprobates and
against the children of adultery, and destroy
the children of adultery and expel the child-
ren of the Watchers from among the
people". The archangels have a similar role
in punishing the wicked by casting them
into a furnace on the day of judgment in /
Enoch 54:6. The militant role of the arch-
angels is also in evidence in the Qumran
War Scroll, where their names are inscribed
on shields and towers in preparation for the
final battle (1QM 9: 14-16). If the revealing
angel in Daniel 10 is indeed Gabriel (as he
is explicitly identified in the two preceding
chapters), then he also has a militant role
there, as he stands with Michael against the
heavenly -*'princes' of Persia and Greece.
Gabriel's high rank is confirmed in 2 Enoch
24:1, where he is seated on the left hand of
God. In / Enoch 20 he is in charge of Para-
dise, and in / Enoch 40:9 he is set over all
the powers.
An interesting function of Gabriel and
other angels appears in the Aramaic incan-
tation bowls, which come from Babylonia
and are later than 600 cE. Here the names of
Gabriel, Michael and other angels are in-
voked to put spells on people, and Gabriel is
sometimes given precedence over Michael
(MONTGOMERY 1913:96; IsBELL 1975:22,
25).
IV. The Targumim introduce Gabriel into
narratives of a much earlier period, so that
he leads -*Joseph to his brothers (Gen
37:15), participates with Michael in the
burial of -*Moses (Deut 34:6) and is sent by
the Lorp to destroy the armies of Sen-
nacherib (2 Chron 32:21).
V. Bibliography
J. A. FiTZMYER, The Gospel According to
Luke I-IX (AB 28; Garden City 1981); C. D.
IsBELL, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation
Bowls (Missoula 1975); J. A. MONTGOMERY,
Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur
(Philadelphia 1913); Y. YADIN, The Scroll
of the War of the Sons of Light against the
Sons of Darkness (Oxford 1962).
J. J. COLLINS
GAD 73
I. Gad is the name of a deity of good
luck, equivalent to the Greek ~Tyche and
Latin Fortuna. Gad is mentioned together
with -*Meni in Isa 65:11 as being wor-
shipped in post-exilic Judah. The god is also
attested in personal names (e.g. Gaddi, Num
13:11; Gadd?el, Num 13:10; *Azgád, Ezra
2:12) and place names (e.g. Ba'al-gàd, Josh
11:17 etc.; Migdal-gàd, Josh 15:37), most
probably in the sense of an appellative
meaning ‘(good) fortune’ rather than as the
name of a deity. As god of fortune, Gad is
attested in texts from Canaan, Phoenicia
(and the Punic world), Hauran and Arabia.
II. When it comes to the the earliest
West-Semitic attestations of the god Gad,
attention must be paid first to gd as an el-
ement of personal names in Ugaritic, Amor-
ite, Phoenician and Punic (GRÖNDAHL
1967:126; HUFFMON 1965:179; BENZ 1972:
339
GAD
294-295); it is often difficult, however, to
ascertain whether it should be taken as an
appellative or as the name of a deity. In
Phoenician and Punic names, the word gd
occurs chiefly as the expression of a wish in
names that are not necessarily theophoric.
The frequency of feminine names com-
pounded with n‘m, in the onomastics of
Carthage, Constantine and Spain, moreover,
suggests an association with childbirth
(Benz 1972:295), and reminds us of Gen
30:10-13, where Leah, at the birth of the
first son of Zilpah, exclaimed "Good for-
tune” and called his name Gad.
A ‘proto-Canaanite’ inscription from Tell
ed-Duweir (Late Bronze Age) contains, per-
haps, the earliest attestation of Gad as a
divine name. According to G. W.
AHLSTROM (1983), the fragmentary inscrip-
tion gdy... could be translated "My Gad ..."
(i.e. an incomplete personal name?). He ten-
tatively suggests that it is possible to con-
clude that the deity was worshipped in
Transjordan in pre-Israelite times, and that
Tell ed-Duweir was one of the cult places of
this god. In the Punic world, three inscrip-
tions attest to the use of Gad as divine cpi-
thet. RES 1222 from Nora, Sardinia (4th-3rd
century BCE) contains a dedication “for the
Lady, for Tanit Facc-of-Baal and Fortune"
(Irbt lint. pn. b'l wgd). KA! 72 from Ibiza,
Spain (about 180 BCE) also uses the name
next to Tanit, in the formula Irbr lint ’drt
whgd, i.e. "For the Lady, for Mighty Tanit,
and the Fortune”. KAI 147:2, a neo-Punic
inscription from Mactar (Tunisia), mentions
gd hšmm, ‘Gad of the heavens’, which per-
haps corresponds to the North-African deity
Caelestis (see CIL VIII 6943: Fortuna Cael-
estis sacrum; but note that Latin Caelestis
corresponds to the Punic deity Tanit). So it
scems possible that Gad was a divine epithet
of Tanit in her capacity as goddess of fate
for the Punic cities. She, in tum, could be
identified with the 'daimon of the Carthag-
inians', mentioned by Polybius (VIII 9)
among the gods of the Punic pantheon, and
possibly the major patroness of Carthage
and of Punic Africa (GAnBiNI 1965; GRor-
TANELLI 1982). Gad is also well known
from Palmyrene inscriptions, which often
mention gods to whom the Palmyrenes give
the title gd, equated with Fortuna or Tyche.
A bilingual inscription (C/S II 3927, ca. 140
CE) equates the Palmyrene Gad and the
Greck Tyche. The word also occurs in a
large number of personal names, in combi-
nation with several deities. It may be con-
cluded that Gad personified the lot reserved
by a god or a goddess for a believer, a
group of individuals (tribes or families), a
town (note the existence of Gad of Dura
Europos, and the Gad of Tadmor [Palmy-
raj) or a village, and even rivers or gardens.
This Gad, then, stood for the theological
concept of divine providence rather than for
a particular and individual deity (TEIXIDOR
1979: 89.94-95). As an allomorph of classi-
cal Fortuna or Tyche, Gad was identified in
Syria with the ->Artemis of Gerasa, with the
—Atargatis of Palmyra and with the god
Yarhibol. In the Greco-Roman Near East,
then, Gad serves as a generic title of city
deities connected with prosperity and good
luck, but without a definite personality.
III. It is generally admitted that Isa 65:11
(RSV: “But you who forsake the Lorp, who
forget my holy mountain, who set a table for
Fortune [gad], and fill cups of mixed wine
for Destiny [rménf}") refers to cultic meals
(lectisternia) eaten in honour of two deities,
Gad and Meni. The LXX renders Gad as
Saipev and Meni as Tuyn; Vg renders "For-
tune" (qui positis Fortunae mensam et liba-
tis super eam) and ignores Meni. The latter
is to be interpreted as a god (or spirit) of
fate, possibly identical (in spite of the mas-
culine gender of the noun) with the pre-
Islamic Arabic goddess Man(aw)at (->Meni);
consequently also Gad seems to be used as a
divine appellative.
There are other biblical references that
might be connected with Gad. For the place
names Ba‘al-gdd (Josh 11:17; 12:7; 13:5),
and Migdal-gad (Josh 15:37) various expla-
nations are conceivable. The first could be
interpreted as ‘Gad is Lord’, or as ‘Baal is
fortune’, or as ‘Baal of (the clan of) Gad’
(7*Baal-Gad); the second could be translated
as ‘Tower of Gad" (sce Migdal-’él in Josh
340
GAIUS —
19:38), or as ‘Tower of fortune’ (see esp.
MaiER i1 ABD 2:863-864), or as "Tower of
(the clan of) Gad'. In personal names, Gad
occurs over 40 times as a (theophoric?) el-
ement. The seventh son of Jacob was wel-
comed at his birth by Leah’s cry “Good for-
tune" (Gen 30:11: bagad, LXX év ton),
and therefore named gdd; by this etiological
explanation of the tribal name the author of
the narrative clearly wishes to exclude any
theophoric associations—though they may
have initially been present. In the names
Gaddi, Gaddi’él, and ‘Azgdd, it is very
doubtful as well that gd is a theophoric el-
ement. Gaddi means ‘My fortune’ rather
than ‘My Gad’; Gaddi’él (compare the
extra-biblical gdy/nw), probably means 'El/
God is fortune’, or ‘Blest of God’ (though
the presence of two theophoric elements is
not excluded), while ‘Azgdd contains appar-
ently the name of the deity, plus the divine
appellative ‘Strength, Protection’ (‘Strong is
Gad'?) Compare also the extra-biblical
Hebrew names gdyw, gdmlk ('Gad is king'
or ‘the King is fortune’), and ’bgd (‘Gad is
father’ or ‘the [divine] Father is fortune’)
(FOWLER 1988:67-68).
IV. Gad is attested in later Jewish litera-
ture, in which he was identified with the
planet Jupiter. The name also acquired the
general meaning of numen ‘spirit’ (see F.
Dewitzscn, /saiah [Grand Rapids 1980]
482-483).
V. Bibliography
G. W. AHLSTRÓM, Was Gad the God of Tell
ed-Duweir?, PEQ 115 (1983) 47-48; M. L.
BaARRÉ, The God-List in the Treaty between
Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia (Balti-
more 1983) 64-67; F. L. BENZ, Personal
Names in the Phoenician and Punic In-
scriptions (Rome 1972) 294-295; H. J. W.
Druvers, The Religion of Palmyra (Leiden
1976) 13.19; T. FAHD, Le panthéon de
l'Arabie centrale à la veille de I'Hégire
(Paris 1968) 78-80; J. D. Fow Ler, Theo-
phoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.
A Comparative Study (JSOTSup 49,
Sheffield 1988) 67-68, 322, 340; G. Gar-
BINI, Note di epigrafia punica-I, RSO 40
(1965) 212-213; F. GRONDAHL, Die Per-
GEPEN
sonennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Rome
1967) 126-127; C. GROTTANELLI, Astarte-
Matuta e Tinnit-Fortuna, VO 5 (1982) 103-
116; H. B. HUFFMON, Anorite Personal
Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and
Lexical Study (Baltimore 1965) 179; W. A.
MaıeR n1, Gad (Deity), ABD 2 (1992) 863-
864; D. SOURDEL, Les cultes du Hauran à
l'époque romaine (Paris 1952) 49-52; J.
TEIXIDOR, The Pantheon of Palmyra (EPRO
79; Leiden 1979) 88-100.
S. RIBICHINI
GAIUS —> RULER CULT
GEPEN ;2)
I. Gapnu, ‘the vine’, is well attested as
a divine name in the Ugaritic mythological
texts, always in the binomial gpn w ugr,
‘vine(yard) and field’ (KTU 1.3 iii 37; 1.4
vii 54; 1.4 viii 47; 1.5 i 12). In spite of
some dissenting opinions, this interpretation
of the names is widely accepted today
(PARDEE 1989/1990). The Ugaritic name is
etymologically connected with Heb gepen,
‘vine’.
II. GINSBERG (1944) has established
that, in spite of the lack of separate attes-
tations of gpn and ugr, various accom-
panying forms in the texts show that the
phrase gpn w ugr does not designate a
single deity, but two. The primary function
of these two deities was to serve as -*Baal's
messengers (see S. A. MEIER, The Mess-
enger in the Ancient Semitic World [HSM
45; Atlanta 1988] 124-128). To date, neither
of the deities is attested in the ritual texts,
whilst no personal name attests unambigu-
ously to the use of gpn as a theophoric el-
ement.
II. Though a deified gepen has not been
identified in the Hebrew Bible, the word is
on occasion used metaphorically. In Hos
10:1 and Ps 80 the people of Israel are
likened to a vine. A similar usage of the
term occurs in the New Testament in Jesus’
claim (John 15:1) to be the true vine (am-
pelos) and his father the vinedresser
(gedrgos). Such metaphorical use of the
341
GETHER
term does not indicate, however, that the
vine was ever deified in ancient Israel.
IV. Bibliography
H. L. GiNsBERG, Baal's Two Messengers,
BASOR 95 (1944) 25-30; D. PARDEE, AfO
36/37 [1989/1990] 446.
D. PARDEE
GETHER “ro
I. Gatharu (gtr) is attested as a divine
name in several genres of Ugaritic texts
(vocabulary texts, rituals, a letter) and in
sacrificial lists from Emar. The name is also
attested as a theophoric element at Mari. It
is plausibly derived from a root GTR. It
denotes ‘to be strong’, provided that the
relationship with the Akkadian adjective
gasru be accepted, where the strength de-
noted is particularly fierce and war-like. The
god Gatharu has been tentatively connected
with the bibilical anthroponym Gether (Gen
10:23).
II. The deity is most clearly at home in
Syria in the second millennium BCE, though
the veneration of the deity in first-millen-
nium Phoenicia is attested by the personal
name bdgir (P. Bordreuil apud PARDEE
1988:92 n. 56).
The divine determinative on the first el-
ement of the personal name 4Ga-a$-rum-ga-
mil (ARM 22: 13 ii 28) proves the existence
of the deity by the eighteenth century, while
multiple appearances in the Emar texts il-
lustrate his relative popularity on the middle
Euphrates in the fourteenth century (D.
ARNAUD, Emar VI/3 [1986] 268, text
274:19' z Msk 74298a:7'; p. 354, text 373:
119° = Msk 74292a; p. 375, text 379:5 =
Msk 74264). DE Moor has suggested the
presence of this deity behind the Sumerian
divine name Ninurta in EA 74:31 (1990:244;
see N. Na’aMAN, UF 22 [1990] 252-254,
for the history of the discussion and another
hypothesis).
The vocalization in Ugaritic as ga-Sa-ru
(= /gataru/) is known from three entries in
one of the polyglot vocabularies (J. Nou-
GAYROL, Ug V [MRS 16; Paris 1968] 248-
249, text 137 IVa 15; IVb 11, 13). In this
vocabulary, Gatharu is given each time as
the equivalent of the Hurrian diety mi-il-ku-
un(-ni), apparently the Hurnanized form of
the West Semitic deity Milku. On the other
hand, the Sumero-Akkadian equivalent
appears to vary, TiSpak being extant in the
first entry (137 IVa 15). Ningirsu/Sakkud in
all probability to be reconstructed in thc
others (137 IV b 11, 13; cf. NovGAYROL,
ibid., p. 248 n. 7, and W. W. HaLLo & W.
L. Moran, JCS 31 [1979] 72 n. 23; W. L.
Moran, LAPO 13 [1987] 252 n. 10). These
equivalences show that Gatharu was con-
sidered at Ugarit to have both chthonic and
belligerent characteristics. The divine name
occurs as the theophoric element in the
proper name ‘bdgir (F. GRONDAHL, Die
Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit {SiP
1; Rome 1967] 131).
Gatharu plays an important role in the
ritual text KTU 1.43:11.14, while the exist-
ence of a statuette of this divinity is proven
by a letter according to which ‘the gods’
Ba'lu and Gatharu are entrusted to two indi-
viduals (KTU 2.4). It is in the form of such
a statuette that Gatharu would have partici-
pated in the ‘rite of entry’ prescribed in
KTU 1.43:9-16. The existence of distinct
statuettes of Ba‘lu and Gatharu proves that
Gatharu was not identified with Ba‘lu, as
some scholars have held (M. DIETRICH &
O. Loretz, UF 12 [1980] 175: De Moor
1990:72 n. 174; cf. PARDEE 1988:91-92 n.
56). This datum is congruent with the data
provided by the polyglot texts, where Gatha-
ru is never identified with a weather deity.
The understanding of the divine name at
Ugarit is complicated by the occurrence in
the ritual texts of a form written girm (KTU
1.43:9, 17, 19; 1.109:26; 1.112:18, 19, 20),
interpreted by some as a dual, by others as a
plural (for an overview of opinions, see
PARDEE, Textes rituels, f.c., chap. IV). Be-
causc one of the sets of occurrences (KTU
1.43) of ginm is in immediate contiguity
with etr, 3p3 (the Ugaritic solar deity). and
yrh (the principal Ugaritic lunar deity), one
plausible interpretation is to sec girm as a
plural, i.e. as a substantivized adjective
referring to gtr, §pS and yrh (PARDEE 1993;
idem, Textes rituels, f.c., chap. IV).
No evidence exists as yet for the
342
GHOST — GIANTS
identification of a royal figure in the Ugar-
itic dynastic lineage who would have borne
the same name as the divinity (DIETRICH &
Loretz 1992:69, 73).
III. Though the name Gether in Gen
10:23 may indeed be derived from the same
root as the deity Gatharu (as a ‘son of
Aram’, the correspondence /t/ : /U poses no
problem), it is impossible to say whether the
biblical name directly reflects the deity (DE
Moor 1990:244). The theonym is not yet
attested in Aramaic sources.
IV. Bibliography
G. pEL Orwo LETE, Ritual procesional de
Ugarit (KTU 1.43), Sefarad 46 (1986) 363-
371; M. DiETRICH & O. LonrErz, “Jahwe
und seine Aschera". Anthropomorphes Kult-
bild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel.
Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9; Münster
1992) 39-76; J. C. pE Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990); D. PAR-
DEE, Les textes para-mythologiques de la
24e Campagne (1961) (RSO IV; Paris 1988)
83-94, 101-103; PARDEE, RS 1.005 and the
Identification of the gtnn, Ritual and
Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (OLA 55;
ed. J. Quaegebeur; Leuven 1993) 301-318;
PARDEE, Les textes rituels (RSO; Paris, f.c.);
P. XELLA, / Testi Rituali di Ugarit. Y. Testi
(StSem 54; Rome 1981) 43-54, 86-90.
D. PARDEE
GHOST - SPIRIT OF THE DEAD
GIANTS yiyavtes
I In the strict sense the Gigantes in
Greek mythology were the serpent-footed
giants who were born from the blood-drops
of the castration of Uranus (-*Heaven) that
had fallen on ->Earth (Hesiod Theogony
183-186). The term gigantes occurs about
40 times in the LXX and refers there re-
spectively to: a) the giant offspring of ‘the
sons of God" and ‘the daughters of man-
kind’ (Gen 6:1-4; Bar 3:26-28; Sir 16:7); b)
strong and mighty men, like -Nimrod (Gen
10:8-9); c) several pre-Israelite peoples of
tall stature in Canaan and Transjordania.
The etymology of the name, which may be
pre-Greck, is unknown, but was in Antiquity
thought to be ynyevri or “born from earth’.
Il. As Gaea-Earth was vexed with the
sorry fate of the -*Titans after their battle
with the Olympian gods, she now stirred up
her other sons, the Giants, against the
Olympians. They endeavoured to storm
heaven by building a tower (cf. Gen 11:4),
that is by piling up the mountains Pelion,
Ossa and Olympus on top of one another
(Homer, Od. 11,315-316). According to an
oracle, the gods could not destroy the Giants
unless they were helped by a mortal man. In
the ensuing Gigantomachy it was -*Heracles
who assisted the gods, killing off the Giants
with his arrows after they had already been
wounded, mainly so by -*Zeus' thunderbolts
(Apollodorus, Library 1,6,1-2). Out of their
blood-drops that fell on Earth such a new
race of savage and bloodthirsty men was
born that Jupiter destroyed them by the
Flood (Ovid Metam. 1,151-162; 262-312).
Not all of them were killed. however,
though some were punished in the Nether
World or Tartarus and were supposed to lie
as prisoners under islands and volcanoes.
In Antiquity the story was sometimes
believed literally, skeletons of whales or
dinosaurs being explained as the bones of
the Giants (Suetonius, Augustus 72,3), but
sometimes it was dismissed as fiction (Plato,
Euth. 6b-c; Resp. 2,378c). Between these
two extremes there were various other
opinions: Ephorus of Cyme considered the
Giants to have been a historical tribe of bar-
barians in Chalcidice which had been de-
feated by Heracles (FGH 70F34); Proclus
saw the Gigantomachy psychologically as
the battle between reason and the lower
passions (Jn Plat. Parmenidem 127c), Joan-
nes Lydus as the victory of sunlight over
winter (De mensibus 4,3), etc. As a literary
motif it was often used in panegyrics in
honour of rulers or generals who had de-
feated the tall Celts or Germans: Claudian
makes the Visigoth Alaric as the ‘Giant’ the
opponent of the god Eridanus, the river Po
(On the 6th Consulship of Honorius 178-
186).
III. In the LXX-translation the word yiy-
avteg correponds to four or five Hebrew
words or expressions in the MT: (1)
343
GIANTS
—népilim = the offspring of the sons of God
(Gen 6:1-4); rarely the same people as (2),
in Num 13:33; (2) >rëpã’îm, the tall, orig-
inal inhabitants of the promised land; the
word was also left untranslated as Rafacim
or Rafaein e. g. Gen 15:20; (3) ‘sons of
Ráphá(h)', the eponymous ancestor of the
répd'im (2 Sam 21:22); (4) ‘sons of
*dnüqim' (Deut 1:28), tall people living near
Hebron (Num 13:22.33) and in Philistia (Jos
11:22); the remaining instances of Hebrew
‘andgim are matched in the LXX by
Enakim, only in Deut 9:2 by Enak; the
Hebrew name has nothing to do etymologi-
cally with tà "Avaxe or oi "Avaxeg (as the
—Dioscuri, who were otherwise gigantic of
stature, could also be called) because the
latter derives from an older Greek Fá-
vaxe(c):; (5) gibbérim, strong, mighty men
or heroes, such as Nimrod. In the MT a
number of these Hebrew names occur side
by side, as synonyms, (1) and (4) at Num
13:33, (1) and (5) at Gen 6:4, (2) and (3) at
1 Chr 20:4-8, and (2) and (4) at Deut 2:10-
11. It is therefore quite understandable and
expectable that all could apparently be ren-
dered by the one Greek term yiyavtes,
sometimes with the variant reading TitGvec.
A god whose sons marry mortal women
on earth, could, of course, by opponents of
Judaism easily be taken to refer to no one
else than Cronus, whose sons Zeus and
—Poseidon had a reputation for having
fathered many earthlings, especially ances-
tors of royal dynasties, such as Heracles the
son of Zeus from whom the Macedonian
kings claimed descent (Plutarch, Alexander
2,1). Probably in order to prevent such inter-
pretations, the expression 'the sons of God'
was replaced by 'the angels of God' in a
number of manuscripts of the LXX and also
by Philo of Alexandria. He denies that Gen
6:1-4 is a piece of mythology and likewise
makes 'the giants' sons of 'the angels of
God’ and of earthly women, while he
explains their name as ‘the earthborn’ or
those who indulge in the pleasures of the
body (On the Giants 6 and 58-60; Questions
and Answers on Gen 92; cf. also Josephus
Ant 1,73). These - angels were sinners be-
cause they mixed with mortal women, and
their sinful giant children were named
Nephilim, since they caused the downfall of
the world (so Gen. Rabbah 26, 7, deriving
the name from 45) ‘fall’). In 7 Enoch 6,2
one finds the combination oi ayyeAo1 viol
toù @eov to refer to the giants’ fathers,
while Syncellus' version of this passage has
ot Eypryopot or ‘the ->watchers’ (so also in
T. Rub. 5,6; cf. NT 9. or 5 7D in 4QEn
3,1,1,5 etc.). It was they who taught people
on earth all kinds of science and technology
(4 Enoch 7.1), and astrology in particular
(ibid 8,3). According to Jub. 8,3 Kâinâm,
here the son of Arpachshad (contrary to Gen
5:9 and 10:24), even found rock inscriptions
made by ‘former’ generations (Syncellus
and Cedrenus: “of the giants”), which con-
tained the very teaching of these Watchers,
which is then further described as the obser-
vation of celestial omens (cf. Gen. Rabbah
26,5). Josephus, however, ascribed not only
the inscriptions, but also the invention of
astronomy itself to the sons of Seth (Ant.
1,70-71). Apart from these passages there
existed a special, more detailed apocryphon
about the Giants, of which only fragments
have been preserved from Qumran (4 QEn-
Giants, in Aramaic) and from the Manichae-
an tradition (in Soghdian and Uigur). Here
the various giants have received names, and
of two of them, the brothers Óhyáh and
Hahyah, it is related that they had prognos-
tic dreams, which were then explained by
—Enoch. The race of the giants was mostly
supposed to have drowned in the Flood (3
Macc 2,4; Wis 14,5-6), numbering then
409.000 (3 Apoc. Bar. 4,10). Their souls
lived on as evil spirits who caused harm to
mankind (e. g. / Enoch 15,8-16.1; Jub.
10,1-3; Test. Sal. 17,1). The angels who had
sinned were "thrown down", according to 2
Pet 2:4 by God himself into "the Tartarus",
to be kept there for the coming judgment.
The author makes use here of the verb
taptapdw, which is the typical expression
for the punishment of the Titans, cf Kate-
taptápwoev in Apollodorus, Library 1,2,3
and Sextus Empiricus Pyrrh. 3,210. The
substantive Táptrapoc. however, is found
344
GIBBORIM
more often, though not as frequently as
-*Hades, referring to the Hebrew ->Sheol
e.g. LXX Prov 24:51 (30:16); cf. 1 Enoch
20.2 where the angel -*Uriel is the prince of
the Kosmos and the Tartarus.
As to the fate of the Giants, the Samar-
itan anonymus (Ps-Eupolemus) relates that
some of them were saved from the Flood
and became the builders of the Tower of
Babylon (frg | in Eusebius, P. E. 9,17,2).
This may show the influence of the current
story of those other giants, Otus and Eph-
ialtes, who were no sons of Uranus and Gaea;
they wanted to storm Heaven by means of
piling up some mountains on top of Olympus
(Homer, Od. 11,305-320). Ovid ascribed this
to the Giants in the proper sense (see above).
The exegesis itself of ‘the sons of God’
as fallen angels at Gen 6:2 did not go
unchallenged. Tryphon is reported to have
considered the whole idea of sinning angels
as such to be blasphemy (Justin Martyr,
Dial. 79). Symmachus? translation. of the
passage had oi viot tàv 8vvactevóvtov or
"the sons of those holding power" and simi-
larly, Gen. Rabbah 26,5 has the tradition
that they were to be seen as "sons of
nobles". Julius Africanus simply wanted to
explain them as the sons of the rightful Seth
and the daughters of mankind as descend-
ants of Cain (Chiron. frg. 2), thus removing
the slightest trace of mythology.
IV. Bibliography
H. voN GEISAU, Gigantes, KP 2 (1975) 797-
798; J. T. MiLik (& M. BLaAck), The Books
of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran
Cave 4 (Oxford 1976) (298-339 for the
Book of Giants); J. C. REEVES, Jewish Lore
in Manichaean Cosmogony. Studies in the
Book of Giants Tradition (Cincinnati 1992);
W. SONTHEIMER, Gigantomachie, KP 2
(1975) 798; W. SPEYER, Gigant, RAC 10
(1978) 1247-1276; F. Vian, La guerre des
géants. Le mythe avant. l'époque. helléni-
stique (Paris 1952).
G. MUSSIES
GIBBORIM C722
I. The ‘warriors that were of old’
(gibbórim 'aser mé'ólàm) mentioned in Gen
6:4 and identified with a special class of
superhuman beings (the -*Nephilim) in the
antediluvian period are clearly a race apart
from David's champions (gibbórtm) listed in
2 Sam 23:8-39 ( 2 Chr 11:10-47). The fur-
ther definition méélam is important here
because it locates the activities of the
gibbórím in the primeval period and not in the
recent historical past. The first named gibbór
on carth was -*Nimrod and the meaning of
this epithet, like the Akk gabbàru 'strong' and
Ar al-jabbár *the giant (i.e. -^Orion)', identi-
fies Nimrod's prowess notably as a mythical
hunter, and lord of the kingdoms of Babcl,
Erech and Accad and founder of Nineveh,
Rehobothir, Calah and Resen (Gen 10:8-12;
VAN DER TOORN & VAN DER Horst 1990:1-
2). His activities thus resemble the exploits of
the Mesopotamian hero Gilgamesh recorded
in the Old Babylonian tablet of that name (I,
3-28). KRAELING (1947) suggests that Eze-
kiel, in his fondness for dwelling on the pri-
meval history, sheds—in his figurative de-
scription of the fate of Egypt (32:17-32)—
more light on the ancient gibbórím. A special
quarter is reserved in the depths of —^Sheol for
‘the fallen warriors of long ago’ which will
not be shared by the likes of Egypt, Assyria
and Elam. The gibbérim lic, as it were, in
state with their swords and shields intact.
Alive, they had once been the terror of the
land of the living, and now in Sheol they
occupied a place of honour. Perhaps it was
their quest for fame and glory in the manner
of the tower builders in Gen 11 that led to
their inevitable downfall; although, as the
text stands in Gen 6:4, the redactor clearly
associates these warriors with the Nephilim
who were destroyed in the flood because
they were the monstrous issue of ‘the sons
of God’ and ‘the daughters of humans’. The
priestly view (elaborated in 7 Enoch 9:1-2
and Jub. 2-3) that the flood was provoked
because ‘the earth was filled with violence’
is consonant with this idea of the gibbérim
and their legendary deeds, (‘confident in
their strength they rebelled” Sir 16:7).
345
GILLULIM
Il. Bibliography
E. G. KRAELING, The Significance and Ori-
gin of Gen 6.2-4, JNES 6 (1947) 193-208; J.
SKINNER, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh 1910);
E. A. SPEISER, In Search of Nimrod, Eretz
Israel 5 (1958) 32-45; K. VAN DER TOORN
& P. W. vaN DER Horst, Nimrod before
and after the Bible, HTR 83 (1990) 1-29; C.
WESTERMANN, Genesis 1-1] (Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1974); W. ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, II
Teilband (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969; English
Translation Philadelphia 1983).
P. W. Coxon
GILLULIM 0°93 cidwda
I. Within the context of OT anti-iconic
polemics the designation of deities and/or
their images as gilltilim occurs 48 times (39
in Ezek). The etymology.of the noun is a
subject of discussion. Many scholars follow
BaAunissiN (1904) in deriving Biblical Heb
gillilim from a hypothetical singular noun
*galol ‘stela’, whose vocalization has been
deliberately modified by the Israelite
prophets to correspond to the vowel pattern
of the word 3iqqüsím -**abominations'. This
interpretation rests on an observation in the
Aramaic-Greek bilingual Palmyrene in-
scription C/S 147, where Aramaic gélala’
corresponds to Greek omAn 'stela', both of
which correspond semantically to Biblical
Heb massébad. Thus an originally neutral
term for 'cult objects became a dys-
phemism for deities other than the LoRD, as
well as for the cult statues, that represented
those deities (PREUSS, TWAT 2, 1-2; HALAT
185 sub a). Medieval Hebrew exegetes and
others regard gillülim as a dysphemism.
They assume that the term is derived from
gélalim which means ‘faeces’ (e.g. Ezek
4:12, 15; 22:3; 30:13) and that the term gil-
lülim was meant to make people abhor the
worship of deities other than the Lorp
(HALAT 75 sub b; SCHROER 1987:418-419).
II. The majority of the biblical ref-
erences to gillilim are found in the Book of
Ezekiel, which, like the Book of Jeremiah,
continually points to Judaeans’ worshipping
other gods during the last generation before
the destruction of the Temple. It has been
suggested that Ezekiel was the author of the
term gillûlîm (SCHROER 1987:418). He
might, however, have adopted the desig-
nation from the deuteronomistic writers.
Most likely, the background of this em-
phasis on gillílim ‘idols’ during the period
between Josiah’s reform (622 BCE) and the
destruction of the Temple (586 BCE) is the
failure of that reform to provide a religious
institutional infrastructure for worship of the
LoRD. As an outcome of the royal reading
of the Torah Scroll found in the Temple (2
Kgs 22) all altars for worship of the Lorp
other than the one on Mount Moriah in
Jerusalem must have been destroyed.
WEINFELD writes in his commentary on
Deuteronomy (1991:80), “The destruction of
the high places and the provincial sanctu-
aries created a vacuum, which was filled by
the institution of the synagogue. After the
reform, the people who, until this point, had
entered into their religious experience in a
sanctuary close to where they lived or in a
high place situated in their town, needed to
find a substitute. The aboliton of the high
places without any provision of a replace-
ment for them would have been tantamount
to the destruction of daily religious experi-
ence, a thing that, unlike in our own times,
would have been impossible in the ancient
world. This substitute was found, therefore
in prayer and reading of the book of the
Torah, which comprised the worship of God
in the synagogue.” Weinfeld is correct in his
argument that for many Judaeans, at least, a
substitute had to be found and was found.
However, the oldest extra-biblical evidence
for the institution of the synagogue is from
3rd century BCE Egypt. However, it is not
the argument from silence which challenges
Weinfeld’s suggestion that the synagogue
was the substitute for the erstwhile “high
places” but rather the clear voices of the
Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. These
books tell us that when the Josianic reform
had successfully dismantled Yahwistic high
places all over the Land of Israel, many
Judeans found a substitute in what Ezekiel
calls the ‘idols’: “You shall know that I am
346
GIRL
the LoRD when your slain lie among the
‘idols’ round about their altars, on every
high hill, on all the mountain tops, under
every green tree, and under every leafy
oak—wherever they presented pleasing
odours to all their gillilim ‘idols’” (Ezek
6:13).
The nine biblical references to gilliilim,
‘idols’, outside the Book of Ezekiel consist
of references to King Asa of Judah's attempt
to eradicate the worship of gods other than
the LogD (1 Kgs 15:1); Ahab's embracing
the worship of -*Baal (1 Kgs 21:26); the
practice of idolatry in the Northern King-
dom (Samaria), which justified God's allow-
ing the northern tribes to be exiled by
Sargon II after 720 pce (2 Kgs 17:12); King
Manasseh's and King Amon's royal patron-
age of idolatrous cults (2 Kgs 21: ll, 21);
King Josiah's attempt to remove idolatrous
cults (2 Kgs 23:24); two references to the
destruction of Israelites’ idols in Pentateu-
chal imprecations calling for the punish-
ments of the Israelites should they be dis-
loyal to the Lorp (Lev 26:30; Deut 29:16):
and Jeremiah’s reference to Babylonian cult
statues as ‘dsabbéha and gilliléha, both
meaning ‘her idols, her cult statues’ (Jer
50:2).
The LXX translates gilltilim with ciðwia
‘idols’ (it occurs 91 times, but it should be
noted that etdwAov is often a translation of
‘asab, pesel, and other terms). The deroga-
tory sense is taken over in the NT, where
etdwAov is used in a polemical context 11
times, of which 7 are by Paul (4 times in |
Cor: 8:4.7; 10:19; 12:2) Paul regards
eidwAa not as divine, but as demonic
powers. They do exist, but they do not exist
‘for us’ (cf. | Cor 8:6; see HUBNER 1980:
938-939).
HI. Bibliography
W. W. BauDISSIN, Die alttestamentliche
Bezeichnung der Götzen mit gillülim,
ZDMG 58 (1904) 395-425; D. Boni, Les
Rillülim chez Ezéchiel et dans l'Ancien Tes-
tament, RB 100 (1993) 481-510; M. GREEN-
BERG, Ezekiel (AB 22; Garden City 1983);
C. R. NonrH, The Essence of Idolatry, Von
Ugarit nach Qumran (ed. W. F. Albright;
BZAW 77; Berlin 1958) 151-160; H. D.
PREUSS, gillülim, TWAT 2 (1974) 1-5; H.
HÜBNER, eiðwàov xtX, EWNT I (1980)
936-941; S. ScunoEn, /n Israel gab es Bil-
der (OBO 74; Freiburg & Góttingen 1987)
418-419; M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1-11
(AB 5; New York 1991).
M. I. GRUBER
GIRL 752i :
I. The identity of 'the Girl' in the
phrase "A man and his father go to the girl"
(Amos 2:7) is most probably solved when
interpreted as a depreciative designation of a
female deity, perhaps -^Ashima (ANDERSEN
& FREEDMAN 1989:318-319) or -^Ashera.
II. The identity of the deity being un-
known, it is impossible to provide infor-
mation about her. In the ancient Near East
comparable words can be used when refer-
ring to the feminine deity: in Mesopotamian
hymns related to marriage between -'Ishtar
and Dumuzi (-*Tammuz) the goddess is prc-
sented as a young nubile woman (WILCKE
1976-80:84); in Ugaritic texts -*Anat re-
ceives the epithet bilt ‘virgin’ (for instance
in the Baal-cycle KTU 1.3 ii:32); from
Ugarit the designation of a member of a
despised class of female deities as amt
*handmaid' is known (KTU 1.4 iv:61).
HI. Following the Old Greek translation
CA man and his father go to the same
maid’), the phrase in Amos 2:7 has been
interpreted as a designation of illicit sexual
conduct (most recently REIMER 1992:39-42)
or as a reference to a sacred marriage and/or
prostitution (e.g. Bic 1969:57-58). The
wording of Amos 2:7, however, does not
imply a kind of forbidden sexual behaviour
(BARSTAD 1984:17-21). The institution of
cultic prostitution in the ancient Near East is
unprovable (RENGER 1972-75). Relating
Amos 2:7 to 2:8, Barstad surmises that in
these verses there is a polemic against the
institution of the marzeah (a guild-like
gathering of upper class people, with slight-
ly religious overtones; Amos 6:7; Jer 16:5;
Ugarit: KTU 1.20-22; 1.114). He interprets
the m7 ‘maid’ as a marzeah-hostess
347
GLORY
(BARSTAD 1984:33-36). The parallellismus
membrorum with Amos 2:8 ‘in the house of
their God’ suggests the interpretation of
iTW3 as a divine being (ANDERSEN &
FREEDMAN 1989:318-319). The designation
of this goddess with iT171 —the term refers
to a subordinate person—suggests, that 11321
is a nick-name, indicating the religious
evaluation of the deity by Amos. The use of
the article in 7737 indicates that she was a
deity well-known to the Samarians. Any
identification with otherwise known deities
remains hypothetical.
IV. Bibliography
F. I. ANDERSEN & D. N. FREEDMAN, Amos
(AB 24A; New York 1989); *H. M. Ban-
STAD, The Religious Polemics of Amos
(VTSup 34; Leiden 1984); M. Bic, Das
Buch Amos (Berlin 1969); H. REIMER,
Richter auf das Recht! Studien zur Botschaft
des Amos (SBS 149; Stuttgart 1992); J.
RENGER, Heilige Hochzeit, A. Philologisch,
RLA 4 (1972-75), 251-259; C. WILCKE,
Inanna/Istar, RLA 5 (1976-80) 74-87.
B. BECKING
GLORY 73> 665a
I. Kabód occurs 200 times in MT, but
doxa 453 times in the LXX (since it is also
used as a translation of more than 20 other
Hebrew terms) and 166 times in the NT.
The standard translation, ‘glory’, is inad-
equate, for it does not convey the specific
connotations of these words. The LXX
translators chose in doxa a term which in
classical Greek means ‘opinion’ or 'repu-
tation’, especially good reputation, hence
also ‘honour’. It is not quite clear how doxa
could be found suitable to render kabéd as
the luminous phenomenon characteristic of
theophanies or even as the name of the
human-like form of God (NEWMAN 1992:
134-152).
II. The basic idea of the Heb kabdd is
that of weightiness. People become ‘weighty’
through riches. "Abraham became very
weighty in livestock, in silver, and in gold"
(Gen 13:2) Through his cattlebreeding,
Jacob became ‘weighty’; long life and child-
ren have the same effect (Prov 3:16: Hos
2:11). The word kabéd was also used of the
sentiments inspired by the concrete bles-
sings. God gives Solomon “both riches and
kabéd" (1 Kgs 3:13). “He who possesses
righteousness and love, finds life, prosperity
and kabéd” (Prov. 21:12). The restored
—Zion will be given the “kdbéd of
- Lebanon" (Isa 35:2). The ‘weighty’ person
is given more kdbéd by gifts (Num
22:17.37; 24:11; Judg 13:17; 1 Sam 9:6-9).
God is given kābôd by praises (Ps 22:24;
29:1-2.9; 96:7; Isa 24:15).
God’s ‘glory’ is to be perceived in his
works, i.e. the world, human beings, and
historical events (Num 14:21-22; Ps 8:5;
57:6.12; Isa 6:3). In the age to come, it will
be revealed so that all flesh will see it (Isa
40:5; Hab 2:14). This revelation of divine
glory can be connected with the restoration
of Israel (Isa 42:8; 43:6-7; 48:10-11; 58:8;
60:1-3) and/or God’s judgement (Isa 59:19;
Ezek 28:22; 39:13.21).
In some texts belonging to the Priestly
Document (P), one of the sources of the
Pentateuch, the Glory is associated with the
Pillar of Cloud and fire, which according to
older sources, encompassed -* Yahweh lead-
ing the People through the desert and indi-
cated God’s presence at the Tabernacle:
"... the Glory of Yahweh appeared in the
Cloud” (Exod 16:10); “The Glory of
Yahweh rested on Mount Sinai, and the
cloud covered it ... the Glory of Yahweh
looked ... like a devouring flame on the top
of the mount” (Exod 24:16-17; cf. 40:38: at
night, there was fire in the Cloud); “The
Cloud covered it [the Tabernacle}, and the
Glory of Yahweh appeared” (Num 17:7; cf.
Exod 24:43-44). While the description of
the Glory in Exod 24:16-17 may reflect the
memory that Mount Sinai was a volcano
(NoTH 1960:131), other texts seem to sug-
gest a cultic background for the concept of
the Glory. When the Cloud covered the
Tent, the Glory 'filled' it (Exod 40:34-35).
The Glory ‘filled’ the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-
11). Lev 9:23-24 appears to connect the
Glory with the altar fire consuming the
sacrifice. In the light of 1 Sam 3:3 and 4:21,
348
GLORY
the Glory would rather seem to be some sort
of lamp associated with the Ark (cf. Exod
27:20-21).
Some OT texts attribute a human-like
form to God's Glory. In Exod 33:18-34:8, it
is told that God arranged for Moses to see
his Glory (MT Exod 33:19 actually reads
‘Goodness’, but LXX has ‘Glory’; v 22 as
well as v 18 reads ‘Glory’). Due to a merger
of different sources, however, it is related
that Moses saw God himself, albeit only his
back (33:23; 34:6). The picture emerging
from this story is that of indistinguishability
between the divine Glory and the anthropo-
morphous Deity. The relationship between
God and his Glory is here thus comparable
to that between God and the ->Angel of
Yahweh, the human-like Messenger of God.
In Ezek l, the prophet recounts that he
once had a vision of a throne-chariot in
heaven. Seated upon the throne was a “like-
ness as the appearance of a man ('adam)" (v
26). Ezekiel describes the body of this fig-
ure: his torso was like gleaming metallic
substance, and his lower body was like fire.
The prophet concludes: "This was the ap-
pearance of the likeness of the Glory of
Yahweh" (v 28). In 8:2, Ezekiel relates an-
other vision of the Glory. again described as
a “likeness as the appearance of a man”
(emending "es, 'fire', to "i3, ‘man’; cf. LXX
and the Old Latin, *man'). The body of this
figure is described similarly to that of the
Glory in 1:27. In 8:2, however, the Glory
appears without the throne-chariot. In the
second appearance of the thronc-chariot, this
time in the Temple, the Glory moves from
above the chariot and takes up a position in
another part of the sanctuary (10:4). The
Glory is thus not bound to the throne.
In Ezek. 9:3-4, Yahweh and the Glory
even appear as interchangeable, as is the
case with God and the Angel of Yahweh in
Genesis, Exodus and Judgcs: "Now the
Glory of the God of Isracl had gone up from
the cherubim on which He rested to the
threshold of the house and called to the man
in linen ... and Yahweh said to him .
However, the Glory has a radiant body and
is accompanied by phenomena similar to
those associated with the Glory in the P
source and the texts influenced by it: When
the Glory rose from the -*cherubim, the
Temple was "filled with the Cloud, and the
court was full of the brightness of the Glory
of Yahweh" (9:4).
In Ezekiel, the Glory is also associated
with the Temple. Because of the sins of
Israel, the Glory leaves the Temple (11:22-
23). When Isracl is restored, the Glory will
return. (43:2). Seen as returning from the
mountain east of the city, the Glory is as-
similated to the sun god entering the temple
each moming (43:1-5; cf. 11:23; 44:1-2;
47:1; Zech 14:4; Sukkah 5:4, citing Ezek
8:16; see METTINGER 1982).
III. Ezek 1:26-28 was the starting-point
of a mystical tradition describing the vision
of the divine Glory on the heavenly
—throne. / Enoch 14:18b-21 portrays the
"Great Glory' enrobed in a splendid white
garment and seated upon a crystal-like
chariot-throne whose wheels are like the
sun. None of the angels can look upon him,
but —Enoch, after having been transported
to heaven, was granted a vision. T. Levi 3:4
contains a short reference to the vision of
the ‘Great Glory’ dwelling in the Holy of
Holies in the uppermost heaven (cf. 5:1). In
the Similitudes of Enoch (/ Enoch chaps.
37-71), which may be somewhat younger
than the rest of / Enoch, God is known as
the ‘Lord of Glory’ (40:3). Another divine
name which is used is ‘Glory of the Lord of
the Spirits’ (41:7; cf. 40:4-7.10, where ‘Lord
of the Spirits’ is parallel to ‘Lord of Glory’).
God's throne is called the ‘Throne of Glory’
(9:4; 47:3; 60:2; cf. Jub 31:20). If ‘Glory’
does not qualify the ‘Throne’, but refers to
its occupant, special heed must be given to
the idea that God places his vicegerent, the
‘Elect One’ or ‘Son of Man’, upon the
‘Throne of Glory’ (45:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2
[reading, "has seated him", instead of, “has
sat down”): 69:29). The latter executes the
eschatological judgement.
When the Son of Man is introduced in
] Enoch, he is described as one "whose face
was like the appearance of a man" (46:1).
This is reminiscent of the representation of
349
GLORY
the Glory in Ezek 1:26 and the descriptions
of an especially important angelic figure in
Daniel. It is possible that the “one like a son
of man" as well as the Ancient of Days in
Dan 7 go back to the figure of the Glory in
Ezekiel (PRocKscH 1950:416-417; BALZ
1967:80-95). Moreover, the "one like a son
of man" appears to be identical with the
special angel who is described as having the
"appearance of a man" (8:15; 10:18) or
being in the "likeness of the son of men"
([variant, "son of man”) 10:16). The de-
scriptions of this angel allude to the
representation of the Glory as a “likeness as
the appearance of a man" in Ezek 1:26
(FEUILLET 1953:183-202; BLACK 1975:97).
Influence from Ezekiel and Daniel can be
seen in various descriptions of the principal
angel of God (ROWLAND 1982:94-109). In
T. Abr., both Adam and -*Abel are en-
throned in heaven, the latter being the judge
of the souls. With reference to Adam, who
is sitting on a golden throne, it is said that
"the appearance of the man was fearsome,
like that of the Lord" (Rec. A, 11:4). In Rec.
B, Adam's throne is said to be a “Throne of
Great Glory” (8:5). Sitting upon a crystal
throne which blazes like fire, Abel is “a
wondrous man shining like the sun, like
unto a son of God” (Rec. A, 12:5). Joseph
and Asenath 14:3 describes the angel
—Michael as a *man' or '(onc) similar to a
man’. One manuscript reads ‘man of light’,
apparently identifying Michael with the
"great and unutterable light" which appeared
when the heaven was torn apart (v 2; cf. T.
Abr. Recension A, 7:3, where Michael,
descending from the opened heaven, is a
luminous man, shining more than seven
suns). His heavenly enthronement is as-
sumed, because he has a crown and a royal
staff (v 9). Sib. Or. V:414 as well as Joseph
and Asenath 14:3 (and T. Abr. Recension A,
7:3) testifies to the idea of the man-like
figure who “comes from heaven” (cf. 1 Cor
15:47). In Sib. Or. V:415, he has a “sceptre
in his hand which God has given him”. In
Apoc. Abr. 11:3, the angel Yahoel, who is
said to be “in the likeness of a man”, pos-
sesses a ‘golden sceptre’.
In the Exagoge of Ezekiel Tragicus,
-'Moses has a vision of a noble ‘man’
seated upon an enormous throne on the sum-
mit of Mount Sinai (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 1X
28:2). The ‘man’ hands Moses his diadem
and sceptre, and then leaves the throne to
the prophet. Here we can detect influence
from exegetical occupations with the vision
of Moses and his companions as related in
Exod 24:10, “And they saw the God of
Israel, and there was under his feet as it
were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the
very heaven for clearness.” Tg. Ong. and Tg.
Ps.-J. take this to be a throne vision, the oc-
cupant of the throne being called the ‘Glory
(yégárà? [an Aram equivalent of Kàbód]) of
the God of Israel'. The Samaritan theologian
Marqah takes the ‘sapphire stone’ to be the
‘Throne of the Glory (kabdd)’ (COWLEY
1909:25 line 15). The name ‘Glory’ in
Marqah's work does not denote God, but is
a designation of the Angel of Yahweh (Fos-
SUM 1985:224-225 [cf. Tg. Ps.-J., which
says that the ‘yégdrd’ of the God of Israel’
is the ‘Lord of the world’, a title which
could refer to the principal angel as well as
to God (b. Yeb. 17b; b. Hull. 60a; b. Sanh.
94a; Exod R. 12:23; 3 Enoch 30:1-2; 38:3;
Pirke de R. Eliezer chap. 27)]). In a rabbinic
tradition ascribed to R. Meir (2nd cent. CE),
the ‘sapphire stone’ in Exod 24:10 is said to
be the ‘Throne of Glory’, the proof-text
being found in Ezek 1:26, which says that
the throne of a man-like figure of the Glory
was “in appearance like sapphire” (b. Men.
43b).
In the mystical Merkabah texts
({sna‘aseh] merkabah being a later technical
term for the throne-chariot in Ezek | and
even for the chapter itself), we find detailed
descriptions of the Shi‘ur Qomah, the
‘Measure of the [divine] Body’, upon the
heavenly throne. Now these accounts clearly
do not refer to “the ‘dimensions’ of the
divinity, but to those of its corporeal appear-
ance. .... Already the ‘Lesser Hekhaloth’
interpret the anthropomorphosis of the
Shi'ur Komah as a representation of the
"hidden glory" (ScHoLEM 1954:66: cf.
FossuM 1989:198).
350
GLORY
IV. The NT continues the usage of the
LXX; doxa in the NT should often be seen
as a technical term loaded with the Jewish
understanding of “glory”. Doxa is a phe-
nomenon of light characteristic of angel-
ophanies, theophanies, and Christophanies
(Luke 2:9; 9:31-32; Acts 7:55; 2 Pet 1:17).
The Son of Man will come in or with God's
glory (Mark 8:38 [cf. 2 Thess 1:7]; 13:26;
cf. 10:37; Matt 19:28).
The Gospel of John speaks of "seeing"
the glory of God (11:40) or the glory of the
Son (1:14; 12:41; 17:24; cf. 2:11). In 1:14
("we saw his glory"), the background may
be the vision of the Glory described in Exod
33:18-34:8 (HANSON 1977:90-100): it is
thus possible that John regards the Son not
only as the one who manifests the divine
presence and power through his words and
works, but as the personified Glory. It is
noteworthy that the phrase “saw his glory”
is repeated in 12:41: "he [Isaiah] saw his
[Christ's] glory". Isa 6:1, however, reads “I
saw the Lord seated upon a high and lofty
throne... ." Tg. /sa. 6:1 reads, “yégdrd’ of
the Lord", but Tg. /sa. 6:5 says that the
prophet saw “the glory (yéqdra’) of the
Shekinah of the King of the Worlds”. While
Sékind in the Targums is generally regarded
as a buffer word meant to safeguard God
from coming into too close contact with the
world, the Merkabah mystics used it as an
alternative term for the Kabod. Thus, Ma‘a-
seh Merkabah contains the statement, "I
gazed upon the Shekinah and saw every-
thing that they do before his Throne of
Glory (kábód)" (ScHAFER 1981:$592). When
it is said that Isaiah saw the glory of
Christ, it is implied that the Son is the di-
vine manifestation upon the heavenly
throne, even the Glory.
There are other NT texts where -*Jesus
may be seen as the Glory. The conjunction
kai ('and') in Acts 7:55 may be epexe-
getical: "... he saw the Glory of God. name-
ly (kai) Jesus standing at the right hand of
God” (MARTIN 1967:312). The idea of Jesus
being seated at the right hand of the
"Power" (Mark 14:62 (Luke 22:69: "Power
of God"]), however, may be taken to imply
that he was enthroned alongside the Glory,
since the mystical texts use "Power" as a
synonym of "Glory" (FossuM 1989:191-
193).
The christological hymn in Phil 2 says that
Christ was “existing in the form (morphē) of
God” (v 6). This description corresponds to
the subsequent incamational phrases,
“taking the form of a slave”, “becoming in
the likeness of men”, and “being found in
the fashion as a man” (vv 7-8). Given the
OT evidence that God's visible form is the
man-like form of the Glory, Phil 2:6 would
seem to say that Christ is the divine Glory.
The same idea is expressed by the title,
"image of the invisible God", in the begin-
ning of the hymn on Christ in Col 1:15-20
(Fossum 1989:185-190). In Biblical termi-
nology, "image" (and "likeness"), "form",
and "glory" are interchangeable (FOSSUM
1985:269-270.284).
In Eph 1:17, we find the phrase, “the God
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the
Glory". The parallelism suggests that “our
Lord Jesus Christ" is "the Glory". Tit 2:13
may be translated, "the Glory of our great
God and Saviour, Christ Jesus". Here Christ
Jesus may be the Glory of "our great God
and Saviour”. Jas 2:1, a notoriously difficult
verse to translate, may in effect say, “our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory”. | Pet 4:14
says, "... the Spirit of the Glory and of God
rests upon you." Here, too. the Glory may
be the Son.
Phil 3:21 speaks of Christ's "body of
glory" to which the body of the believers
will be conformed. The term may reflect
that of güp hakkábód or güp hassékind
found in the Jewish mystical texts
(ScuoLEM 1991:278 n. 19). The idea that
one who ascended to heaven was trans-
formed, often as a result of the vision of
God (or his garment) or the divine Glory, is
found in several texts (MORRAY-JONES
1992:11.14.22-26). In 2 Cor 3:18, Paul says
that the Christians, “gazing with unveiled
face on the Glory of God, are being trans-
formed into the same image, from glory to
glory.” Here mystical terminology has been
adapted to describe what goes on when the
351
GOD (1)
Christians are reading the Scriptures. In con-
trast to the Jews (cf. vv 13-16; 4:4), the
Christians see the Glory of God. Moreover,
they are transformed into the “same image”,
obviously that which they behold. A few
verses later, it is said that Christ is the
“image of God” (4:4). The Glory obviously
is Christ.
Rom 8:29-30 says that the clect will be
“conformed to the image of His Son” and be
“glorified” (cf. vv 17-18; Col 3:4; 1 John
3:2). The same eschatological adaptation of
this thought is found in 1 Cor 15:49, “... we
shall bear the image of the heavenly man.”
Paul can even say that the Christian male is
the “image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7).
The statement alludes to Gen 1:26 and pre-
supposes that Christ is the heavenly Adam,
the Glory, after whose image and likeness
man was created (cf. 4Q504, frag. 8, “You
have fashioned Adam, our Father, in the
image of [Your] Glory”).
There is some evidence from later times
that also the Spirit of God could be seen as
the Glory (Fossum 1983, 284 n. 94), but
biblical foundations for this view are weak.
In Ezek 8:3, the glory, whose body is de-
scribed in the preceding verse, is referred to
as the “Spirit”. A Jewish amulet, which
appears to allude to Ezekiel’s description of
the retreat and return of the Glory, calls the
Glory pneuma hagiósynés, the "Spirit of
Holiness” (PETERSON 1959:351-352). T.
Levi 18:6 says: "And the Glory of the Most
High shall burst forth upon him, and the
Spirit of Understanding and Sanctification
shall rest upon him”. This refers to the pos-
session of the Spirit by the Messiah in Isa
11:2. The Glory might here be equated with
the Spirit. In Rom 1:4, it is said that Jesus
was designated as the Son of God “kata the
Spirit of Holiness by resurrection from the
dead”. The resurrection of Jesus may here
be understood as being effected by the Spi-
rit. In Rom 6:1, it is stated plainly that Jesus
was resurrected by the Glory of God.
V. Bibliography
H. R. Barz, Methodische Probleme der
neutestamentlichen Christologie (WMANT
52; Neukirchen 1967); M. BLack, Die Apo-
theose Israels: Eine neue Interpretation des
daniclischen “Menschensohns”, Jesus und
der Menschensohn. A. Vógtle Festschrift
(eds. R. Pesch & R. Schnackenburg; Frei-
burg 1975) 92-99; A. E. CowrEv, The
Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford 1909); A.
FEUILLET, Le fils de l'homme et la tradition
biblique, RB 60 (1953) 107-202, 321-346; J.
E. Fossum, Jewish-Christian Christology
and Jewish Mysticism, VC 37 (1983) 260-
287; Fossum, The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord (WUNT 36; Tübingen
1985); FossuM, Colossians 1.15-18a in the
Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism,
NTS 35 (1989) 183-201; A. T. HANSON,
John 1, 14-18 and Exodus 34, NTS 23
(1977) 90-100; R. P. MARTIN, Carmen
Christi (SNTSMS 4; Cambridge 1967); T.
N. D. METTINGER, The Dethronement of
Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod
Theologies (ConB OT series 18; Lund 1982)
80-115; C. R. A. MoRRAY-JONES, Trans-
formational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-
Merkabah Tradition, JJS 43 (1992) 1-31; C.
C. NEWMAN, Paul's Glory Christology
(NovTSup 69; Leiden 1992); E. PETERSON,
Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis (Rome
1959); O. PROCKSCH, Theologie des Alten
Testaments (Gütersloh 1950); G. QuisPEL,
Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and
Gnosis, VC 34 (1980) 1-13; C. ROWLAND,
The Open Heaven (London 1982 and re-
prints); P. SCHAFER, Synopse zur Hekhalot-
Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tübingen 1981) G.
ScHOLEM, Major Trends in Jewish Mvysti-
cism (3rd ed.; New York 1954); SCHOLEM,
On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead
(New York 1991).
J. E. Fossum
GOD (I) c&r^u
I. The usual word for 'god' in the
Hebrew Bible is ?élóhím, a plural formation
of "élóah, the latter being an expanded form
of the Common Semitic noun 7i! (-Eloah).
The term ’élohim occurs some 2570 times in
the Hebrew Bible, with a variety of mean-
ings. In such expressions as "all the gods of
Egypt" (Exod 12:12) it refers to a plurality
352
GOD (1)
of deities—without there being a clear dis-
tinction between these gods and their ->im-
ages. Far more frequent is the use of the
plural with reference to a single being:
-*Chemosh is the ’éléhim of Moab (1 Kgs
11:33); the plural here is a plural of excel-
lence or of majesty (Joüon/Muraoka §
136d). Though having the generic sense of
‘god’, the term is also used in an absolute
sense (‘the god’, c.g. Gen 5:22) whence it
developed the function of a proper name
(‘God’): when an Israelite suppliant says his
soul thirsts for 'élóhím he is not referring to
just any god but to ~ Yahweh the god of
Israel (Ps 42:3). Since the Israelite concept
of divinity included all practernatural
beings, also lower deities (in modern usage
referred to as ‘spirits’, ‘angels’, ‘demons’,
'semi-gods'. and the like) may be called
'élóhim. Thus the -teraphim (Gen 31:
30.32), anonymous heavenly beings (Ps 8:6;
LXX ayyedou), and the -*spirits of the dead
(1 Sam 28:13) are referred to as ‘gods’. A
metaphorical use of the term—metaphorical
from our point of view—occurs when it is
applied to living human beings, such as
-—-Moses (Exod 4:16; 7:1) and the king (Ps
45:7).
Other Hebrew words for ‘god’ are ’é/
(-*El) and ’éléah. Though both are used as
proper names (“El your father”, Gen 49:25;
"Can mortal man be rightcous before
Eloah?", Job 4:17), they can also have
generic meaning; in the latter case they are
more or less interchangeable with "elohim
(RiNGGREN 1970-73:291).
Gods can also be collectively referred to
with the constructions béné 7élim (Ps 29:1;
89:7), béné ?éloóhim (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1;
38:7; cf. Deut 32:8 4QDeut, see SKEHAN
1954), or béné *Elyón (Ps 82:6). The latter
expression (‘the sons of Elyon’) suggests
the possibility that the second element of thc
construction be understood as a proper name
of a single deity, so that the expressions
compare with Ug and Phoen bn il(m) 'the
sons of El’ (MULLEN 1980:117-119; KAI
no. 26A iii 19, and commentary in KA II, p.
43). In view of the Ugaritic formula, the
plural ?é/f»m in Pss 29:1 and 89:7 may have
to be interpreted as the proper name El fol-
lowed by enclitic mem. The expression ‘ădat
'él (‘the council of El’, Ps 82:1) might be
taken in corroboration of that possibility
(Council).
II. The main cultures surrounding
ancient Israel have each developed special
vocables for the notion of deity. Though
these words are currently rendered as ‘god’
by modem translators, it should not be as-
sumed that the ancient Near Eastern concep-
tions of ‘god’ are in perfect correspondence
with those of modern people. It is therefore
essential not to stop short at the mere trans-
lation of the terms, but to probe their signifi-
cance and connotations by a careful study of
the way and the context in which they have
been used.
In Egypt the customary word for god is
ntr. The word occurs as an element in the
new name Pharaoh gave to Joseph (Gen
41:45): Zaphenath-paneah, MSNS, is
interpreted by Egyptologists as dd-p3-ntr-
iwf-‘nh, ‘God has said: he will live’ (H.
RANKE, Die dgyptischen Personennamen,
Vol. 2 [GlückstadVHamburg 1952] 334). Nir
is conventionally pronounced as ‘neter’,
though the Coptic noyte makes an original
pronunciation ‘natir’ more likely (HORNUNG
1971:30). The etymology of the term is
uncertain; so is the original significance of
the hicroglyph for ntr: speculation about the
one or the other gives no assured indication
as to the nature of the gods (contrast WEs-
TENDORF 1985). lt seems more relevant to
note that the word is applied to gods, kings,
and the dead. The same holds true of the
adjective ntry, ‘divine’ (TRAUNECKER 1992:
34-35), which may also be used with ref-
erence to animals and inanimate objects. All
beings and objects that participate in the
sphere of the sacred (dsr; for the distinction
between profane and sacred, see ASSMANN
1984:9-10) are ‘gods’, and thus ‘divine’. It
has been suggested that in the Egyptian con-
ception divinity is not an essential but an
accidental quality: one becomes and remains
‘god’ or ‘divine’ only by means of certain
rites (MEEK 1988). While this is perhaps put
too boldly, it is certainly true that the di-
353
GOD (1)
viding line between gods and humans is not
absolute. Also, some gods are more ‘divine’
than others; thus ~Isis is said to surpass the
other gods when it comes to divinity
(HORNUNG 1971:53).
Many of the characteristics of gods are
not exclusively theirs: gods are said to be
‘great’, ‘powerful’, ‘strong’, ‘beautiful’ (nfr),
‘compassionate’, ‘exalted’, and ‘righteous’.
A survey of this short list shows that the
qualities of gods are basically those of
humans; the former possess them merely in
purer form than the fatter. What actually
raises the gods above ordinary mortals is
primarily their power; a goddess can be
more divine than her peers if she is more
powerful. This power, however, was pre-
carious; concentrated in the name of the
god, it could be lost if the secret of the
name were divulged (TRAUNECKER 1992:36-
38).
Gods were believed to be recognizable by
their scent and radiance: they had the pen-
etrating smell of incense, stirring humans
out of their sleep (HORNUNG 1971:122-123);
their radiance is that of polished gold. Both
elements are based on the reality of the
temple cult, in which the brilliant images of
the gods stood erect in a cloud of incense.
Between these images and the gods they
represented there was believed to be a close
correspondence. The appearance of gods was
believed to be accompanied, moreover, by
such phenomena as storm, thunder, and
earthquake—the traditional elements in
theophany descriptions. In exceptional cases
the appearance of humans (e.g. the king)
was thought to produce similar effects.
In order to define the relation between
divine cssence and manifestation the Egypt-
ian theologians have had recourse to a num-
ber of notions, the precise meaning of which
is sometimes still obscure. An important
aspect of the gods is their ba. The ba (b3),
often translated ‘soul’, is an hypostasis of
the gods (or the dead) in their capacity to
move from one realm (one reality, one plane
of being) to another. Thus the dead are pres-
ent among the living as ba'u (the plural of
ba), iconographically rendered as birds. The
ba of the god is his visible face to humans.
Thus the night is the ba of Kek, the deified
obscurity; water is the ba of Nun, the pri-
maeval ocean. Though the ba is distin-
guished from the god, the god is really pres-
ent in his ba. The example shows that the
Egyptians had by no means crude notions of
the gods; on the contrary, they developed a
sophisticated theology rich with distinctions
no less subtle than the Deuteronomistic dis-
tinction between God and his -*name or his
glory.
It should be stressed that the Egyptian
gods are not eternal, not all-seeing and all-
knowing, and not all-powerful. The gods are
not eternal because they have a beginning
and an end; gods are born and eventually
die. The birth of -*Horus is a well-known
mythological theme; yet birth is an experi-
encc all gods have gone through. Similarly,
the death of -*Osiris is a constant theme in
mythological material; yet decrepitude and
death (which in the Egyptian conception is
not the same as complete annihilation) await
all gods. Gods are entangled in the cycle of
life and death without which the world can-
not subsist. Their death is also a form of
regeneration and renewal. Likewise, gods
possess neither unlimited faculties of per-
ception nor absolute powers of action. Some
are credited with many ears and many eyes;
yet omniscience is out of their reach. The
power of the gods is exalted, yet circum-
scribed: it is limited to a topographical area
or a specific field of action. In their abilities
and qualities gods are superior to humans,
yet not infinitely superior.
Owing to the nature of the extant sources
an outline of the development in the Egypt-
ian notion of god is a hazardous endeavour.
The once popular view that the anthropo-
morphic vision of the gods was preceded by
a theriomorphic and a chrematomorphic
stage (the thesis of the Vermenschlichung
der Müchte championed by Kurt Sethe) is
now either abandoned or radically modified.
In the historically recoverable phases of the
Egyptian vision of the gods, an anthropo-
morphic element has always been present.
Yet it would be misleading to picture the
354
GOD (1)
Egyptian theology as a stagnant pool; there
is change and movement, though often
difficult to perceive because of the strongly
conservative nature of the written sources.
One development many researchers agree
upon is the increasing transcendency ascribed
to the gods. This aspect comes to the fore in
statements about the invisibility and inscru-
tability of the gods, on the one hand, and the
tendency towards an inclusive monotheism
(all gods are aspects of the one god), on the
other (ASSMANN 1979).
The preceding observation is a reminder
of the fundamentally polytheistic nature of
the Egyptian theology. Also in the later
monotheistic tendencies, evidenced for in-
stance in the figure of -Bes pantheos, the
existence of a plurality of gods remains a
postulated reality. Such polytheism was not
particular to the Egyptians, of course. It was
the rule in the ancient Near East. Except for
the brief interlude of Echnaton (ca. 1365-
1345), the king who preached that there was
no god but Aton (cf. ASSMANN 1972), the
Egyptian culture adhered to the notion of
polytheism. Yet the monotheism of Echna-
ton is indicative of another aspect of the
Egyptian theology, perhaps an undercurrent,
which emphasizes the existence of one god
transcending all others. Whether this all-
embracing god is to be imagined as a person
or an abstract (the one divine nature from
which all gods draw their essence), remains
often unclear. The tension between a latent
(and incidentally patent) monothcism and
the traditionally pluralistic view of the di-
vine world might be considered a major
force in the development of the Egyptian
theology.
A factor that was both formative and con-
servative for the vision of the gods as a plu-
rality is the cosmological aspect of many
Egyptian deities. As individuals and collec-
tively, the Egyptians felt inferior to and
dependent upon the powers of nature. Awed
by the world around them, the Egyptians
conceived of its elements as gods; gods in
the plural because the cosmos was experi-
enced as a play in which many actors had a
part. The world of the gods mirrored the
phenomenal world. To reduce this richly
variegated reality to a single divine being
would have seemed an intolerable impover-
ishment. Faced with the choice between the
one and the many, the Egyptians—like the
Mesopotamians and the Greeks—opted for
the many. Yet at the same time some kind
of unity among the gods is never absent;
they all partake of the same divine essence.
Individual gods could have many names and
epithets; yet the same names and epithets
were sometimes applied to other gods.
Though the divine plurality was always
retained, the distinctive traits of the gods
remained fluid; they frequently constituted
syncretistic compounds (in addition to
->Amun and -*Re there is Amun-Re) and
could eventually be viewed as aspects or
manifestations of the one deity behind all
gods (HoRNuUNG 1971).
Another factor that favoured the pluralist
conception of deity was the phenomenon of
the city gods. No country in the ancient
Near East was as densely dotted with
temples as Egypt. The gods dwelling in
these earthly abodes were considered to be
the lords and owners of the land. In this
respect, they had a political and a topo-
graphical dimension. Human rulers owed
their mandate to the gods; they exercised
authority in licu and by the grace of the
gods. As the totality of the gods stood for
the notion of ‘Egypt’, so the individual god
stood a symbol for the city where he had his
pied-à-terre. Each Egyptian city was the city
of a god, a view that still transpires from
some of the Hellenic place-names: Hermo-
polis, Heliopolis, and Panopolis are inter-
pretationes graecae of a truly Egyptian con-
cept. The citizen was expected to loyally
serve the god or goddess of the city; thus a
citizen of Hermopolis would have Hermes
(Thoth) for a personal god (ASSMANN
1984:26-35). Political fragmentation and
plurality, then, are reflected in the pantheon.
It is perhaps even permitted to say that the
tension between the one and the many in the
Egyptian conception of god mirrors a com-
parable tension between political unity and
local autonomy.
355
GOD (1)
An arresting phenomenon in the religious
literature is the occurrence of the word for
god ntr in contexts that do not specify
which particular god is meant. Translators
usually render ‘the god'—a distinct possibil-
ity since Egyptian dispenses, as a rule, with
the article, whether definite or indefinite (cf.
A. GARDINER, Egyptian Grammar [Oxford?
1957] § 21). This absolute use of the word
‘god’ is particularly at home in the wisdom
literature, both in such collections of pre-
cepts and counsels as the Teachings of
Amenemope, and in theodicy texts such as
the Admonitions of Ipuwer and the In-
structions of Merikare. Though it has been
suggested that the ‘god’ of the wisdom
teachers is an anonymous monotheos (e.g.
VERGOTE 1963), this can hardly be the case.
The Counsels of Ani, for instance, advise
the reader to observe the rites of ‘the god’,
which shows that a definite god must be
meant, since there was no cult of an anony-
mous high-god in Egypt (HORNUNG 1971:
41) The unspecified nir is rather to be
understood as "the god with whom you have
to reckon in the circumstances" (FRANKFORT
1948:67).
In the study of the Mesopotamian con-
ception of the gods, it is not unusual to
make a distinction between the Sumerian
and the Akkadian side of the matter—
Sumerian being the language spoken by the
third millennium Bce inhabitants of the
country, Akkadian being the language of the
Assyrians and the Babylonians in the second
and first millennia BCE. Though necessary
from a linguistic point of view, the distinc-
tion is not self-evident in terms of culture.
The Babylonians and Assyrians inherited the
Sumerian culture; they adopted and devel-
oped it, but this by itself was nothing new:
accretions and modifications did also occur
before 2000 sce. There is no clash between
ethnic groups, and no revolutionary change
of cultural or religious paradigm (cf. Jacos-
SEN 1970:187-192). The Sumerian and Ak-
kadian material will therefore jointly be
dealt with.
Though neither the Sumerian word dingir
(‘god’) nor the Akkadian term ilu (‘god’)
can illuminate the nature of the Mesop-
Otamian conception of god, the cuneiform
sign used for these words offers a first point
of orientation. The oldest forms show that it
is a schematic representation of a -*star,
which may be taken to mean that -*heaven
was seen as the proper domain of the gods.
Yet Mesopotamian gods are not by
definition celestial. Mythology knows in fact
two locations of the gods: on high in
heaven, and down below beneath thc
earth. Since the latter realm is included in
the word for ‘earth’ (Sum ki, Akk ersetu),
the standard reference to the pantheon as
‘the gods of heaven and earth’ should be
understood to mean ‘the gods of the heaven
and the nether world’. An elaborate theology
of the dwelling-places of the gods is found
in Enuma elish: as -*Marduk had defeated
Tiamat, he built the heavenly Esharra
temple as a replica of the Apsu temple
(Ends of the earth) located in the waters
beneath the earth (Ee IV 135-145), the
earthly abodes of the gods are temporary
homes, visited by them when the gods of
below and on high meet for their annual
assembly in the “Gate of the gods’, as
Babylon was theologically etymologized (Ee
V 113-130).
Many of the observations made about the
Egyptian conception of the gods hold good
as well for the Mesopotamian theology. The
Mesopotamian gods, too, are closely asso-
ciated with elements of the cosmos. In the
earliest documents of Mesopotamian thcol-
ogy, the so-called god lists (cf. LAMBERT
1957-71; MANDER 1986), pride of place is
given to such gods as An, Enlil, Inanna,
Enki, Nanna, and Utu. They bear Sumerian
names that can be translated as, respectively,
‘Heaven’, ‘Lord Air’, ‘Mistress of Heaven’
(i.e. the planet Venus, visible as the evening
and the moming star), ‘Lord Earth’,
—'Moon'. and 'Sun'. With the exception of
Inanna (-*Ishtar), the compound names
(Enlil and Enki) are not genitival con-
structions; the deities in question, therefore,
are apparently identical with the cosmo-
logical phenomena with which they arc
associated. In the course of time it becomes
356
GOD (1)
clear, however, that the gods do not wholly
coincide with ‘their’ phenomena. By means
of the sign for ‘god’ (dingir, ilu) immedi-
ately preceding a term to mark it as a divine
name, it was possible to distinguish between
the sun as a natural phemenon and the Sun
as a god (T. JAcoBSEN, The Graven Image,
Ancient Israelite Religion (cd. P. D. Miller.
Jr. et al.; Philadelphia 1987] 15-32, esp. 18
and n. 7).
Most Mesopotamian gods, in addition to
being associated with certain natural or
cultural phenomena, were each linked with a
city. Each community had its own temple, in
which its particular god or goddess was
worshipped. An (later Anu) was the god of
Uruk, Enlil of Nippur, and Enki (Ea) of
Eridu. For reasons that are still elusive,
nearly every city had a different patron
deity; duplications are rare. This remarkable
distribution of the gods over the various
cities can hardly be accidental; it looks like
the implementation of an early agreement
and would thus seem to attest to the one
time existence of a Sumerian league (for this
'Kengir League' see JacoBsEN 1970:139-
141). The association of gods with cities
gave Mesopotamian theology a political
dimension: since a god's glory reflects on
his city, city theologians endeavoured to
promote their god to a superior position in
the divine hierarchy. The career of Marduk,
consolidated in Enuma elish, illustrates how
gods could rise in rank as their cities rose in
importance: listed as number 294 in a mid-
third millennium catalogue of gods (MAN-
DER 1986:29), Marduk had become ‘king of
the gods of heaven and earth’ by the end of
the second millennium (LAMBERT 1964;
1984).
In what has been described as the ‘city
theology’ of the Mesopotamians, the observ-
able monotheistic tendencies have a political
flavour as well. As the one city-state ex-
tended its sphere of influence, turning others
into its satellites, its god reduced those of
the others to subordinate deities. The redefi-
nition of their mutual relations could lead to
the absorption of the lesser deity by the
greater god: the former might live on as a
name or an aspect of the latter. In this pro-
cess, the god triumphant might add a num-
ber of new traits to his ‘biography’: thus
Marduk of Babylon became the son of Ea
(Sumerian Enki) by the identification with
Asalluhi of Kuar subsequent to the entry of
the latter village into the orbit of Babylon.
The merging of deities sometimes took
remarkable forms. The most arresting
examples are, once more, from the Marduk
theology. Thus a small god list, conceived in
the style of the classical ones, interprets a
number of important gods as facets of
Marduk: Ninurta (~Nimrod) is “Marduk of
the pickaxe”, Nergal is “Marduk of battle”,
Enlil is “Marduk of lordship and consul-
tations’, and Shamash is “Marduk of justice”
(LAMBERT 1975). Is this monotheism?
Considering the fact that similar statements
were made about gods other than Marduk it
was a local form of monotheism at best.
Since, moreover, the existence of other gods
was not denied, but rather integrated into an
overarching design, this monotheism should
be qualified as inclusive.
Because there is no Mesopotamian treat-
ise on the nature of the gods, the character-
istics that make gods stand apart from other
beings, and mark them off as divine, must
be culled from a variety of disparate
sources. Fundamental for the Mesopotamian
conception of the gods is their anthropo-
morphism: gods have human form, male or
female, and are moved by reasons and senti-
ments similar to those of humans. Their
divinity lies in the fact that they are in a
sense superhuman. They surpass humans in
size, beauty, knowledge, happiness, longev-
ity—briefly: in all things that were posi-
tively valued. When a god appears in a
dream, the sleeper typically sees “a young
man of gigantic size, with splendid limbs,
and clad in new garments" (Ludlul H1 9-10).
Size, beauty, power and vitality combine to
constitute the melammu which the gods
exude. This melammu is conceived of ma-
terially as an invisible raiment endowing the
gods with a terrifying lustre. Every being
endowed with melammu is a god or like a
god (Ee I 138; II 24; III 28). Since humans
357
GOD (1)
might possess such splendour as well,
though not with the same intensity, the
melammu might be compared with the nim-
bus from Christian iconography.
In addition to their association with natur-
al and cultural phenomena, as well as their
link with cities, Mesopotamian gods were
often thought to entertain a special relations-
hip with certain family groups or clans.
Though this ‘personal religion’ - ‘family
religion’ would be a better term — is not res-
tricted to Mesopotamia, the cuneiform evi-
dence for this type of religiosity is
unmatched in other ancient Near Eastern
civilizations. On the basis of references to
gods in cylinder seals, letters addressed to
the family god, references and allusions to
the family god in ordinary letters and inheri-
tance texts, it is possible to make a fairly
accurate assessment of the physiognomy of
Mesopotamian family religion. The family
god was normally a god with a sanctuary in
the neighbourhood of the family, or — in the
case of migrants — in the family's place of
origin. He (or she) was referred to as
*my/your' god', ‘the god of my/your father’,
or as ‘the god of my/your husband’. Venera-
tion for the family deity was inherited patri-
lineally: a woman worshipped the god of her
father or, after her marriage, the god of her
husband. Such family gods were held to be
the creators of the members of the family;
they protected the family and interceded on
their behalf with the higher deities when
necessary. Some family gods are reckoned
among the minor deities by modern scho-
lars; others belonged to the higher echelons
of the Mesopotamian pantheon. A very
similar type of religion existed in Syria,
Egypt, and Israel as well, even though it
must be reconstructed on the basis of fewer
and less explicit data (see VORLANDER
1975; ALBERTZ 1978; HIROTP 1.25-39, 94-
103; VAN DER ToorNn 1996).
Insouciance and a life of ease are other
characteristics of gods. Unlike humans, they
do not have to work for their daily bread. It
was precisely for that purpose that they had
created humankind, as the myths explain
(most notably Atrahasis). The temple cult,
performed by priests on behalf of the city,
has been aptly characterized as "the care and
feeding of the gods" (OPPENHEIM 1977:183-
198). Since all humankind is ultimately in
the service of the gods, the latter are able to
spend their days in a condition of gentle
slumber. Their sleep should not be mistaken
for impotence, however. Enlil, for instance,
is said to be sleeping a ‘deceptive’ (sarru)
sleep: at any moment he may wake up and
Start to rage like a roaring lion. Besides the
pleasures of a good meal and the attendant
drowsiness, the gods also know the pleas-
ures of the flesh. In cult and mythology, the
gods engage in intercourse—though often in
mysterious ways. In the event of conception,
the period of pregnancy lasts only nine days
after which the child is painlessly bom (B.
ALSTER, Enki and Ninhursag, UF 10 [1978]
15-27, esp. 17).
Of panicular interest for the Mesop-
otamian ideas about the nature of the gods is
the Epic of Gilgamesh. The subject of the
Epic has often been characterized as the
unsuccessful quest for immonality. It is
more correct to say that it is conceived as a
meditation upon the human condition; as the
originally independent Gilgamesh stories,
some of which are known from the Sumer-
ian tradition, were transformed into a gran-
diose tale, they were impressed with a
vision about humankind as being halfway
between the animals, on the one hand, and
the gods, on the other. Indirectly, then, the
epic is instructive for the Mesopotamian
view on the realm of the divine.
The hero of the epic, the legendary king
Gilgamesh, is presented as being two-thirds
divine and one-third human. His divinity is
evident from his length: according to the
Hittite version of the epic, Gilgamesh is 11
cubits (ca. 5 meter) tall (KUB VIII 57:8; see
J. FRIEDRICH, Die hethitischen Bruchstücke
des Gilgameš-Epos, ZA 39 (1930) 1-82, esp.
4-5). His gigantic proportions are clear,
moreover, from the fact that during the
march to the cedar forest Gilgamesh walks
fifty leagues (ca. S00 km) a day (Gilg. IV i
1*-5°). Gilgamesh’ special friend Enkidu is
of similar stature: he can drink seven whole
358
GOD (1)
jars of beer without detrimental effects
(Gilg. OB II ‘Pennsylvania Tablet’ iii 17-
19)—-a feat normally performed by gods
only. Enkidu too, then, is "like a god". as
the prostitute observes (Gilg. OB II *Penn-
sylvania Tablet’ ii 11).
In the Old Babylonian version of the
epic, Enkidu is likened to a god on account
of his size and beauty. In the Standard
Babylonian version, almost a thousand years
younger, the divinity of Enkidu consists not
in his size and stature, but in his wisdom
and experience. Enkidu has been trans-
formed into a human being through the
intercourse with a prostitute. The domestica-
tion of the savage is complete when the ani-
mals scatter at his sight: he is no longer onc
of them. Through the contact with the pros-
titute Enkidu has "extended his intellect"
(urappas hasisa, Gilg. SB 1 iv 29). As Enki-
du realizes he no longer belongs among ani-
mals, the prostitute explains: "You have
become wise ([en]-qa-ta), Enkidu, you have
become like a god; why should you roam
open country with wild beasts?" (Gilg. SB 1
iv 34-35). Wisdom obtained by experience
is precisely what characterizes Gilgamesh,
too, according to the SB prologue: "he ex-
perienced the whole and gained complete
wisdom" (Gilg. SB I i 4). This wisdom,
though possessed by humans, renders its
owners divine in a way. Deities excel in
wisdom and knowledge; humans who ac-
quire these things become like gods (cf. Gen
3:22 “the man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil").
Yet Enkidu and Gilgamesh are only di-
vine in part; they are not invulnerable: death
they cannot escape. Human mortality versus
divine immortality is indeed a major theme
in the epic. When Enkidu is frightened by
the prospect of the journey to the dangerous
cedar forest, Gilgamesh reminds him of the
human condition: “Who can go up to
heaven, my friend? Only the gods are for-
ever in the company of the Sun-god; as for
humankind: its days are numbered” (Gilg.
OB III ‘Yale Tablet’ iv 5-7). Human mortal-
ity is presented here as the distinctive differ-
ence: the lasting fame Gilgamesh hopes to
achieve is only a substitute of eternity (Gilg.
OB IlI ‘Yale Tablet’ iv 13). In contrast to
humans and animals, then, gods have access
to an abundance of vitality and life. “When
the gods created humankind, they gave
death to humankind; life they kept in their
own hands” (Gilg. OB X ‘Meissner Tablet
iii 3-5). Unlimited life is pictured as a divine
prerogative. Gods are eternal, not because
they live in a zone of timelessness, but
because they constantly renew themselves,
like stars (CAD E s.v. eddeSii).
It is no mere accident that the two-thirds
divine Gilgamesh is a king. Deification after
death, especially of kings, is nothing un-
usual in the Mesopotamian conception. Yet
the claim of divinity by, or its attribution to,
rulers during their lifetime is restricted to
certain periods of Mesopotamian history,
most notably the late third millennium BCE
(Cf. W. W. Harro, Early Mesopotamian
Royal Titles (New Haven 1957} 56-65).
Thus, on his seal, Naram-Sin refers to him-
self as ‘the god of Akkad’. It should be
stressed, though, that the deification of the
living king is exceptional. Kings, it is true,
are in many ways like gods. In the third and
second millennia BCE, people take an oath
by the life of the king as they take one by
the life of the gods; frequently, god and king
are mentioned in one breath in the oath for-
mula. Royal names are also found as theop-
horic elements in personal names, such as
Hammurabi-ili, 'Hammurabi-is-my-god', or
Iluni-Sarrum, ‘The king-is-our-god’. On Old
Babylonian seals, moreover, kings are some-
times mentioned in lieu of the family god,
and presumably served in that capacity. This
fact might be explained in part by reference
to the role of these kings as intermediaries
between their subjects and the gods, since
intercession was an activity expected from
family deities (VAN DER ToonN 1996:68.81
n. 88). A common characteristic of gods and
kings is their privileged access to informa-
tion and the possession of power to persuade
and punish. Power and authority, whether
real or perceived as such, are also responsi-
ble for the comparison of the royal com-
mand with the word spoken by a god. Allies
359
Gop (1)
of the king may call him god out of a sense
of dependence: similar in this to a god, the
king can extend protection. Appurtenance to
a venerable lineage, too, bestows a kind of
divinity upon the king; it makes him the
incarnation of an everlasting dynastic identi-
ty.
The fact that the analogy between god
and king may earn the latter the title of
‘god’, used in both a literal and a figurative
sense, is indicative of the relative nature of
divinity. As in Egypt, there is no absolute
chasm between human and divine. There has
been a time when the gods were human,
according to the famous opening line of the
Old Babylonian Atrahasis Myth (inima ilii
awllum). When LAMBERT'S restoration of the
relevant passage is correct, the myth looks
upon death as a postdiluvial institution
(1980:57-58). The same suggestion is con-
tained in the SB version of the Gilgamesh
Epic: after the apotheosis of the flood hero
(here Utanapishtim), the gods brought death
into the world (LAMBERT 1980:54-57). The
very point of difference between humans
and gods, then, is accidental rather than
essential; it was not there from the begin-
ning. According to this view, the separation
between the two realms has been a gradual
process: there once was a Golden Age, be-
fore the Flood, when gods and humans
moved in the same world. Under exceptional
circumstances, humans may still cross the
dividing line—especially after death.
In Canaanite religion (this term is com-
monly used to refer to Ugaritic religion as
well) the usual word for 'god' is Ug il, plu-
ral ilm, corresponding with Phoen ?/ and "Im.
The form ilh seems to be used only as a
proper name (-*Eloah), though there is a
plural form ilhm usually translated as
‘gods’; perhaps the term refers specifically
to the gods of the netherworld (PARDEE
1988:111). A similar form may be attested
at Emar, if wabil i-la-i should be interpreted
as wabil ilahi, ‘bearer of the gods [=statu-
es] (so J. HuEHNERGARD apud D. E.
FLEMING, The Installation of the High
Priestess at Emar (HSS 42; Atlanta 1992]
85 n. 56). Morphologically, this is the equiv-
alent of the Hebrew plural *é/dhim. Forms
occurring only in the plural are Ug ilnym
(cf. DEL OLMO LETE, Los nombres ‘divinos’
de los reyes de Ugarit, AulOr 5 [1987] 39-
69, esp. 63-64) and ilnm; the latter is also
attested in Phoenician. The Ugaritic word
for goddess is ilt, plural i/ht, dual iltm. Ara-
maic inscriptions have the form "//i and "It.
Typically West-Semitic, though not ex-
clusively so, is the use of the divine plural
where a single entity is concerned. In texts
that use the alphabetic script such plurals of
excellence are not readily recognizable.
Where the Akkadian writing system is used,
combining a syllabic script with various
logograms, plural forms are less ambiguous.
A good illustration of the plural of divinity
is found in the Amarna letters, where the
Pharaoh is repeatedly addressed by his
Canaanite vassals as DINGIR.MES-ia, literally
‘my gods’, but plainly referring to one per-
son only (Jirku 1938; cf. N. NA'AMAN,
DINGIR™S in the Amarna Letters, UF 22
[1990] 255). F. M. T. BónHr defines this
plural as a pluralis amplitudinis (Der
Sprache der Amarmabriefe [LSS V/2; Leip-
zig 1909] 823c). It also occurs as a desig-
nation of the personal god (EA 96:4; 97:3;
189 Rev. 13-14) in combination with a verb
in the singular; this phenomenon parallels
the Hebrew use of 'élóhim (BONL, Der
Sprache, $23f). A balanced assessment of
the significance of these data should take
into account, though, that the sign MES is
sometimes used as a logogram marker in
peripheral Akkadian (W. H. VAN SOLDT,
Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit [AOAT
40; Kevelacr/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991] 428-
429). There are some rare examples of a
pluralis divinitatis in Akkadian texts; most
of them betray West-Semitic influence (cf.
DALLEY 1989:164, 177 n. 11). Judging by
the Babylonian Theodicy (BWL 63-91),
however, it was not uncommon in Standard
Babylonian to refer to the personal god with
the plural form ‘gods’ (LAMBERT, BWL, 67).
Characteristically West-Semitic is the use
of the term 'gods' to designate the spirits of
the dead. The short hymn to Shapshu that
closes the Baal Cycle uses rpim (—Re-
360
GOD (1)
phaim) in parallelism with ilaym, and ilm in
parallelism with mtm (KTU1.6 vi 45-49; cf.
M. S. SmitH, The Early History of God [San
Francisco 1990] 128). At Emar, the plural
‘gods’ occurs in a fixed hendiadys: the heirs
are to invoke, to honour, and to care for ‘the
gods and the dead’ of their forebears. The
expression is best understood as a reference
to the deified ancestors (K. VAN DER TOORN,
Gods and Ancestors in Emar and Nuzi, ZA
84 [1994] 38-59). The Ugaritic figure of the
ilib belongs to the same complex of ideas:
the term does not stand for ‘the god of the
father’, as has sometimes been said, but
designates the ‘deified father’, i.e. the ances-
tral spirit (K. VAN DER Toor, Ilib and the
‘God of the Father’, UF 25 [1993] 379-387).
The literary heritage of Canaanite religion
is rarely explicit about the characteristics of
divinity. A frequent epithet of the gods is
qdš, ‘holy’; the pantheon of Byblos, for
instance, is referred to as ‘the assembly of
the holy gods of Byblos’ (mphrt 7! gbl qdim;
KAI 4:4-5, 7). The adjective is so intimately
associated with gods, that it is exceptionally
used absolutively. Thus the Arslan Tash
amulet mentions the dr kl qdsn, ‘the Council
of all the Holy Ones’ (NESE 2 [1974] 22-
23). It is against this background, perhaps,
that Ps 16:3 is to be understood (M.
Danoob, Psalms I [AB 16; Garden City
1965] 87-88). The precise meaning of *holi-
ness' is not specified in the texts. From a
comparative study it would seem that the
notion is the semantic equivalent of the
Mesopotamian idea of the divine melammu:
gods are holy in the sense that they exude
radiance, splendour, and luminosity.
Canaanite religion, like the Mesop-
otamian, distinguishes between gods of
heaven and gods of the underworld. The
typical abode of the gods in mythology.
however, is some place at the end of the
horizon. Mount ->Zaphon (modern Jebel cl-
Aqra, some 50 km North of Ugarit-Ras
Shamra) is inhabited by Baal and his en-
tourage. El lives at 'the source of the two
rivers'—presumably a reference to the
mythical place from which both the ocean
around and below the earth, and the ocean
above the heavens, take their water. Both
locations may be viewed as an attempt to
situate the gods at the outer limits of the
inhabited world: they are half-way between
immanence and transcendence.
One characteristic which the Canaanite
gods share with the Mesopotamian deities is
the possession of life everlasting. Though it
is doubtful whether this concept should be
translated in terms of absolute eternity, the
longevity of the gods represents a distinct
difference from humans. Not unlike the Gil-
gamesh Epic in this respect, the Epic of
Aqhat deals with the impossibility of
humans attaining the life of the gods. A
crucial episode in the Epic is the meeting
between -*Anat and Aghat. The goddess
wishes to obtain the bow of Aghat and tries
to make the hero part with it by holding out
the promise of life: "Ask for life (hym), o
hero Aghat, ask for life and I will give it to
you, immortality (blmr) and I will send it to
you. I will let you count the years with Baal,
with the sons of El (bn il) you will count the
months" (KTU 1.17.vi.26-29). Aqhat rejects
her proposal: "I shall die like all (humans)
die; yea, I shall surely die" (KTU 1.17.vi.
38). Unlike humans, gods (‘the sons of El’)
possess ‘life’ and ‘immortality’ (bling, lit-
erally ‘non-death’).
III. The Israelite concept of God shares
many traits with the beliefs of its neigh-
bours. The most fundamental correspon-
dence concerns the anthropomorphic nature
ascribed to God. God’s anthropomorphism
is extemal (anthropomorphism in the strict
sense of the term) as well as internal (also
known as anthropopathism). God possesses
hands, ears, a mouth, eyes, fingers, feet, and
other bodily parts. Largely lacking in the
Hebrew Bible are references to sexual char-
acteristics of God. Internal anthropomorph-
ism is at stake when God is said to be
moved by desires, feelings, and passions
closely resembling those of humans. Thus
God is said to be capable of feelings of
love, anger, jealousy, compassion, and the
like.
An anthropomorphic vision of God
underlies many of Israel's religious insti-
361
GOD (1)
tutions. The temple cult, for instance, can be
considered the Israclite version of ‘the care
and feeding of the gods’, to use Oppen-
heim's term. The temple in which God is
thought to reside may be viewed as his
earthly palace, conceived as a replica of his
royal mansion on high. Here he wishes to
dwell protected from noise (Ps 65:2; cf. 1
Kgs 6:7) and sunlight (1 Kgs 8:12). The
sacrifices that are brought were originally
meant as God's food (leliem, e.g. Lev 21:
21); the morning and the evening sacrifice
of God (Exod 29:41; Ps 141:2) are modelled
after the morning and the evening meal of
humans. Meanwhile incense is burned; God
is also anthropomorphic in this respect that
he is sensitive to a pleasant smell (réah
nilióah, e.g. Exod 29:41). His servants have
to be pleasing to the eye as well: no priest
*who has a blemish' is to appear before God
(Lev 21:17).
Over against the anthropomorphism of
God found in the Hebrew Bible, there are
those texts that stress the difference between
God's divinity and man's humanity. The
opposition can assume different nuances.
"God is not a man that he should lie, nor a
son of man that he should repent" (Num
23:19). The expressions ‘man’ (75) and ‘son
of man’ (ben-’adam) are used here adjec-
tivally; they could be translated as ‘human’.
The noun ‘God’ occurs likewise as an adjec-
tive, and may be so rendered, in such texts
as Isa 31:3 “The Egyptians are human
(ddam), and not divine (él, and their
horses are flesh and not spirit." A closer
look at these examples shows that the oppo-
sition does not invalidate the idea of divine
anthropomorphism. God’s qualities are hu-
man qualities, yet purified from imperfection
and amplified to superhuman dimensions.
Sincerity and reliability are human virtues—
even if only God is wholly sincere and reli-
able. Strength, too. is not the exclusive
prerogative of God; he is merely incompar-
ably stronger than humans or animals.
In view of the passages dwelling upon
the contrast between God and man, the
thesis of God's anthropomorphism should
be modified in this sense that God is more
than human. Though man has been created
in the image of God (a proposition the his-
torian of rcligion might be tempted to re-
verse), there is a huge difference of de-
gree—yet not of nature. In this respect the
view found in the Hebrew Bible does not
radically differ from the conviction concern-
ing the similarity between gods and humans
in the Babylonian Atrahasis myth. God has
human form, but not human size. In visions,
God proves to be so high and exalted that
the earthly temple can barely contain the
fringes of his mantle (Isa 6:1). Gates have to
lift their heads when God enters Jerusalem
(Ps 24:7.9). In addition to his physical size
(which transcends even the highest heaven,
| Kgs 8:27). God surpasses humans in such
aspects as wisdom (Job 32:13) and power
(Ezek 28:9). His divine superiority also has
a moral side: God excels in righteousness
(Job 4:17; 9:2; 25:4), faithfulness (e.g. Deut
32:4), and other moral qualities.
The notion that gods are celestial beings,
wide-spread in the ancient Near East, is also
found in the Bible. It is often connected
with the idea of God’s extraordinary powers
of vision and intervention. “Our God is in
the heavens; he does whatever he pleases”
(Ps 115:3). From his exalted abode he looks
with an ever-watchful eye at the doings of
humankind. When they revolt against the
divinely appointed monarch, “He who sits in
heaven laughs in derision” (Ps 2:4). Since
heaven is a place to which humans have no
access—at least not during their lifetime (cf.
VAN DER TOORKN 1988)—, the heavenly
nature of God is another reason why he
transcends humans. Especially in the later
sections of the Hebrew Bible, God is
typically ‘the God of Heavens’ (’éléhé
hassámayim, e.g. Neh 1:4). The expression
may have been influenced by Mazdaism, or
by the worship of Baal as -*Baal-shamem.,
but it is not at odds with earlier views.
A concept connected with God's celestial
nature is his invisibility; this concept is em-
phatically present in later texts. Deutero-
nomy stresses that the Israelites did not see
God’s form at the Mountain, but merely
heard his voice (Deut 4:12.15). Also God
362
GoD (1)
spoke from heaven, not from the mountain
top (Deut 4:36). These statements bespeak a
sense of divine transcendence more acute
than in some of the Exodus accounts. The
same tendency is manifest in other passages.
Man-made idols are there for all to see; yet
God is divine in that he is a God "who hides
himself” (Isa 45:15). Humans cannot see
God because he is in heaven and they are on
earth (Ps 115:2-3.16). Under normal circum-
stances, humans cannot sce God and remain
alive (Exod 33:20). Even Moses, in one tra-
dition, has his eyes covered by God's hand
when God passes by; he catches a glimpse
only of God's back (Exod 33:21-23).
God's invisibility might be interpreted as
a radicalization of his ->glory. The Mesop-
otamian concept of melammu has a counter-
part in the Hebrew Bible in the notion of
kabéd, ‘glory’. This glory is a luminosity
which both frightens and fascinates; it is, in
terms of Rudolph Otto, truly numinous.
Since radiance and splendour are part of the
notion of God's glory, the association
between God and -light (ôr) does not
come as a surprise. God can be said to
‘shine forth’ (Aépia‘, Deut 33:2), to ‘flash
up’ (ZRH, Isa 60:2), and to ‘shine’ (NGH, 2
Sam 22:29; Isa 4:5), verbs usually con-
nected with the sun. Like the sun, God is
all-secing and all-knowing; his eyes bring
‘hidden sins’ to the light (Ps 19:13). This
solar imagery may have favoured the devel-
opment of the concept of God's invisibility:
just as no-one can look at the midday sun
for a sustained period of time, so no-one can
see God and not lose his sight. The light
Cór) with which God is covered like a gar-
ment (Ps 104:2) is increasingly conceived of
as 'an unapproachable light! (605 àrpóo-
vtov, ] Tim 6:16).
The Hebrew Bible has no proper word for
‘goddess’: in 1 Kgs 11:5 Ashtoreth (a dys-
phemic vocalisation for —Astarte) is called
the *élohimn of the Sidonians (cf. Joüon/
Muraoka § 134d) This lexicographical
observation should not be interpreted to
mean that the Israelites did not recognize
any goddess alongside Yahweh. The inscrip-
tions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet cl-
Qom show otherwise (-*Asherah) It is
mainly due to the theological bias of the
editors of the Hebrew Bible—those who
selected the texts, and who corrected them if
need be—that many goddesses have been
condemned to oblivion (cf. O. KEEL & C.
UEHLINGER, Géttinnen, Götter und Gottes-
symbole |Freiburg/Base/Wien 1992)).
The one great difference between the
Israelite conception of God and the beliefs
of its neighbours is usually considered to be
the notion of monotheism. The belief that
there is only one God, it is often suggested,
overshadows all possible similarities and
reduces them to superficial resemblances.
This position is open to criticism. Whilst
monotheism eventually became a distinctive
trait of Israelite religion, it cannot be iso-
lated from its historical milicu. It is no coin-
cidence that the anonymous author of Isaiah
40-55, traditionally regarded as the cham-
pion of Israelite monotheism, is known as a
vehement critic of Babylonian idol worship.
His monotheism has an anti-Babylonian
edge. Such monotheism—assuming it really
is monotheism—should not be interpreted as
the answer of a great mind to an intellectual
problem. It is too closely tied up with pol-
itical and cultural interests to be considered
a dispassionate theological statement. There
can be no question of true monotheism, in
the philosophical sense of the word, as long
as the belief in other heavenly beings
(>'sons of God’) is not eschewed. Only
when the subordinate deities are degraded to
-angels, created by the God they serve, can
one speak of monothcism.
Since the demarcation lines between
human and divine are not as clearly drawn
in the ancient Near East as they are in many
current religions, the word ’éléhim can be
used in the sense of ‘divine’ or ‘extraordi-
nary’. It is doubtful, however, whether in
these instances the word is used merely as a
superlative. The ritah ’éléhin of Gen 1:2 is
perhaps not ‘the spirit of God’, but it is
hardly to be rendered as ‘a terrible storm’
either. It is best translated as ‘a divine
wind’; similarly, the Aerdat ?élóhim men-
tioned in 1 Sam 14:15 is indeed a ‘divinely
363
GOD (1)
inspired panic’. Such use of the pural ‘gods’
in the meaning ‘divine’ is also known in
Akkadian: the Saturri DINGIR.MES mentioned
in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic is a ‘divine
womb’ (W. G. LAMBERT, AfO 18 [19] 50 F
col. Y 9).
Related to the adjectival use of ’éléhim
for something out of the ordinary is the
occurrence of the term for the spirits of
the dead. The one indubitable instance of
this use is found in | Sam 28:13 where the
ghost of Samuel is described as "eélóhim
“coming up from the earth”. Another text
often adduced in example is Isa 8:19;
though probably correct, the interpretation
of ?élóhim as ‘spirits of the dead’ in this
case is not obligatory. Perhaps the term
?élóliim in Mic 3:7 should be understood as
‘spirits’, too, since the passage deals with
‘soothsayers’ (qósémím), usually a term for
necromancers (cf. VAN DER ToonRN 1990:
213-214). A text seldom quoted in this con-
nection is Exod 21:6 which says that the
slave who waives his right of manumission
and enters his master’s household for good
is to be brought ‘to the gods’ (Exod 21:6).
A commentator has added that the man shall
be brought ‘to the door or to the doorpost’,
perhaps the place where the ‘gods’ were
thought to reside. These ‘gods’ are probably
to be identified with the family ancestors (H.
NiEHR, Ein unerkannter Text zur Nekro-
mantie in Isracl, UF 23 [1991] 301-306, esp.
304). Considering the fact that the ex-
pression 'inheritance of the gods' (nahálat
'élóhim, 2 Sam 14:16) is a parallel to the
‘inheritance of the fathers’ (nahdlat "abót), it
may be that ’él6him in 2 Sam 14:16, too,
refers to the (deified) ancestors (T. J. Lewis,
The Ancestral Estate (nahdlat "elóhim) in 2
Samuel 14:16, JBL 110 [1991] 597-612).
IV. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Persönliche Frömmigkeit und
offizielle Religion (CTM 9; Stuttgart 1978);
J. ASSMANN, Die ‘Hiresie’ des Echnaton
von Amama. Aspekte der Amarna-Religion,
Saeculum 22 (1972) 109-126; ASSMANN,
Primat und Transzendenz. Struktur und
Genese der Agyptüschen Vorstellung cines
“Höchsten Wesens”, Aspekte der spätägyp-
tischen Religion (ed. W. Westendorf, GOF
9; Wiesbaden 1979) 7-42; ASSMANN, Ägyp-
ten. Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frü-
hen Hochkultur (Stuttgart 1984); J. BLACK
& A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and Symbols of
Ancient Mesopotamia (London 1992); E.
Cassin, La splendeur divine (Paris/The
Hague 1968); S. DALLey, Myths from
Mesopotamia (Oxford/New York 1989); H.
FRANKFORT, Ancient Egyptian Religion
(Chicago 1948); E. HORNUNG, Der Eine und
die Vielen. Ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen
(Darmstadt 1971) tr. by J. BAINES as Con-
ceptions of God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca
1982; London 1983): T. JACOBSEN, Towards
the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on
Mesopotamian History and Culture (ed. W.
L. Moran; Cambridge, Mass. 1970); JACOB-
SEN, The Treasures of Darkness. A History
of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven/
London 1976) A. JirKu, Elohim als
Bezcichnung einer Gottheit, RLA 2 (1938)
358; W. G. LAMBERT, The Reign of
Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the
History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,
The Seed of Wisdom (ed. W. S. McCullough;
Toronto 1964) 3-13; LAMBERT, Gétterlisten,
RLA 3 (1957-71) 473-479; LAMBERT, The
Historical Development of the Mesopot-
amian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated
Polytheism, Unity and Diversity. Essays in
the History, Literature, and Religion of the
Ancient Near East (ed. H. Goedicke & J. J.
M. Roberts; Baltimore/London 1975) 191-
200; LAMBERT, The Theology of Death,
Death in Mesopotamia (CRRA 26; ed. B.
Alster; Copenhagen 1980) 53-66; LAMBERT,
Studies in Marduk, BSOAS 47 (1984) 1-9; P.
MANDER, Jl pantheon di Abu-Salabikh
(Napoli 1986); D. MEEK, Notion de ‘dieu’ et
structure du panthéon dans l'Egypte an-
cienne, RHR 205 (1988) 425-446; E. T.
MULLEN, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods.
The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early
Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico 1980);
A. L. OPPENHEIM, Ancient Mesopotamia:
Portait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago/
London 1977) 171-227; D. PARDEE, Les
textes para-mythologiques de la 24e cam-
pagne (1961) (Paris 1988); H. RINGGREN,
364
GOD (11)
DON, TWAT | (1970-73) 285-305; D. P.
SILVERMAN, Divinities and Deities in
Ancient Egypt, Religion in Ancient Egypt
(ed. B. E. Shafer; London 1991) 7-87; P. W.
SKEHAN, A Fragment of the ‘Song of
Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran, BASOR
136 (1954), 12-15; K. VAN DER TOORN,
“De mens kan niet ten hemel klimmen, noch
afdalen naar het dodenrijk” (Inaugural lec-
ture; Utrecht 1988); VAN DER Toorn, The
Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light
of the Cuneiform Sources, CBQ 52 (1990)
203-222; VAN DER TooRN, Theologies,
Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient
Israel, CANE 3 (1995) 2043-2058; VAN DER
ToonN, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria
and Israel (SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996); C.
TRAUNECKER, Les dieux d'Egypte (Paris
1992); J. VERGOTE, La notion de Dieu dans
les livres de sagesse égyptiens, Les sagesses
du Proche-Orient ancien (J. Leclant et al.;
Paris 1963), 153-190; H. VORLÄNDER, Mein
Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persónlichen
Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testa-
ment (AOAT 23; Kevelaer, Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1975); W. WESTENDORF, Das Auf-
kommen der Gottesvorstellung im Alten
Ägypten (Göttingen 1985); F. A. M. Wic-
GERMANN, Theologies, Priests, and Worship
in Ancient Mesopotamia, CANE 3 (1995)
1857-1870.
K. VAN DER TOORN
GOD (HI) Oeds
I. The word 0£óg occurs 5302 times in
the Greek Bible: 3984 occurrences in the
LXX and 1318 in the NT. In almost all of
these instances the word refers to the God of
Israel, ^^Yahweh (and of course in the plu-
ral to pagan gods); some exceptions will be
discussed below. In Greek literature the
terms O€dc, o O£óc. Ocoi, oi Geoi, and later
also 1ó @eiov, are often used without much
difference in meaning (GicoN 1965:194).
The word is of uncertain etymology. The
only aspect to be dealt with in this entry is
the use of the word @ed¢ (and deus) in
ancient literature and its difference from
biblical usage (on the causes of the lack of a
comprehensive theology among pagan
Greeks and Romans [except in Neoplaton-
ism] see Dorrie 1983).
II. In pagan Greek literature the use of
the word @e0¢ is markedly different from
what we find in the Bible. The difference is
not only that 6cóg is applied by the Greeks
to a plurality of personal divine beings, but
also that often the word is used for human
beings and impersonal objects and even ab-
stract concepts that would not readily be
called @ed¢ (or Ogoi) in the monotheistic
Judaeo-Christian tradition (cf. W. ScHor-
TROFF, Gottmensch I, RAC 12 (1983] 210-
211). The same applies to the use of deus in
pagan Latin literature. Both terms are pre-
dominantly used as a predicate (WILAMO-
wiTZ 1931:1 17), unlike in biblical usage
(KLEINKNECHT 1938:68 remarks that an
ancient Greek would never have said, “God
is love” (I John 4:16], but "Love is god"; cf.
VERDENIUS 1954:244: "Der griechische
Gott ist nicht góttlich, weil er Gott ist, son-
dern er ist Gott, weil er etwas Góttliches
ist"). From early times onwards the Greeks
regarded certain individuals as more than
human and could call them O6óg, either
unreservedly or with reference to themselves
("he is a god to me’ [cf. here Exod 4:16 and
7:1, exceptional in the Bible!]) If one
recognized in a person the essential charac-
teristics of a particular god, one might call
him by the name of that god, again either
unreservedly or only with reference to one-
self. “To the ancients the line of demarca-
tion between god and man was not as con-
stant and sharp, or the interval as wide, as
we naturally think” (NocK 1972:145). There
were, however, no institutional controls and
no uncontroversial criteria for the use of the
word ‘god’ (Price 1984:81). Throughout
Greek literature we find the use of @e6¢ and
Beoi to denote the incalculable non-human
element in phenomena, and of @e6¢ for any-
thing out of the ordinary (cf. the statement
in a 2nd cent. CE papyrus quoted by PRICE
1984:95: ti Ged¢; tò xpatovv, ‘What is a
god? That which exercises power’). Also the
abstract tò Belov becomes finally an expres-
sion for the irrational in human life, that
365
GOD (i1)
which cannot be explained by natural
causes, or for anything seemingly exempt
from decay and other human limitations. For
instance, exceptional physical beauty could
be sufficient reason to bestow the predicate
@edg upon a person (Charax, FGH 103F13;
cf. Diogenes Laertius X 5). Cicero calls the
consul Lentulus parens, deus, salus nostrae
vitae (Post reditum ad populum 11; cf. Pro
Sexto 144), and he calls Plato deus ille
noster (Ad Atticum IV 16,3; cf. De natura
deorum || 12, 32; Leges lll 1; and the
remarks on this usage by Augustine, Contra
Julianum Pelag. IV 76). Terence, Adelphi
535, has onc of his characters say: facio te
apud illum deum; virtutes narro. Aristotle,
Politica IIl 13 (1284a7-12), remarks that, if
a person has really superior qualities, in-
justice will be done to him if he is reckoned
only as the equal of those who are far in-
ferior to him in excellence and in capacity:
"Such a man: may truly be deemed a god
among men". It is for that reason that in the
writings of the Neoplatonists their great
Plato is so frequently designated as 0£óg or
0ciog (see the excellent note in PEASE
1968:619-620). The Platonist Arcesilaos
calls the philosophers Crates and Polemon
0goi tiveg (Diogenes Laertius IV 22). In
Heliodorus, Aethiopica IV 7,8, a successful
doctor is called owtnp xai @edc¢ (for more
instances see BAUER-ALAND 727). It is
striking to find still a clear instance of this
usage even in a second century Christian
document, the Epistle to Diognetus, when it
states: “Whoever takes upon himself his
neighbour's burden, whoever wishes to
benefit another who is worse off in some-
thing in which he himself is better off,
whoever provides to those in need things
that he has received from God, and thus
becomes a god to those who receive them,
this one is an imitator of God" (10:6). For
the application of this usage of 8&óg in the
hero- and ruler cult, see -^Heros and
-Rulercult (with DóRRIE 1983:95-98, 139-
141, and Price 1984).
Also non-personal concepts and events
(among the Pythagoreans even numbers)
could be designated @ed¢. Already Hesiod
says, after having pictured the power of
Onn (rumour), that it is a @ed¢ (Erga 764).
Aeschylus, Choephoroi 59-60, has the
chorus say that for some men good luck is a
god or even more than a god (10 5 evtuy-
€lv, tó5 év fporoig Beds te Kal OcoU
rÀéov). Sophocles, fragm. 922 Radt, says
that ópóvnoig ayoOr is a great god. Euri-
pides has Helen, when in a critical situation
she recognizes her husband Menelaus, say to
him in her joy that recognizing friends is
‘god’ (@ eoi, Beds yap Kal tò ytyvóoxeiv
diAous, Helena 560). In Euripides’ Orestes
399 a great grief is called a terrible goddess
(Sev Gedc), and in his satyrplay, Cyclops
316, the protagonist says that for wise men
wealth is a god. The tragedian Hippothoon
(fragm. 2) calls envy a most wicked god.
"Prüdiziert wird immer cine dem Menschen
überlegene Macht" (WitAMowrrz 1931:1
18). Therefore, Menander says (fragm. 223
Kórte-Thierfelder in Stobacus, Eclogae III
32, 11, and Artemidorus, Oneirocritica Il
36): everything that is powerful is regarded
as a god (10 xpatovv yap xav [or: viv]
vopiCetat Beds); cf. also the expression tà
toU 0£00 for ‘the weather’ in Theophrastus’
Charakteres 25:2, the identification of wine
with the god —>Dionysus (DöRRIE 1983:109-
110), and the expression oi xpeitrovec, 'the
stronger ones', for the gods. Finally an
example from the Roman world, where
Pliny the Elder presents us with the follow-
ing definition: when a mortal helps a mortal,
that is god (deus est mortali iuvare morta-
lem; Naturalis Historia II 18). It. would
seem that sometimes @edc (and deus) means
little more than ‘god-given’.
Although deification of personified ab-
stractions does occur from Hesiod onwards,
in general it can be said that during the
archaic and classical period this phenom-
enon was relatively rare. But in the fourth
century BCE and in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods an unbridled growth of
*Kultpersonifikationen' can be witnessed
(Nitsson 1952; HamporF 1964; cf. also
NESTLE 1933:21-23; DöÖRrRIE 1983:117-
118). PórscHER (1959), however, has right-
ly pointed out that the term ‘personification’
366
GOD (i1)
should be used with caution. since in the
ancient *Person-Bereichdenken' the work of
the god and the god who works are identi-
cal: his person and his 'domain' coincide
and form a synthetic unity. It is for that
reason that it is often very hard to decide
whether in text-editions one has to print
“Apns or apns. Ij or yn, Aixm or dixn,
"HAtos or Hos. Moreover, it is often hard
to establish whether the mention of a deified
abstraction in an ancient source always im-
plies a real cult or is just a metaphor. A very
great number of deified abstractions is at-
tested (see DEUBNER 1909), the following
of which occur also in the Greck Bible,
albeit almost never personified: Aidos
(^Bashtu), Anaideia, -*Ananke, Ara
(Curse), Arete, Asebeia, Asphaleia, A-
thanasia, Bia, Boule, Charis, Chronos
(~Aion), Demos, Dikaiosyne (-*Zedeq),
—Dike, -*Dynamis, Eirene (Shalem),
Eleos, Eleutheria, Elpis, Eniautos, Eris,
Eulabeia, Euphrosyne, Euporia, Eusebcia,
Gamos, Gelos, Geras, Gerousia, Hedone,
Hegemonia, Homonoia, Hora, Horme,
Hybris, Hygicia, Hypnos, Kairos, Lethe,
Limos (‘Hunger’), Mania, Metanoia, Mneia,
-'Nike, Ochlos, Paranomia, Peitho. Penia,
Pheme, Philia, Phobos, Pistis, Ploutos.
—Pronoia, Sophrosyne, Soteria, Techne,
~Thanatos. (Only some of the most import-
ant deified abstractions have received a
separate entry in this dictionary, because
they do occur in personified form in the
Bible, e.g. Dike, Thanatos). These @eot.
even though recognized as gods, probably
did not often have temples or cultic sites of
their own.
Of the greatest importance for the devel-
opment of ancient Greek concepts of god is
the rise of philosophical criticism of relig-
ious and mythological traditions in the late
sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, in which
Xenophanes of Colophon played a seminal
and Plato a capital role (DECHARME 1904:
43-50, 181-219; GRANT 1986:76-77). This
signalled the start of a long process of spiri-
tualization (and depersonalization, DÓRRIE
1983:141-150) of the traditional notions of
god, that culminated in the (Neo-)Platonic
concept of a radically transcendent deity (in
a henotheistic sense) that was intrinsically
unknowable and could only be spoken about
in terms of a theologia negativa. A key el-
ement in this development was the concept
of (what the Stoics later termed) the @eo-
npenég, what is befitting God, dignum deo
(DnEvER 1970). The gradual purification of
the concept of deity to the effect that all
traces. of anthropomorphism (human af-
fections and behaviour) were removed from
it had as a consequence, inter alia, that old
mythological stories about the gods were
either discarded or gave rise to allegorical
interpretation, and that there was an ever
widening gap between the image of the
biblical God, who sympathizes with his
children and experiences a wide range of
emotions, on the one hand, and the in-
creasingly dispassionate Greek conception
of God on the other (FROHNHOFEN 1987).
And, apart from the question of God's
apatheia, the biblical God is a God who acts
and speaks, whereas the Platonic god neither
acts nor speaks (VERDENIUS 1954:256-258).
It was the contribution of the Jewish philos-
opher Philo of Alexandria that he, in an
impressive tour de force, tried to reconcile
these strongly diverging images and to
bridge the gap by a bold synthesis of bibli-
cal and Greek theology that had a lasting
influence on Christian theology (DREYER
1970:68-145).
III. The Greek use of 6e6¢ (i.c. not for
'God") can be found in the Greek Bible only
very rarely. Deification of personified ab-
stractions is almost lacking. Deification of
humans is rare (and strongly criticized, sce
e.g. Acts 12:22-23) and occurs actually only
in connection with -*Jesus in a relatively
late stage of the development of christology
in the first century. One passage in John
would at first sight seem to suggest that in
general human beings could also be called
gods (10:34-35). The reference there to Ps
81:6 ("I said, you are gods") apparently
implies that what Jesus said about himself in
10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and in
10:36 ("I am God's son") is to be inter-
preted in the sense that he shares in God's
367
GoD (11)
divine nature (discussion in G. R. BEASLEY-
Murray, John [WBC 36; Waco 1987] 175-
177). Yet Jesus is not explicitly and unam-
biguously called God here. That does
happen, however, both earlier and later in
the same Gospel: firstly in the very opening
verse of the Gospel, where it is said that
"the --Logos was God” (1:1, and cf. 1:18),
and secondly at the very end of the Gospel,
after Jesus’ resurrection, when Thomas con-
fesses that Jesus is “My Lord and my God”
(20:28; also 1 John 5:20 probably has to be
interpreted as referring to Jesus). From the
same period (end of the first century) is Heb
1:8-9, where there can be little doubt that
the words “o God” in the quote from Ps
45:7-8 are meant by the author to refer to
Jesus. Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1, again passages
from the late first or early second cent.,
clearly refer to Jesus as @£0¢ Kai owrtp.
But earlier NT passages that have been
claimed as calling Jesus God are more
controversial (CULLMANN 1975:314-323;
BooBvER 1967/68). Both Rom 9:5 and 2
Thess 1:12 (middle of the first century)
leave open the possibility that the @eds
spoken about in the text is not Jesus Christ
but God the Father, which seems more prob-
able (see J. D. G. DuNN, Romans 9-16
{WBC 38; Dallas 1988] 535-536, and F. F.
Bruce, / and 2 Thessalonians [WBC 45,
Waco 1982] 156-157). So in the NT it is
only in a few late passages that Jesus begins
to be called God and the boundaries of
Jewish monotheism are broken (CASEY
1991; Harris 1992; cf. H. C. Youtie, ZPE
18 [1975] 151-152). But soon after, already
in Ignatius of Antioch, we see the frequency
of this usage increase strongly. Because
neither in the NT nor in the Churchfathers
did that usage imply per se an ontological
equation of Jesus with God, the problem of
the relation between these ‘two gods’ arose,
which was later ‘solved’ by the trinitarian
dogma. (Later Christian instances of the
other ‘Greek’ uses of 0góg and 6&iog for
humans can be found in Lampe’s PGL s.v.
Beds K, 635b, and s.v. 0ciog B 11, 620a;
also J. Gross, La divinisation du chrétien
d'après les pères grecs [Paris 1938}).
IV. Bibliography
G. H. Boosyer, Jesus as Theos in the New
Testament, BJRL 50 (1967/68) 247-261; W.
BURKERT, Greek Religion (Cambridge MA
1985) 271-272; P. M. Casey, From Jewish
Prophet to Gentile God. The Origins and
Development of New Testament Christology
(Cambridge-Louisville 1991); O. CurL-
MANN, Die Christologie des Neuen Testa-
ments (Sth ed. Tübingen 1975); P. DECHAR-
ME, La critique des traditions religieuses
chez les grecs des origines au temps de Plu-
tarque (Paris 1904); L. DEUBNER, Personi-
fikationen abstrakter Begriffe, ALGRM III
(1909) 2068-2169; H. DÓRRIE, Gottesbe-
griff, RAC 11 (1981) 944-951; *DÓRRIE,
Gottesvorstellung, RAC 12 (1983) 81-154;
O. DREYER, Untersuchungen zum Begriff
des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike (Hildes-
heim 1970); G. Francois, Le polythéisme et
l'emploi au singulier des mots THEOS,
DAIMON (Paris 1957); H. FROHNHOFEN,
Apatheia tou Theou. Über die Affektlosigkeit
Gottes in der griechischen Antike und bei
den griechischsprachigen Kirchenvütern bis
zu Gregorios Thaumaturgos (Frankfurt etc.
1987); O. GicoN, Griechische Religion,
DTV Lexikon der Antike (Religion, Mytho-
logie) I1 (1965) 187-205, esp. 191-195 (Got-
tesvorstellung); R. GRANT, Gods and the
One God. Christian Theology in the
Graeco-Roman World (London 1986); F. W.
HamporF, Die griechische Kultpersonifi-
kationen aus vorhellenistischer Zeit (Mainz
1964); M. J. Harris, Jesus as God. The
New Testament Use of Theos in Reference
to Jesus (Grand Rapids 1992); *H. KLEIN-
KNECHT, 0cóc, TWAT III (1938) 65-79; A.
B. Lloyd (ed.), What is God? Essays on the
Nature of Greek Divinity (London 1997);
W. NESILE, Griechische Religiositüt vom
Zeitalter des Perikles bis auf Aristoteles
(Berlin & Leipzig 1933), M. P. NILSSON,
Kultische Personifikationen, Eranos 50
(1952) 30-40; A. D. Nock, Essays on Reli-
gion and the Ancient World (2 vols., Oxford
1972); A. S. PEASE, M. Tulli Ciceronis de
natura deorum libri Ill (Darmstadt 1968 -
1955); W. PórscHER, 7heos. Studien zur
ülteren griechischen Gottesvorstellung (diss.
368
GOD OF FORTRESSES
Vienna 1953); PGTSCHER, Das _ Person-
Bercichdenken in der frühgriechischen
Periode, WS 72 (1959) 5-25; S. R. F. PRICE,
Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language
of the Roman Imperial Cult, JHS 104 (1984)
79-95; R. SCHROEDER, Das griechische Got-
tesverstiindnis, Theologische Versuche 6
(1975) 79-88; W. SCHWERING, Deus und
divus: eine semasiologische Studie, /ndoger-
manische Forschungen 34 (1914/15) 1-44;
W. J. VERDENIUS, Platons Gottesbegriff, La
notion du divin depuis Homére jusqu'à Pla-
ton (ed. H. J. Rose; Entretiens de la Fonda-
tion Hardt 1; Vandoeuvres 1954) 241-293;
U. vov WiLAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Der
Glaube der Hellenen | (Darmstadt 1955 z
1931) 17-21.
P. W. vAN DER HonsT
GOD OF FORTRESSES Cibo n7N
Ocds pawiv
Il. As used in Dan 11:38, the ‘god of
fortresses’ (C3) TYN) has been treated in
the Greek Theodotion and in the Vulgate
translation of the book of Daniel as a divine
name (905 pawSiv respectively deus Mao-
zim). This name has ever since been equated
with a variety of Semitic, Greek or Roman
deities.
II. Jerome already mentions in his com-
mentary on Dan (11:31; GLAJJ 2, 469) Por-
phyry, who “offered an absurd explanation”
of the god Maozim. For the latter asserted
that the generals of Antiochus IV ‘Epi-
phanes’, ruler of the Seleucid empire, set up
a statue of Jupiter in the village of Modin,
some miles NW of Jerusalem, from which
came Mattathias and his sons (the Macca-
bees). Theodoretus explains the deity even
as the ~Antichrist, ‘a god strong and
powerful’ (cf. the Peshitta-translation: ‘the
strong god’). Hugo Grotius, in the wake of
Ephrem Syrus, considered the god as the
Syrian deity Azizos, which was identified
with Mars (or ->Ares). Many scholars in
modern times hesitate especially between
Jupiter Capitolinus, for whom Antiochus
began to build a temple in Antioch (Livy xli
20), or Jupiter (~Zeus) Olympius (2 Macc
6:2). The latter has also been identified with
the Sigqus SOmém (Dan 11:31; 12:110; cf.
Dan 9:27; | Macc 1:54; Matt 24:15; Mark
13:14), ‘the abomination of desolation’, in
which already E. Neste (ZAW 4 [1884]
248) saw a satirical pun on the name ->Baal
Samém, a high god of Semitic origin.
Yet there are also scholars who consider
the title god of fortresses ‘entirely obscure’
(e.g. Montgomery). SANDERS (1962) is of
the opinion that the title refers satirically to
Antiochus himself in the context of Dan
11:36-39. BICKERMANN (1937) proposes as
numen of the ‘Akra’ (= fortress, fortification
(citadel) of the old ‘city of David’ in Jeru-
salem made by the Seleucids) *Zeus’-Baal-
shamin, and HENGEL (1973) suggests that
he should be ‘the god of the Akra' (and not
Jupiter Capitolinus; cf. an inscription found
in Scythopolis, in which a dedication to
‘Zeus Akraios’, the god of the mountain top
and of the fortresses [Akra], is mentioned).
BUNGE (1973) opines that the title ‘god of
fortresses’ does not refer to any known
Semitic deity, but to a ciphered Greek god.
Dan 11:36-39 has not to be considered as a
report of historical occurences in Judaea or
Jerusalem in the days of the religious perse-
cutions of Antiochus, but as a mere
reflection on the behaviour of that king him-
self. It is known, however, that Antiochus
had a considerable predilection for the
Olympic Zeus.
III. In the context of Dan 11:38 it is said
that “the king (=Antiochus) will exalt and
magnify himself above every god...To no
god will he pay heed but he will exalt him-
self above them all" (vv 36-37). GiNsBERG
(1948; followed by DiLELLA 1978) has
pointed out that in v 38a yékabbéd, ‘he will
honour’ has to be taken as a variant of this
word in v 38b, and that it has ousted the
word that originally followed ma‘uzzim: ‘he
will defy’, or ‘insult’. The word DDR
(seven times in the singular and in the plural
in this chapter) is an erroneous rendering of
an Aramaic word meaning ‘saints’ (= the
Jewish people; Dan 7; 8:24; cf. 12:7). ‘On
his stand’ (= on his altar) has to be trans-
posed from before the first (wrong) ‘he will
369
GOD OF HEAVEN
honour’ to before the second. So v 38 has to
be translated: “Even the God of the pious
ones (= Jewish people) he will despise, and
on that God’s stand he will honour...a god
whom his ancestors did not know" (Di
LELLA 1978). In this context 'the God of the
pious ones’ is none other than — Yahweh,
the God of Israel.
IV Bibliography
F.-M. ABEL, Antiochus Epiphanes, RB 50
(1941) 248; E. BICKERMANN, Der Gott der
Makkabüer (Berlin 1937) 111-116; J. G.
BUNGE, Der ‘Gott der Festungen' und der
‘Liebling der Frauen’. Zur Identifizierung
der Gütter in Dan. 11, 36-39, JSJ 4 (1973)
169-182 (& lit]; A. A. DILELLa, Introduc-
tion and Commentary on Chapters 10-12,
The Book of Daniel (cd. L. F. Hartman, AB;
Garden City 1978); H. L. GINSBERG, Studies
in Daniel (New York 1948) esp. 42-49; H.
L. GiNsBERG, DVO (8), EncMigr 5
(1968) 190-191 [Hebrew]; M. HENGEL,
Judentum und Hellenismus (Tübingen
19732) 515-519 [& lit]; J. A. SANDERS,
Fortress, /DB 2(1962) 321.
M. J. MULDER
GOD OF HEAVEN COJN TON
I. The conception of a god of heaven
was developed in the Northwest Semitic
religions of the Ist millennium BCE, where a
new type of supreme god, Baal shamem,
arose. This god is first found in Phoenician
inscriptions from the mid 10th c. BCE
onwards and taken over into the Aramaic
and Judaeo-Israelite religion, where
Yahweh was equated with the god of
heaven.
II. In the Israelite-Jewish religion the
explicit designation of Yahweh as ‘god of
heaven’ occurs independently in the 5th cen-
tury Elephantine papyri and in several post-
exilic books of the OT. The antecedents for
this development lie in the pre-exilic period.
Originally Yahweh was a local weather-
god of the Midianite-Edomite region. Also
in later Judaco-Israelite religion Yahweh
was seen as a weather-god who was respon-
sible for rain and fertility (e. g. 2 Sam 22:8-
16 = Ps 18:8-16; Jer 10:13 = 51:16; 14:22;
31:12: Hos 2:10-11: Hag 1:2-11; 2:15-19;
Joel 2:21-24; Ps 29; 65:10-14). Duc to the
rise of the monarchy in Judah and Israel,
Yahweh abandoned his status as local
weather-god and rose to the position of a
supreme and universal weather-god, a po-
sition which according to the Phoenician
expression, was reserved for the ‘god of
heaven’.
The political and religio-historical back-
ground for conceiving Yahweh as god of
heaven is to be seen in the Phoenician
supremacy over the kingdoms of Judah and
Israel from the second half of the 10th cen-
tury onward. The temple of Jerusalem was
built under Phoenician influence (1 Kgs S:
15-32; 7:13-51). In this national sanctuary
of Judah, Yahweh was venerated as “en-
throned upon the -*cherubim" (1 Sam 4:4; 2
Sam 6:2 = 1 Chr 13:6; 2 Kgs 19:15 = Jes
37:16; Pss 80:2; 99:1). This theologou-
menon is of Phoenician provenience and
designates Yahweh as divine king. A direct
relationship between Yahweh and Baal
shamem cannot, however, be recognized in
the temple of Solomon. At this stage of the
religious history of Judah, Yahweh was
venerated as the supreme god according to
Phoenician standards.
A direct link between Yahweh and Baal
shamem was established when the Omrides
organized their kingdom in conformity with
the Phoenician organization. In the temple
Ahab had built in Samaria, Yahweh the state
god, was venerated as Baal shamem (1 Kgs
16:32) in order to stress the ties between
Omride Israel and Phoenicia.
Beyond the level of official religion as
practised in the temples of Jerusalem and
Samaria, a reception of the god Baal
shamem on a popular level can also be ob-
served. This reception is to be seen within
the context of the ‘astralization’ of the
Northwest Semitic religions during the first
millennium BCE. Iconographical and textual
evidence demonstrates a solarization of the
Yahweh-religion from the 8th century
onward (NIEHR 1990:147-163; -*Shemesh).
On the basis of this background, Yahweh
370
GOD OF HEAVEN
became a ‘god of heaven’ in popular relig-
ion. Yahweh’s status as ‘god of heaven’ is
further demonstrated by his endowment with
celestial powers. Thus he was surrounded by
a ‘host of heaven’ (~Host of heaven) serv-
ing as his divine council (1 Kgs 22:19). In
this context, the worship of the ‘queen of
heaven' (-*Queen of Heaven) must be men-
tioned. The ‘queen of heaven’, to be identi-
fied with Yahweh's -*Asherah known from
the inscriptions of Kuntillet Ajrud and
Khirbet el-Qom, was Yahweh’s paredra in
the Jerusalem temple cult (Jer 7:18; 44:15-
25). Her presence emphazised his status as
“god of heaven’ (KocH 1988:115-120).
The explicit reception of the title ‘god of
heaven’ can be observed for the first time in
the Sth century papyri of the Judaeo-
Aramaic colony of Elephantine. In the
correspondence directed to non-Jewish ad-
dressees, the inhabitants of Elephantine
speak of Yahweh as "(Yahu) god of
heaven" (AP 27:15 [rest]; 30:2.27-28;
31:2.26-27 [rest]; 32:3-4) or as "lord of
heaven" (AP 30:15). But also, in intra-
Jewish communication, Yahweh is called
“god of heaven” (AP 38:2 [rest.] 3.5; 40:1
[rest.]).
Also in Palestine, from the same time
onwards, Yahweh is designated as the “god
of heaven” in Hebrew (Gen 24:3, 7; Jonah
1:9; Esr 1:2; Neh 1:4-5; 2:4, 20; 2 Chr 36:
23; Ps 136:26) and in Aramaic (Dan 2:18-
19, 37, 44; Ezra 5:11-12; 6:9-10; 7:12, 21,
23); also “lord of heaven” (Dan 5:23) and
“king of heaven” (Dan 4:34). The deutero-
canonical books Judith and Tobit use Greek
equivalents of this title (references in NIEHR
1990:49-50).
The fact that the two titles for Yahweh,
'god of heaven' and 'lord of heaven', are
not exclusively used in communication with
the Persian overlords, but also in intra-
Jewish communication, is a decisive argu-
ment against the alleged Persian proveni-
ence of the title ‘god of heaven’ applied to
Yahweh in post-exilic texts. The cult of
Baal shamem, who had become the domin-
ant god of the Phoenician and Aramaic
religion, already exerted his influence both
on the official and the popular level of the
Judaeo-Israelite religion in the First Temple
period. As the Elephantine papyri and the
biblical books demonstrate, the influence of
Baal shamem grew increasingly during
exilic and post-exilic times.
Yahweh as ‘god of heaven’ was thus
modelled after a Syro-Canaanite supreme
god. This is evident from his characteristic
traits; Yahweh is the highest of all gods,
who presides over the divine assembly (e.g.
Deut 32:8; 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6; 14:13-14; Pss
82:6; 89:6-8; 95:3: 96:4: 135:5); he is en-
throned on the divine mountain (e.g. Isa
14:13-14; Pss 46:5-8; 48:3; 68:16-17; 87:1b,
5b; 89:13; —Zaphon); he is the creator and
fights the chaos (e. g. Gen 14: 19, 22; 2 Sam
22:14-18 = Pss 18:14-18; 74:13-17; 89:10-
13; Isa 51:9-16) and is a solarized god (e.g.
Ps 84:12; Mal 3:20, Shemesh).
The identification of Yahweh and Baal
shamem is demonstrated by the installation
of the cult of Baal shamem under his Hel-
lenistic name of -*Zeus Olympios in the
temple of Jerusalem under Antiochus IV
Epiphanes in 167 BCE, which was not a
pagan measure but the result of an intra-
Jewish prohellenistic development. Its goal
was not to replace Yahweh by another god
or to introduce a new god into the temple of
Jerusalem. Yahweh himself was henceforth
to be venerated as Baal shamem with the
character of a universal god. The Jewish
opposition against this measure can be seen
in the polemics against the — Siggíg
(mé)sómém ('devastating evil') in Dan 11:
31; 12:11 (cf. Dan 8:13; 9:27; 1 Macc 1:54).
This commonly held interpretation of the
Siqqus (mé)§omem was seriously challenged
by J. Lust according to whom this term
refers to King Antiochus as the one to
whom the abomination belongs, thus quali-
fying him as the desolator (Lust 1993). Even
after the Maccabaean period, Yahweh could
be designated as ‘god of heaven’ (references
in NIEHR 1990:58-59).
Ill. Bibliography
D. K. ANDREWS, Yahweh the God of the
Heavens, The Seed of Wisdom. FS T. J.
Meek (ed. W. S. McCullough; Toronto
371
GOD OF SEEING — GO’EL
1964) 45-57; R. BartetmMus, TWAT 8
(1994-1995) 204-239; E. BICKERMANN, Der
Gott der Makkabáer (Berlin 1937) esp. 90-
116; T. BoLtN, The Temple of Yahu at
Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy,
The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to
Judaisms (ed. D. V. Edelman; CBET 13;
Kampen 1995) 127-142; O. EiSSFELDT,
BaalSamém und Jahwe, ZAW 57 (1937) 1-31
= KS 2 (1963) 171-193; M. HENGEL, Juden-
tum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10; Tübingen
19883) 532-548; R. HILLMANN, Wasser und
Berg (diss. Halle 1965); C. HOUTMAN, Der
Himmel im Alten Testament (OTS 30; Lei-
den 1993) 98-107; B. JaANowski, Keruben
und Zion, "Ernten, was man süt". FS K.
Koch (ed. D. R. Daniels c.a.; Neukirchen
1991) 231-264; O. KEEL & C. UEHLINGER,
Góttinnen, Gótter und. Gottessymbole (QD
134; Freiburg 1992) esp. 296-298, 302-321;
K. Kocu, Das Buch Daniel (EdF 144;
Darmstadt 1980) 136-140; KocH, Aschera
als Himmelskónigin in Jerusalem, UF 20
(1988) 97-120; E. LipiNsk1, The Gods of the
Skies in the Aramaean Panthcon, Studies in
Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics 2
(OLA 57; Leuven 1994) 193-201; J. Lust,
Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel, The Tamid and
the Abomination of Desolation, Ritual and
Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ed. J.
Quaegebeur; OLA 55; Leuven 1993) 283-
299: E. NESTLE, Zu Daniel, ZAW 4 (1884)
247-250; H. NiEHR, Der hóchste Gott
(BZAW 190; Berlin-New York 1990);
NiEHR, The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and
Israclite Religion, The Triumph of Elohim:
From Yawisins to Judaisms (ed. D. V. Edel-
man; CBET 13; Kampen 1995) 45-72; R.
RgNDTORFF, El, Baal und Jahwe, ZAW 78
(1966) 277-292; F. VATTIONI, Aspetti del
culto del signore dei cieli (Il), Aug 13
(1973) 37-74, esp. 41-52; A. VINCENT, La
religion des Judéo-Araméens d'Eléphantine
(Paris 1937) 92-143.
H. NIEHR
GOD OF SEEING ~ EL-ROI
GODDESS -> TEREBINTH
GO'EL 5N
I. In ancient Israel, the g6’él, ‘re-
deemer', acted within the social system as
the protector and defender of the interests of
the Kinship group. Metaphorically, gó'el
occurs as an epithet for —Yahweh; besides,
in Job 19:25, gd’él indicates an independent
deity. On a socictal level, several functions
are attributed to the gó'el in the Hebrew
texts: he acted as the next of kin to buy up
or buy back property to prevent its being
lost from the group (Lev 25:25); he could
redeem, or pay off, the debt of a kinsperson
who had fallen victim to debt slavery (Lev
25:47-49); he bore the responsibility of
securing an heir to continue the name of a
deceased head of family who had died with-
out male offspring (Deut 25:5-10); and he
was responsible for blood vengeance within
the clan (Num 35:31-34; Deut 19:6-12). The
order of kinship by which the g6’é! was
determined is given in Lev 25:48-49.
Though similar social functionaries are at-
tested in other tribal cultures, the terminol-
ogy associated with the gd’él is almost
exclusively Hebrew, and its basic meaning
of ‘redeem’, ‘buy back’, ‘recover’ is derived
from its use in family law and custom. In
the Hebrew Bible, this terminology is fre-
quently applied to the divine realm.
II. A verbal form of gd@’al is applied to
the activity of Yahweh some ninetcen times,
mainly in poetry, thus extending the meta-
phor of the kinship relationship to apply to
Israel as Yahweh's inheritance or portion. In
his role as 'redeemer', Yahweh acts on
behalf of Israel to deliver it from bondage in
Egypt (Exod 6:6; 15:13; Pss 74:2; 77:16;
etc.) or in the exile (Isa 43:1; 44:22-23:
48:20). On an individual level, Yahweh ran-
soms the pious and the needy, most specifi-
cally the widow and orphan (Gen 48:16; Pss
69:19; 72:14; 103:4; 107:2; etc.).
The substantive gó'él is applied as an
epithet to Yahweh some seventeen times in
the Hebrew texts in a similar number of set-
tings (e.g.. Prov 23:11; Jer 50:34; Pss 19:15:
78:35). Ten of these applications occur in
Deutero-Isaiah, where gó'él is applied to
Yahweh with little or no explicit connection
372
GOG
to any specific situation, indicating that it
had become a stereotyped epithet for the
deity. In these materials, Yahweh is called
gó'él in parallel with such standard epithets
as ‘the Holy One of Israel’ (qéd6s yifra’él:
Isa 41:14; 43:14; 47:4; 48:17; 54:5; cf.
49:7), "the King of Israel (melek yisra'él;
44:6), ‘Yahweh of Hosts’ (yhwh sgébà'ór;
44:6; 47:4; 54:5), and 'Deliverer' (mósía';
49:26). In the context of Deutero-Isaiah, the
epithet conveys the image of Yahweh as
redeemer of his people from the bondage of
the exile.
In addition to its application to Yahweh,
the term gó'él is applied to a heavenly figure
in the enigmatic passage in Job 19:25. It is
clear from the context of this passage that
Job expresses the desire that his personal
go’él intervene on his behalf and vindicate
his innocence and integrity. It is commonly
accepted that this g6’él is to be equated with
the figure of the heavenly -*'witness' (féd)
and ‘interpreter’ (mélis ->Mediator 1) re-
ferred to in 16:19-22, and possibly with the
‘arbiter’ (mókíalt) noted in 9:33-35. The
recognition of such an intercessor is further
suggested in 33:23-24, where Elihu tells Job
that unless he has an -*'angel' (mal'àk), an
‘interpreter’ (mélis) to proclaim his justice
and to ransom him from —Sheol, he is
doomed.
Since Job's reference to the gó'él in
19:25 occurs in the context of a dispute with
God in which he seems to have rejected the
possibility of God's hearing his plea and
acting in his behalf, it seems unlikely that
the gó'él is to be identified with Yahweh.
Rather, these references to a heavenly goó'el
and ‘éd more probably reflect the ancient
Near Eastern concept of either a personal
deity who would intercede for an individual
with the high god or a specialized role asso-
ciated with one of the members of the
heavenly assembly, who could also inter-
cede with the head of the -*council on
behalf of a patron.
III. Bibliography
M. L. BannÉ, A Note on Job xix 25, VT 29
(1979) 107-110; W. L. Irwin, Job’s Re-
deemer, JBL 81 (1962) 217-229; S.
MowiINCKEL, Hiob's gó'él und Zeuge im
Himmel, Vom Alten Testament: Festschrift
fiir Karl Marti, (ed. K. Budde; Giessen 1925);
207-212; M. Pore, Job (AB 15; New York
1965) 146-147; H. RINGGREN, 783 g@al;
DW: góO'él; nl gPullàh, TDOT, Vol. 11,
350-355; R. DE Vaux, Ancient Israel, Vol.
1 (New York 1965) 21-22.
E. T. MULLEN, Jn.
GOG 3)
I. Gog (gwg) occurs as the name of a
mysterious figure in Ezek 38-39. Its etymol-
ogy is uncertain. A derivation from Sumer-
ian gug (‘black spot’, ‘cornelian’, or ‘shin-
ing’, depending on the identification of the
root) has been proposed (A. vaN HooN-
ACKER, ZA 28 [1914] 336), but is highly
implausible. The connection with a hypo-
thetical deity ‘Gaga’, mentioned in Ee III 3
as the vizier of Anshar (Assur), the father
of the gods, must be abandoned as the name
of the deity in question is to be pronounced
Kaka (D. O. EpzarD, RLA 5 [1976-80]
288; see also Surpu 59 ad VIII 30 on the
reading 4Ga-a-gi). No particular significance
seems to have been attached to the literal
meaning of the name—assuming that it was
known to the author of Ezek 38-39.
II. In an attempt to identify Gog as a
historical person, attention has been drawn
to a city prince Gigi mentioned in the
annals of Ashurbanipal (Cylinder B iv 2), a
powerful ruler of a belligerent mountain
people not far to the north of Assyria
(Delitzsch, Lenormant, Dürr, Streck, see
GnRoNkKowski 1930:162). More freqently,
though, Gog is identified with Gyges (Gügu
in the Rassam-Cylinder, If 95), king of
Lydia (Delitzsch, see ZIMMERLI 1969:942).
Note, however, that the Gog of Ezekiel has
the Cimmerians or Gomer as his ally,
whereas the same Cimmerians appear to
have attacked and defeated Gyges of Lydia.
Such data suggest that Gog can hardly be
identified with Gyges. Alternatively, Gog
has been said to be the name of a country,
Gaga or Gagaia, allegedly mentioned in the
El Amama Letters (EA 1:38). It has become
373
GOG
clear, however, that the writing iitén *rGa-
ga-ya is erroneous for istén "r'Ga-«at»ga-
ya, 'one Kashkaean' (E. voN SCHULER, Die
Kasküer [Berlin 1965] 81; cf. EA 31:25-27),
so this identification must be abandoned as
well.
Taking into account the ‘prophetic’ and
‘apocalyptic’ character of Ezek 38-39, many
recognize in Gog the enemy of the final
days. This implies that he is not a figure of
the past but a person of the present or the
future. Depending on the date of compo-
sition of Ezek 38-39, and the date of the
eschaton as seen by Ezekiel or a later re-
dactor, this enemy could be identified with
an officer in the army of the younger Cyrus,
with Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, or
many others in later periods.
Many are convinced that the name Gog is
not related to a historical personage. The
Septuagint manuscripts seem to confuse him
with —Og, the mythological king of
-*Bashan (sce also below). He is a cipher
for the evil darkness of the north and per-
sonifies the powers hostile to the LORD
(AHRONI 1977).
III, Many consider Ezek 38-39 to be a
complex unity. There is no consensus about
the history of its literary growth. Yet in
recent literature most authors agree that 39:
1-5, combined with 39:17-20 and perhaps
parts of 38:1-9, constitute the oldest layer.
In one of the later additions (38:17), a
redactor notes that Gog, coming from the
remotest parts of the north (38:15), is the
one Spoken of by the earlier prophets or
claims to be that one (BARTHELEMY 1992:
306). The reference is to the fulfilment of
the prophecies of Jeremiah (1:3-16; 4-6),
and perhaps also of Joel (2:20), who
announced the coming of the foe from the
north. Most often this enemy is identified
with the Babylonians or with the Scythians.
In Ezekiel, the foe has mythological over-
tones. He is to come “after many days", "in
the latter years" (38:8). In later tradition,
these and similar expressions were used to
denote the eschaton. Gog's army, including
Meshech, Tubal, Kush, Put, Gomer, Togar-
mah (38:2-6), is constituted by the peoples
listed in Gen 10 (DHoRME 1951:170-171).
This suggests that the final days will corre-
spond to the first. In 38:18-23, the battle of
these days has an apocalyptic dimension as
can be seen in the earthquake terminology
which often accompanies divine manifesta-
tions and interventions (sec Am 9). The
scene is completed by a description of an
exuberant meal, combining aspects of the
apocalyptic feast on the mountain described
in Isa 25:6-7 with the fearsome characteris-
tics of the sacrificial meal pictured in Jer
46:10. The conclusion must be that, in the
final redaction of Ezek 38-39, Gog is por-
trayed as a mythological figure personifying
the eschatological enemy and the darkness
of the north where he is located.
IV. In the LXX. Gog appears more fre-
quently. In the third oracle of Balaam in
Num 24:7, it is prophesied that the kingdom
of the --Anthropos (man) will be higher
than that of Gog. In the MT there is no
equivalent for ‘man’, and Gog replaces the
historical king Agag, defeated by Saul (1
Sam 15). The LXX has given an escha-
tological twist to the oracle (sce GERLEMAN
1947:132-146). In Amos’ vision of the
plague of locusts (7:1), the LXX translator
read góg for gzy (mowings?), focusing on
Gog as the leader of a threatening army
represented as a swarm of locusts. In Sir
48:17, Gog seems to stand for the Hebrew
mym. The Greek text can be translated as
follows: “Hezekiah fortified his city, and
brought Gog in the midst of it. He dug into
the hard rock with iron and made wells for
water”. In the LXX® version of Deut 3:1.13:
4:47, Gog stands for Hebrew Og (king of
Bashan). On the other hand, P 967 reads Og
instead of Gog in Ez 38:2.
In the intertestamental texts and in Qum-
ran, Gog is rarely mentioned (Sib. Or.
3,319-320). Rabbinic literature often men-
tions Gog and Magog as leaders of the
enemy destined to attack the faithful in the
Messianic Age; e.g. b.Ab.Zar. 3b: "When
they witness the war of Gog and Magog. he
will say to them, ‘Against whom have you
come?’ They will say, ‘Against the LORD
and against his Anointed"", compare b.Ber.
374
GUSH
7b; Tg. Neof. Num 11:26: "Eldad and
Medad prophesied that, in the end of the
days, Gog and Magog will come up against
Jerusalem with their army, and will fall by
the hand of the king Messiah".
In early Christian times, Gog and Magog
were often identified with the Romans and
their emperor. Euscbius seems to have been
the first Churchfather to suggest this identi-
fication. In his view, Gog is the prince of
‘Ros’, which stands for the Roman Im-
perium (Dem. Ev. 9,3.6). In later times, Gog
was seen as the - Antichrist. Some
identified him with Napoleon, others with
Hitler. Fundamentalist Christian belief
(Scofield Reference Bible, GESENIUS,
Thesaurus 1835, 1253) holds that the
prophet was speaking about the modem
state of Russia. The basis for this belief is
the LXX's reading of the Hebrew ros as the
proper name "Ros" which could easily be
interpreted as a code-name for "Russia".
V. Bibliography
J. G. AALDERS, Gog en Magog (Kampen
1951); R. AHRONI, The Gog Prophecy and
the Book of Ezekiel, HAR 1 (1977) 1-27; R.
H. ALEXANDER, A Fresh Look at Ezekiel
38 and 39, JETS 17 (1974) 157-169; M. C.
ASTOUR, Ezckicl's Prophecy of Gog and the
Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin, JBL 95
(1976) 567-579; D. BARTHELEMY, Critique
textuelle de l'Ancien Testament, Tome 3,
Ezéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes (OBO
50/3; Fribourg, Göttingen 1992); D. 1.
BLocxK, Gog and the Pouring out of the
Spirit, VT 37 (1987) 257-270; W. H.
BROWNLEE, ‘Son of Man Set Your Face,’
Ezekiel the Refugee Prophet, HUCA 54
(1983) 45-110, esp. 107-108; E. DHORME,
Les peuples issus de Japhet d'après le cha-
pitre X de la Genèse, Recueil E. Dhorme
(Paris 1951) 167-189 = Syria 13 (1932) 28-
49: G. GERLEMAN, Ezekielsboken Gog,
SEÀ 12 (1947) 132-146; W. GRONKOWSKI,
Le messianisme d’Ezéchiel (Paris 1930)
129-173; F. HOSSFELD, Untersuchungen zu
Komposition und Theologie des Ezechiel-
buches (FzB 20; Wiirzburg 1977) 402-509;
E. Lipinski. Gygés et Lygdamis d’aprés les
sources hébraiques et néo-assyrienes, OLP
24 (1993) 65-71; *B. OTZEN, Gog, TWAT |
(1973) 958-965 [& lit}; H. L. Strack & P.
BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum NT aus Tal-
mud und Midrasch 111 (München 1926) 831-
840; W. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (BKAT XIII/2;
Neukirchen 1969) 933-948.
J. Lust
GUSH 3
1. Though the evidence for the worship
of a deity *Gesh or *Gush is scant if not
absent, the biblical names *Girgash
(Girgashites; MAISLER 1930) and Goshen
(iRKU 1963) have been adduced to demon-
strate that the forebears of the Israelites once
worshipped a god G§.
Il. There is only a single instance where
the name Gush appears in the capacity of a
god. In the Ugaritic personal name Bin-
Gushi. the clement Gushi is preceded by the
divine determinative (J. NOUGAYROL, PRU
III [1955] 199:5 = RS 16.257+, Face A, 5’:
'pumMu-4Gu-si). Since there is otherwise no
trace of a god Gush in the records from the
ancient Near East, the element Gushi is
probably to be interpreted as a shortened
form of the divine name Kutar (^ Kothar) or
KuSuh (F. GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen
der Texte aus Ugarit [Rome 1967] 305).
Other occurrences of the element Gus/Gu3
are short for Agus(h): O32 stands for Bit-
Agüsi of the Assyrian records, a small
Syrian state with Arpad as its capital. The
Agusites (cf. the name 0372, KAI 202 A 5)
were the reigning dynasty of Arpad
(DONNER & ROLLIG 1973; FIrTZMYER 1967).
There is no indication that the name Gush or
Agus is theophoric.
III. The very fact that a god Gush is only
mentioned once if at all, and that a god
Gesh is simply unattested, weakens the
plausibility of the speculations about 03
(Gesh or Gush) being a theophoric element
in Hebrew names. The name of the Girgash-
ites (cf. Ug grg$, bn grgi$. and bn grgs.
GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte
aus Ugarit [Rome 1967] 384) has received
no satisfactory explanation. The toponym
Goshen, the name of a locality in southern
375
GUSH
Palestine (Josh 10:41; 11:16; 15:51) as well
as a place in Egypt (several times in Gen
45-50; also in Exod 8:18; 9:26) could be
convincingly related to a supposed god
Gush (the final nun might represent an orig-
inal ending -ón not uncommon in toponyms,
cf. Sidón, —Sidon, BAuER & LEANDER,
Historische Grammatik der hebräischen
Sprache, & 61 90) only if that deity were
sufficiently attested to in the written sources.
IV. Bibliography
H. Donner & W. RO LLIG, KAI II (1973)
207, commentary to no. 202 A 5; J. A. Fitz-
MYER, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire
(Rome 1967) 40-41; A. JIRKU, Zu einigen
Orts- und Eigennamen Palistina-Syriens,
ZAW 75 (1963) 86-88; B. MAISLER, Zur
Góütterwelt des alten Palästina, ZAW 50
(1932) 86-87.
K. VAN DER TOORN
376
HABY ^2
I. in Isa 26220 the term ^25. (/iábi) is
usually considered a Qal imperative (aram-
aizing: "231 2 39) and translated ‘hide thy-
self. GORDON (1985 & 1986) has proposed
to understand it as a divine name, Haby, and
to interpret this character as the forerunner
of the Devil: /ek fammi bó! bahádàrékà
üségór déláté(y)ka ba'üdeka habi kim‘at-
rega' 'ad-ya'ábo(w)r-zàá'am, "Go, my people,
enter into your chambers, and shut your
door behind you, until Haby, the Wrath, in a
little while will have passed”. Haby would
occur also in Hab 3:4, where jY' 371 is con-
sidered by GORDON as a variant of the same
name: wéndgah ka’ér tihyeh qarnayim
miyydd6 lô wéSam hebyén ‘uzz6h, “And
Brilliance shall be as the light; he has horns
from his hand; and there is Hebyón, his
strength". The relation of its etymology to
the root *HBY ‘to hide’ is probable but not
certain.
II. In the Ugaritic texts a divine name
hby occurs in KTU 1.114:19-20 and this
personage is described as b'!| grmm wdnb,
"possessor/lord of horns and tail”. This
difficult text deals with the marzēah of the
god >El and with his drunkenness (sce
SPRONK 1986:198-200). The Father of the
gods, full of wine, has an infernal vision and
sees this Aby, a divine or demonic entity,
who perhaps soils him with his excrements
and urinc. El's condition is that of the dead
in the Netherworld and this may suggest that
hby is here a chthonic deity. It is not un-
likely that this personage, who appears to El
in an alcoholic trance during a feast related
to the cult of the dead, is really an infernal
god; horns and tail may allude to his bovinc/
taurine form.
It is doubtful whether the same deity
occurs at Ebla, in a reduplicated form ha-
ba-ha-bi (TM.75.G.1649 1 2: D. O.
EpzarD, ARET V, p. 17. Nr. 1), as pro-
posed by GORDON. In this context, a magic
spell. it deals rather with a part of the door
or à tool.
III. As regards the OT, the imagery of
both biblical passages (Isa 26:20 and Hab
3:4) seems to continue the imagery of
Ugarit, showing the character of Haby as a
terrible entity (Haby, the Wrath) now at the
service of YHWH (‘His strength’)(see e.g.
R. D. Haak, Habakkuk [VTSup 41; Leiden
1991] 90). From this perspective, the men-
tion of the horns in Hab is also significant.
It should not be excluded that we have here
a transmission of a mythological element
from Bronze Age Syria to the OT, even if it
is perhaps too hazardous to speak of the
forerunner of the Devil and the iconography
of -Satan (see the sceptic remarks by
SPRONK 1986:199 n. 4).
IV. Bibliography
*P. FRONZAROLL Tre scongiun eblaiti
(ARET 5.1-3), VO 7 (1988) 11-23; C. H.
Gorpon, The Devil, hby, Newsletter for
Ugaritic Studies 33 (1985) 15; *C. H. Gon-
DON, HBY, Possessor of Horns and Tail,
UF 18 (1986) 129-132; M. KREBERNIK, Die
Beschwórungen aus Fara und Ebla (Hildes-
heim, Zürich & New York 1984) 134-135;
K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife (AOAT 219;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986); *P. XELLA, Un
antecedente eblaita del "demone" ugaritico
HBY ?, SEL 3 (1986) 17-25.
P. XELLA
HADAD T7
I. Hadad is the name under which the
ancient Near Eastern storm god was known
among various groups in the Mesopotamian
and Syrian world. The god is also men-
tioned in a number of biblical texts and
names. In this article, the biblical material
377
HADAD
will be dealt with in conjunction with the
epigraphic data from the Near East.
I]. Hadad makes his first appearance as
Adad in Old Akkadian texts, and in this
guise he is important in the Mesopotamian
world through the neo-Assyrian and neo-
Babylonian periods. Hadad in all likelihood
means ‘thunderer’ and as the storm-god he
brings both fertility through abundant rains
and destruction through fierce winds and
storms. His voice (rigmu) can be a sign of
both blessing and curse. He was associated
with the Sumerian god Ishkur and dım, the
logogram for Ishkur, is used for writing
Adad, and for other ‘ethnic’ versions of the
storm-god such as Haddu/Ba‘lu, Hurrian
Teshup, and Hittite Tarhunza. In the Ebla
texts from the Old Akkadian period the god
Hadda (written dà-da) is found in the lists of
the gods who receive monthly offerings
from the king and others, and dà-da is a
known theophoric clement in personal
names. Hadda (dà-da) occurs together with
the Sun-goddess (4uTU) as guarantors at the
end of the treaty between Ebla and Abarsal,
a role similar to that which was to become
traditional for these two deities in the course
of Mesopotamian history. Adad functions as
a god of oracles and judgement (bél teréte,
bel purussé) The name Haddu, and its
variants, is frequent in the onomastics of the
Mari texts and other West Semitic (*Amor-
ite’) material from the 2nd millennium BCE
onwards (H. B. HurrMoN, Amorite Per-
sonal Names in the Mari Texts [Baltimore
1965] 156-158, 'DD). Together with Dagan
(-*Dagon) and Itur-Mer, also storm-gods in
all likelihood, he is listed among the major
deities. In a 13th century letter from Mari to
Ugarit (RS 34.142) the three deities appear
together and are called ‘great gods’ ildni
rabtitu. During the Old Babylonian period
the major sanctuary of Hadad was in the
city of Aleppo (Yamhad) and it is there that
the ‘weapon with which he smote the Sea’,
a reference to Hadad's battle with. Yam
(7*Sea), was kept. Aleppo, therefore, had the
status of an asylum city during this period
and later. The prophets of Hadad took the
credit for restoring Zimri-Lim to the throne
of his father, demanded his loyalty and
instructed the king to act in a righteous
manner. The god Adad of Aleppo was as-
similated to the Mesopotamian pantheon and
appears later together with the sibitti, the
-»Pleiades, among the witnesses to treaties.
In some areas his title ba‘lu ‘lord’ essential-
ly replaces his personal name, and the di-
vine name Ba'lu exists alongside of Haddu/
Hadad. Thus at Ugarit he is known primari-
ly as Ba‘lu, but Haddu is also found in the
literary texts usually in parallelism with
Ba‘lu. A good example may be found in
KTU 1.101:1-4 where Ba‘lu/Haddu, who
dwells on Mount Saphon, holds in his hands
"lightning and a bundle of thunder’ (-*Light-
ning). In a list of divine names Haddu is
called the bl of Hazi, Mons Casius and in
treaties Sim bél hurgan hazi.
Neither the Akkadian texts dealing with
Adad nor the later Aramaic inscriptions pro-
vide a developed mythology of Hadad. We
must turn to the mythological and epic texts
from Ugarit to leam about Ba‘lu/Haddu and
his role in the West Semitic pantheon. It is
clear that he was considered a son of Dagan
rather than >El, and that his rise to power
came after his victory over both Yam and
—Mot, who were El's favorites. A major
theme in the Ugaritic myths is his striving
for a grand palace of his own to be built on
the heights of Mount Saphon (classical
Mons Casius, modern Jebel el-Aqra‘). When
Ba‘lu/Haddu is ‘dead’ for seven years the
land suffers from lack of rain, the former
prosperous state is restored only after he
returned to life. In the inscription on the
statue of Idrimi from Alalah, the seven years
that he spent with the Habiru are refered to
as ‘the seven years of the storm-god’, a
possible reference to the seven years in
which Ba‘lu/Haddu is ‘dead’ (S. SMITH, The
Statue of Idrimi [London 1949] 19:29-30).
At Emar, where Dagan is still the high god,
the storm god, written 41M, has a prominent
role. The name Ba'lu is more frequent, but
Haddu is also used, and both occur in per-
sonal names (F. M. Fares, Notes on the
Royal Family of Emar, Marchandes, diplo-
mates et empereurs, Etudes offertes a P.
378
HADAD
Garelli [Paris 1991} 81-90, esp. 82 n. 8). In
the Hittite sphere Tarhunza the storm-god of
Aleppo, usually written with the ideogram
dim, plays a very important role. In Canaan
during this period we find the use of both
names widespread, as witnessed by Amarna
onomastics, with such names as Rib-Hadda,
Yapah-Hadda and Zimredda on the one side
and Ba‘lu-shipti, Ba‘lu-mehir (= 5b‘! mar),
and Pu-Ba‘la on the other. It is only from
the later periods that two subsidiary Hadad
deities are known, the first (H)adad-milki
occurs as the theophoric element in names
in the personal names from Gozan and sure-
ly stands behind the -*Adrammelech of 2
Kgs 17:31. The second Apladda (apil-
Adda), the ‘son’ of Hadad/Adad, worshipped
in Suhi on the Middle Euphrates is known
to us both from personal names and from
texts and is found on a cylinder seal dis-
covered at Tel Beer Sheba. In the Roman
period the god Aphlad, from the city of
Anat also on the Euphrates, is known from a
relief found at Dura-Europos ( S. Downey,
The Stone and Plaster Sculpture {Dura
Europos III i, 2: Los Angeles 1977] Pls. I,
3; XII, 46.
The iconography of the storm god is quitc
distinctive. In the Akkadian period Ishkur or
Adad is portrayed with thunderbolt and
mace on the back of a lion-dragon, but
during the Old Babylonian period he is
usually shown on cylinder seals standing on
the back of a bull, brandishing a mace or an
other weapon in his right hand and thunder
in some form in the other. He is bearded
and wears a conical head-dress. In the
glyptic of northern Syria, as represented at
Ebla at this period, Hadda may be seen bran-
dishing a mace and holding the bridle of his
bull in the other hand. At Uganit, Ba‘lu may be
seen in the well-known stele of 'Ba'al with
the thunder-bolt' brandishing a mace in his
right hand and a spear touching the ground
with the rays of thunder at its other end, and
has a slightly curved dagger in the belt of
his kilt. He is bearded, wears a horned head-
dress, and according to a recent, plausible
interpretation is treading on mountain tops
at the feet of which there are waves.
It is in the 9th century when the Aram-
eans are settled in the western marshes of
the Assyrian empire, in Syria and in parts of
Anatolia, that Hadad's dominant role can be
documented. A clear bifurcation had taken
place in the use of the names Ba'lu and
Hadad. Ba‘lu—biblical Ba‘al—is now con-
fined to the Canaanite god, worshipped in
the Phoenician cities and their colonies, and
mentioned often in the OT, while Hadad is
the head of the Aramean pantheon. He is
best known as the god of Damascus, and
was also called by the epithet Ramundnu ‘the
thunderer’ (vocalised Rimmdén in 2 Kgs
5:18). The combined form Hadad-Rimmon
is found in Zech 12:11 (see below). The
name Bar-Hadad was frequently taken by
Aramean kings and both Hadad/Hadda and
Ramman are frequently used as the theo-
phoric element in Aramaic names (note the
Aramean ruler Tabrimmon). The temple of
Hadad in Damascus (2 Kgs 5:18) is in all
likelihood to be located in the precincts of
the great Umayyad mosque; the site has pre-
viously served as the site of a temple to
— Zeus in the Hellenistic era and as a church
in the Byzantine period. Other temples of
Hadad existed in Gozan-Sikanu, Sefire,
Aleppo, Sam’al, Mabbug (Hicrapolis) and
elsewhere. The temple at Gozan-Sikanu is
attested from the 9th to the 7th century.
Hadad, in his role of divine supervisor of
the celestial and terrestial water sources, was
envisioned by his followers as the god who
brought fertility and prosperity to the land
(Tel Fekherye inscription, A. ABOU-ASSAF
et al., La Statue de Tell Feherye [Paris
1982]; J. C. GREENFIELD & A. SHAFFER,
Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual
Statue from Tell Fekherye, Iraq 45 [1983]
109-116; GREENFIELD & SHAFFER, Notes
on the Curse Formulae of the Tel Fekherye
Inscription, RB 92 [1985] 47-59). The title
rahman ‘merciful’ was applicd to him, but
as a god of judgement (bel dini) he was also
vengeful as the name Niqmaddu (Ugarit)
and other names with the element ngm
show. In the recently discovered Aramaic
inscription from Tel Dan (line 5) “Hadad
went before" the king (probably Hazael) and
379
HADAD
thus brought him victory (A. BiRAN & J.
NAVEH, An Aramaic Stele fragment from
Tel Dan, JEJ 43 [1993] 81-98). He also
claimed that Hadad made him king. Booty
taken by the victorious Hazael was con-
sidered a gift of Hadad as may be read on a
horse's forehead ornament and a horse's
blinker, both found in Greece. In the inscrip-
tions from Zenjirli Hadad is listed at the
head of the pantheon (KA/ 214, 215), and is
credited by Panamuwa I (KA/ 214) together
with the other gods for standing by him
since his youth, and giving him rule over
Y'dy/Sam'al, but Hadad is specifically
credited with giving him the 'sceptre of suc-
cession’. In gratitude he built a temple for
Hadad, and set up the stele upon which a
large statue of Hadad stood. The name
Hadad/Haddu appears frequently in the ono-
mastics .of this period: gbrd, br hdd,
hdd'zr/hdd'dr, hdrqy, hddnwry, hddsmny,
yp'hd, mr'hdd, 'bdhd, mi'hdd, etc. In the
Hellenistic period it is found in names such
as: Adadiabos, Baradados, Zabidadados,
Rageadados, etc.
Elements of cult and worship may be
gleaned from the Biblical text and from epi-
graphic and other sources. Hadad was wor-
shipped by prayer and prostration (2 Kgs
5:18), and if we may judge by the references
to the altar copied from the Damascus
temple in 2 Kgs 16:10-15, by blood sacri-
fices, as well as by the wide-spread burning
of incense. The belief in the efficacy of
prayer (lifting the hands) may be seen in the
inscription set up by Zakkur, king of Hamat
and Lu‘ash (KA/ 213) where there is also a
reference to the use of prophets and seers
(‘ddn and hzyn) for oracles (J. C. GREEN-
FIELD, The Zakir Inscription and the Dank-
lied, Proceedings of the Fifth World Con-
gress of Jewish Studies [Jerusalem 1969]
vol, I (Jerusalem 1971] 174-191). Hadad is
called by the ancient name Elwer (Akk
Iluwer). The equation is found in Assyrian
lexical texts, but this may represent the typi-
cal syncretistic tendency of the late period.
He had the central role in the propitiary rite
in memory of dead ancestors (kispu). Thus
in the Tel Fekherye inscription (11.16-18)
whosoever will remove Hadad-yishi's name
is cursed in that Hadad will not accept bread
or water from him, while in the Panamuwa I
inscription (KAJ 214) we are told that the
name of the deceased was to be invoked
together with that of Hadad, while calling
upon the soul of the deceased to eat and
drink, and only then was the sacrifice ac-
ceptable as a gift to Hadad. From the Tel
Fekherye inscription and the Zakkur inscrip-
tion we learn that statues with the inscrip-
tions were set up in the temples. From the
Sefire inscriptions (KA/ 223C) it is also
clear that the treaty inscriptions were also
set up in the temples. Aleppo’s particular
importance as a place of asylum in the Mari
period was noted above. Shalmaneser III
sacrificed to Hadad there, and it follows
from Sefire III (KA/ 224) Il. 4-7 that Alep-
po. no longer a city of political importance,
remained a place of asylum in the 9th and
8th centuries BCE (J. C. GREENFIELD, Asy-
lum at Aleppo: A Note on Sfire III, 4-7, Ah
Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and
Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Pre-
sented to Hayim Tadmor [ScrHier 33;
Jerusalem 1990] 272-278). During the Hel-
lenistic and Roman periods this city flourished
and was called Beroea; among the little
known to us about it is that in the 4th cen-
tury CE Julian, ‘the apostate’, sacrificed a
white bull to >Zeus on the acropolis of the
city.
The verse in Zech 12:11 states that in the
future the mourning in Jerusalem will be as
great “as the mourning for Hadad-Rimon in
the plain of Jezreel” (RSV). It is now widely
accepted that the reference is to a mourning
rite celebrated in the agriculturally rich area
of the ‘plain of Megiddo' in which the death
or disappearance of Ba'al/Hadad was
mourned, and an attempt to revive him was
made through prayers and rituals. The death
and disappearance of Ba‘al, the drought that
followed, and Ba'al's return is known from
the Ugaritic texts (KTU 5 and 6). In the
light of these texts we may assume that the
body was lacerated, the hair of the head and
the beard was plucked out, sack-cloth was
wom and ashes were strewn on the head,
380
HADAD
accompanied by calls of “Hadad-Ramman is
dead". We may assume that these rites were
widely known, and were not limited to the
"plain of Megiddo' (cf. Ezek 27:30-31).
Ba'al/Hadad is both a fertility god. and one
who has overcome the powers of Death.
The iconography of the storm-god. Hadad
or Tarhunzas of Aleppo. in the first half of
the first millennium BCE is known from
stelae found in Syria and Anatolia. He is
bearded, wearing a horned, high head-dress,
either conical or flat. Some of the figures are
standing on an ox and some are moving for-
ward. They usually wear a kilt, and carry a
sword in their belt. They usually hold a
thunder-bolt in one hand and an axe or mace
in the other. In one case the god may be
holding an ear of corn in his right hand (J.
D. Hawkins, What does the Hittite Storm
god Hold?, Natural Phenomena, Their
Meaning, Depiction and Description in the
Ancient Near East {ed. D. J. W. Meijer:
Amsterdam 1992] 53-82). Most of these ste-
lace come from the northern Luvian area, but
others show Assyrian influence. It may be
assumed that stelae from the south would
not have been very different.
An additional source of information for
the worship of Hadad comes from coins
minted at Mabbug/Hicrapolis in North Syria
in the 4th century Bce. He was the chief god
of the city, and some coins have the legend
hdd mnbg, i.e. Hadad of Mabbug. On a
unique coin the reverse portrays ‘Abd-
Hadad, priest of Mabbug (Amr mnbg), who
stands before a thymiatérion, an incense
altar, one hand raised perhaps in prayer, and
the other extended towards the altar; he
wears a long robe and has a conical pilos on
his head. On the obverse there is the image
of Hadad, horned and bearded, wearing a
long Persian-style robe, with his hands
raised in blessing, the inscription reads
“who sings the praises of Hadad his lord”.
Two signs of the storm god accompany this
image—the schematic head of a bull to his
right and the double-axe to his Icft. This
coin may be instructive as to the way the
worshippers of Hadad envisioned their god
(H. SEYRIG, Le monnayage de Hiérapolis de
Syrie, à l'époque d' Alexandre, Revue numis-
matique VI/12 [1971] 11-21).
In the Babylonian tradition the consort of
Adad was the goddess Shala, and she thus
occurs in the neo-Assyrian version of the
Tel Fekherye bilingual; in the Aramaic ver-
sion she is called Sala. This is the only
Aramaic inscription which mentions her. It
is at Mabbug/Hierapolis, on coins roughly
contemporary to those noted above, that we
first find a reference to the goddess ’Atar‘ate
(tr'th), called in Greek -*Atargaüs. She was
particularly associated with this city and is
called ?^tr'th mnbgyf in a Nabatean text. In
texts from the Hellenistic period, now pri-
marily in Greek, Adados and Atargatis are
frequently found together. In a 2nd century
BCE inscription from Kafr Yassif, near
Akko, an altar is dedicated to “Adados and
Atargatis, the gods who listen to prayer”. In
pseudo-Lucian’s work on the Syrian God-
dess (2nd century CE), they have been hel-
lenised and occur as Zeus and -*Hera.
The worship of the pair was widespread,
and even without inscriptions they are easily
identified—the bearded god sits on a throne
between two oxen and the goddess between
two lions, the ancient symbol of -*Ishtar.
Atargatis had long since become the more
prominent of the pair, and often has an inde-
pendent existent of her own. On a stela from
Dura-Europos they are seen seated together
with the sémeion between them, Atargatis is
larger with lions on either side; Hadad with
only a diminutive bull to his right, has a
bunch of wheat in his right hand and per-
haps holds a sceptre in his left one. How-
ever, on another stela from Dura-Europos,
probably from the 1st century cE, Hadad is
seated, with bulls on both sides; he is clearly
identified by the incised thunderbolt to his
left and the double-axe in his left hand; the
right hand is broken off and we may only
surmise that he held a bunch of grain or
fruit, or a sceptre in it. This is his last solo
appearance.
Ill. Bibliography
A. ABOU-ASSAF, Dic Ikonographie des Alt-
babylonischen Wettergottes, BagM 14
(1983) 43-66; P. A«iET, Le dieu de l'orage
381
HADES
dans l'iconographie des sceaux-cylindres
d'Ugarit, Natural Phenomena, Their Mean-
ing, Depiction and Description in the
Ancient Near East (ed. D. J. W. Meijer;
Amsterdam 1992) 5-18: M. Avi-YONAH,
Syrian Gods at Ptolemais-Accho, /EJ 9
(1959) 1-12; P. BonpmEUIiL, Une biblio-
théque au sud de la ville (RSOu VII; Paris
1991) text 47; BonpmtEuiL, Le répertoire
iconographique des sceaux araméens in-
scrits, Studies in the Iconography of North-
west Semitic Inscribed Seals (Fribourg
1993) 74-100; D. CHanRPIN & J. M.
DURAND, "Fils de Sim'al": les origines tri-
bales des rois de Mari, RA 80 (1986) 141-
183, esp. 173-174; H. J. W. Druvers, Dea
syria, LIMC llI/1 355-358; Il/2 364-367; J.
M. DunAND, Le combat entre le Dieu de
l'orage et la Mer, MARI 7 (1993) 41-61; J.
R. Dussaup, Le Temple de Jupitter
Damascène, Syria 3 (1922) 219-250; I.
EPHAL & J. Naven, Hazael’s Booty
Inscriptions, /EJ 39 (1989) 192-203; D. E.
FLEMING, The Installation of Baal’s High
Priestess at Emar (Atlanta 1992) 214-219;
M. Gaw.ixowskl, Hadad, LIMC 1V/1 365-
367; LIMC 1V/2 209-210; H. GENGE, Nord-
syrisch-stidanatolische Reliefs (Copenhagen
1979); J. C. GREENFIELD, Un rite religicux
araméen et ses paralleles, RB 80 (1973) 46-
52; GREENFIELD, The Aramaic God Ram-
man/Rimmon, /EJ 26 (1976) 195-198;
GREENFIELD, Aspects of Aramaic Religion,
Ancient Israelite Religion, Essays in Honor
of F. M. Cross (Philadelphia 1987) 67-78;
GREENFIELD, To Praise the Might of Hadad,
La vie de la Parole: de l'Ancien au Nou-
veau Testament. Etudes offertes à P. Grelot
(Paris 1987) 3-12; GREENFIELD, The Aram-
ean God Hadad, Erlsr 24 (FS A. Malamat;
Jerusalem 1993) 54-61; P. HOUWINK TEN
Cate, The Hittite Storm God, his Role and
his Rule According to Hittite Cuneiform
Sources, Natural Phenomena, Their Mean-
ing, Depiction and Description in the
Ancient Near East (ed. D. J. W. Meijer;
Amsterdam 1992) 83-148; H. KLENGEL,
Der Wettergott von Halab, JCS 19 (1965)
87-95; K. KocH, Hazzi-Safón-Kasion. Reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen
Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Tes-
tament (cd. B. Janowski er al., OBO 129;
Freiburg 1993) 172-223; M. KREBERNIK,
Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texten (Berlin
1988) 74; B. LAFONT, Le roi de Mari et les
prophétes du dieu Adad, RA 80 (1986) 7-8;
W. G. LAMBERT, The Pantheon of Mari,
MARI 4 (1985) 525- 539; M. LINDNER & J.
ZANGENBERG, The Rediscovered Baityl of
the Goddess Atargatis, ZDPV 109 (1993)
141-151; E. Lipixsxi, Apladad, Or 45
(1976) 53-74; Lipinsx1, Archives from the
Gozan-Harran Area. Biblical Archaeology
Today (ed. J. Amitai; Jerusalem 1985); J. J.
M. Roserts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon
(Baltimore 1972) 13-14, n.18; E. SoLL-
BERGER, The So-Called Treaty Between
Ebla and ‘Ashur’, StEb MI, 9-10 (1980) 129-
155; A. VANEL, L'iconographie du dieu de
l'orage dans le Proche-Orient | ancien
jusqu’au Vile siécle avant J.C. (Paris 1965).
J. C. GREENFIELD
HADES "Aióng
I. Hades is the Greek name for the
underworld and its ruler, as is the case in
the Bible. The spelling of the name some-
times varies (Aides/Hades, Aidoneus) and
the etymology is debated. The most recent
analysis sees a link with the root *a-wid-,
‘invisible’ (RUUGH 1991:575-576, but see
also BURKERT 1985:196). Most likely,
Hades first denoted a place name and was
only later personified. Only the personi-
fication will be discussed here. Hades occurs
111 times in the LXX, most often as equiv-
alent of Heb S2’6/, and 10 times in the NT.
II. Hades is a shadowy god in Greece
who has few myths and even fewer cults; he
does not even occur with certainty on the
archaic vases (DALINGER 1988:389). His
connection with the underworld makes him
‘horrible’ (/l. 8.368) and ‘the most hated of
all the gods’ (//. 9.158). Such a god can
hardly receive a cult and in Greece only Elis
seems to have worshipped him in a temple
(Strabo 8.3.14; Pausanias 6.25.2).
Homer (/l. 15.187-93) mentions that he
acquired the underworld through a lottery
382
HAIL — HAM
with his brothers —Zeus and -*Poseidon; the
passage possibly derives eventually from the
Akkadian epic Atrahasis (BURKERT 1992:
90-91). Homer also represents him as the
ruler of the underworld, but only post-
Homeric times depict him as a judge of the
dead (Aeschylus, Eum. 273). On late- and
post-classical Apulian vases Hades is often
connected with Orpheus—perhaps a sign of
a changing role in South-Italian religious
ideas (DALINGER 1988:394).
The most famous myth of Hades is his
abduction of Persephone, which was local-
ized at various spots in the Greek world
(RICHARDSON 1973:74-78). As Persephone
was associated with love and marriage
(Sourvinou-INwoop 1991:147-188) and an
abduction was part of Spartan wedding rites,
the myth will originally have been a narra-
tive representation of pre-nuptial girls’ rites.
Less clear is an allusion in the /liad (5.395-
7) that Hades was wounded by Heracles ‘at
Pylos among the dead’. This myth is prob-
ably part of Heracles’ function as Master of
Animals (BURKERT 1979:86) and suggests
that the personification of Hades goes back
into the Bronze Age.
II. In the Bible Hades usually occurs as
the abode of the dead but a few passages
employ the name of Hades as Death (-*Tha-
natos) personified (1 Cor 15:55 v.l; Rev
6:8, 20:13-14). This personification of Death
probably derives from OT usage (-*Mot)
and the idea of the personal Greek god is
hardly present in these cases.
IV. Bibliography
W. BURKERT, Structure and History in
Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley, Los
Angeles & London 1979); BURKERT, Greek
Religion (Oxford 1985); BURKERT, The
Orientalizing Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.
& London 1992); S.-F. DALINGER ef al.,
Hades, LIMC 1V.1 (1988) 367-94; N. J.
RICHARDSON, The Homeric Hymn 10
Demeter (Oxford 1973); C. J. Ruuci,
Scripta minora 1 (Amsterdam 1991); C.
SounviNoU-INwoop, ‘Reading’ Greek Cul-
ture (Oxford 1991).
J. N. BREMMER
HAIL - BARAD
HALMA -*ETERNITY
HAM Ci
I. Ham is the second son of -*Noah,
and the brother of —Shem and -*Japheth.
His name occurs 17 times in the Bible. He
is sometimes said to originally represent a
(semi-) divine figure, either because his
name is that of a supposed West-Semitic
sun-god called Hammu (Lewy 1944), or
because it is connected to Eg hm, ‘(divine)
majesty’ (GORDON 1988).
II. The evidence adduced by Lewy for a
solar deity called Hammu is onomastic: the
theophoric element Hammu or Ammu (as in
Hammu-rabi, Aqba-ammu, and the like)
would go back to the name hammu, ‘hot
one’, a designation of the sun-god. It is
clear, however, that Akk (h)ammu_ corre-
sponds to Heb ‘am, ‘people, clan’. Its occur-
rence in theophoric names illustrates the
deification of dead kin; it may be compared
with the use of ’db (-*father) and "à
(—brother) as theophoric elements (NOTH
1953:148).
On the face of it, the proposal to connect
the name Ham with Eg Jun, ‘majesty’,
makes sense. In some of the biblical psalms,
the name Ham is used in apposition to
Egypt (Pss 78:51; 105:23.27; 106:22). An
Egyptian etymology, though perhaps not
likely, cannot be excluded. Yet if hm, maj-
esty, were the correct etymology, this would
not imply divine status for Ham. Although
the Egyptian Pharoah in function is more
than a mere moral, the expression hm by
itself does not convey the notion of divinity.
HI. The speculations about the divine
status of Ham are based on ill-founded inter-
pretations of the extra-biblical material. In
the biblical records there is no trace of
Ham's supposed divinity. No sure etymol-
ogy of his name can be given (proposals
include a connection with Akk emmu,
‘father in law’, and Eg keme, ‘the black
land’).
IV. Bibliography
C. H. Gorpon, Notes on Proper Names in
383
HAMARTIA — HAOMA
the Ebla Tablets, Eblaite Personal Names
and Semitic Name-Giving (ARES 1; ed. A.
Archi; Rome 1988) 154; J. Lewy, The Old
West-Semitic Sun-God Hammu, HUCA 18
(1943-44) 429-488; M. NorH, Mar und
Israel: Eine Personennamenstudie, Ge-
schichte und Altes Testament. Aufsätze
Albrecht Alt zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen
1953) 127-152.
K. VAN DER TOORN
HAMARTIA -* SIN
HAOMA ^
I. The personal name Hammadatha to
be found in Esther 3:1 represents the Iranian
name *Haumadata, ‘given by hauma’ (or, in
the Avestan form, ‘haoma’), which is com-
mon in Achaemenid territory (MAYRHOFER
1973). Iranian ^aoma is the equivalent of
the Indian form soma, a name which simply
means ‘juice’. Soma, to which the 9th book
of Rigveda is devoted, is a liquor extracted
from a plant which is ground in a stone
mortar, then filtered and lengthily clarified
through a horsehair sieve. The drink, offered
to the gods and also consumed by sacri-
ficers, is particularly appreciated by the war-
rior god Indra, whom it enables to accom-
plish his extraordinary feats. Soma/haoma is
not only a plant, but also a god. It is a sacer-
dotal god, being both a deity and an offering
to the gods, and it has a complex and para-
doxical relation to death: it is mortal, as
pressing kills it, yet at the same time it is
immortal in that its virtues are reproduced
indefinitely, and it secures immortality to
those who drink it.
II: Whereas the offering of soma disap-
peared early from Indian practices, the main
Iranian liturgy, the yasna service, consists
even today in a ceremonious preparation of
haoma. A precise description and subtle
interpretation was given by Boyce (1970).
The plant-god grants remarkable descend-
ants, ensures victory over evil spirits, pro-
vides a happy drunkenness resulting in
enhanced mental power and is used by the
dying as provisions for immorality. It re-
ceives a definite sacrificial ration: the
tongue, checks and left eye of the victim.
It is gencrally admitted that the plant
from which soma is derived is a species of
ephedra, which is still used today in the sur-
viving Mazdacan communities. For a num-
ber of years there has been a tendency to
think that ephedra is a substitute and other
solutions have been suggested: amanita
muscaria or fly-agaric (WASSON 1968, in-
geniously supported by GERSCHEVITCH
1974), ginseng (WINDFUHR 1985), harmal or
African rue (FLATTERY & SCHWARTZ 1989).
But the ephedra fragments in a mortar dis-
covered recently on a Bactrian site scem to
put a definite end to the controversy.
The offering of haoma was a common
practice among Achaemenids; the Haum-
avarga Scythians probably owe their name ,
to the fact that they did not press the plant
but strewed it ritually (HOFFMANN 1975).
Many specialists believe that the offering
of haoma was condemned by the prophet
Zarathustra, but was restored after his death
(most recently DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN 1988).
In fact, the ancient Avesta makes two poss-
ible references to haoma, which might both
be abusive. The first (Yasna 32.14) criticizes
an offering characterized as ditraoSa- (an
obscure word, probably meaning 'difficult to
burn'), an epithet applying exclusively to
haoma in the recent Avesta, but whose
Indian equivalent durdsa(s)- does not necess-
arily apply to soma. The second (Yasna
48.10) refers to an intoxicating liquor caus-
ing diarrhoea and a particular urine. It can-
not be assessed with any certainty either that
those allusive strophes effectively refer to
haoma, or that they condemn it in the abso-
lute. Some specialists have put forward the
hypothesis that they were arguments con-
ceming certain details of the preparation,
such as a mixture with the victim’s blood
(HuUMBACH 1960; HOFFMANN 1975).
IIl. Bibliography
M. Boyce, Haoma Priest of the Sacrifice,
W. B. Henning Memorial Volume (London
1970) 62-80; J. DucHESNE-GUILLEMIN,
Haoma proscrit et réadmis, Mélanges Pierre
Lévêque (Paris 1988) 127-131; D. S.
384
HARAN —
FLATTERY & M. Scuwanrz, Haoma and
Harmaline (Berkeley 1989); I. GERSHE-
vitcH, An Iranianist'S view of the Soma
controversy, Mémorial Jean de Menasce
(Louvain 1974) 45-75; K. HOFFMANN,
Aufsdtze zur Indoiranistik, Vol 2 (Wiesba-
den 1975) 611-612 n. 6; H. HumBacn, Der
Iranische Mithra als daiva, Festgabe fiir
Herman Lommel (Wiesbaden 1960) 78-79;
M. MAYRHOFER, Onomastica Persepolitana
(Wien 1973) 244; R. G. Wasson, Soma
Divine Mushroom of Immortality (New
York 1968); G. WinpFuHR, Haoma/Soma:
the Plant, Papers in Honour of Professor
Mary Boyce, Vol 2 (Leiden 1985) 699-726.
J. KELLENS
HARAN mn
I. It has been speculated that the city of
Haran (7 times in Genesis; see also 2 Kgs
19:12; Isa 37:12; Ezek 27:23) was named
after a deity Haran (LEwY 1934). The avail-
able evidence does not support the conten-
tion.
II. The grounds on which a cult of a god
Haran is postulated are not very firm. In an
Old Assyrian letter (CCT 4 Pl. 35b:19-20),
Lewy found a reference to a “priest of Har-
ranàátum" (ku-um-ra $a Ha-ra-na-tim; the
alleged goddess is also mentioned in CCT 4
Pl. 48b:20). LEwYv concluded that Harranà-
tum must have been a goddess, and deemed
it likely that she should have had a male
counterpart presumably called — Harrán
(1934). As it turns out, the very basis of the
conjecture is wrong as the expression ša
harránátim refers to a forwarding agent, or
a carrier (‘he in charge of the caravans’,
AHW 327 s.v. harrdnu IV; CAD H 113).
Doubts about the interpretation of Harranà-
tum as a goddess were first expressed by I.
J. Gets (inscriptions from Alishar and
Vicinity (OIP 27; Chicago 1935] 54 n. 1);
Lewy's interpretation was definitively refu-
ted by HiRSCH, who also corrected the rea-
ding ku-um-ra into Ku-ti-ra (21972).
The biblical place name Haran refers to
the city known as Harrén in cuneiform
sources; it is situated about 100 miles north
HATHOR
from the confluence of the Euphrates and
the Balikh rivers. The name of the city is
usually written with the Sumerogram
KASKAL, which stands for ‘way, road’. The
Akkadian word Aarrànu does indeed refer,
amongst other things, to a highway, a road,
or a path (CAD H 106-113). Though in
some contexts the road may be deified as
the numinous power by which an oath was
swom (urpu V-VI 191: Magli | 67;
- Way), there is no trace in the cunciform
sources of a cult to a deity Haran.
Ill. Bibliography
H. HinscH, Untersuchungen zur. altassyri-
schen Religion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; Osna-
brück 21972) 29 n. 149; Y. Konavasii,
Haran, ABD 3 (1992) 58-59; J. Lewy, Les
textes paléo-assyriens et l'Ancien Testa-
ment, RHR 110 (1934) 46-47.
K. VAN DER TOORN
HATHOR
I. Hathor ("Mansion of -Honis") is an
Egyptian goddess. According to CLEDAT
(1919), Hathor occurs as the second element
in the place-name Pi hahirét, Exod 14:2.9;
Num 33:7-8. The first part renders Eg pr.
“House (of)", but was interpreted (KB) as
Heb “Mouth (of the Canals)".
II. Hathor is often pictured as a woman
in the prime of lifc. Sometimes, however,
bovine cars, and frequently horns betray her
original, non-antropomorphic shape. She is a
cow from time immemorial. Hathor creates
and sustains life in that capacity. The same
applies to her as a tree goddess, the "Lady
of the (Southem) Sycamore” (--Sycomore).
She, the "Lady of the West", assists the
revived dead as well. Both maternal and
sexual love, merriment and festivals, singing
and playing music, dancing and drinking are
characteristic of her. She is strongly attached
to women; the Greck identify her with
-—» Aphrodite.
As the heavenly cow, Hathor gives birth
to the sun; this possibly finds expression in
her name. She is scen as the eye of this
deity and one calls her "Gold" perhaps for
that reason. The eye in tum is equated with
385
HAYIN
the cobra (Uraeus). At the same time, the
goddess is the spouse of the sun or light
god: >Re in Heliopolis and Horus in Edfu.
She is not always an attractive and amiable
figure. As the grim avenger of an injury (a
conspiracy against Re), she would become a
ferocious —lioness. Hathor was worshipped
throughout the country and even abroad. Her
main sanctuaries are in Denderah and Deir
el-Bahri. But she is also “Lady of Byblos",
and “Lady of the Turquoise” on the Sinai
peninsula.
This many-sided, complicated, and popu-
lar deity is not a unique personality. Egypt-
ians distinguish eighteen forms of her. And
there is a group of seven Hathors who pro-
claim the fate of a new-born child.
IIL. Pi hahtrot is situated on the route of
the Exodus. It was, according to the Bible,
the last halting-place before the crossing of
the Sea of Rushes. The identification of
CLEDaT (1919) is open to question. It is not
satisfactory from an etymological point of
view. There has been a "House of Hathor"
in the region. Its nature and location are still
unknown, however (see GoMAA 1976).
An attempt to find traces of the cult of
Hathor the heavenly cow in the North-Israe-
lity cult of the golden calves (DANELIUS
1967-68) has met with little support. Both
the identification of the calves as cows (on
the basis of LXX úo SapadAeicg and Hos
10:5 1229 [keríb], DANELIUS 1967-68:212),
are highly implausible.
IV. Bibliography
S. ALLAM, Beiträge zum Hathorkult (bis
zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches) (MAS 4;
Berlin 1963); C. J. BLEEKER, Hathor and
Thoth (SHR 26; Leiden 1973); H. BONNET,
Hathor, RARG 277-282; J. Cerny, Ancient
Egyptian Religion (London 1952) 155; J.
CLÉDAT, Notes sur l'isthme de Suez, BIFAO
16 (1919) 201-228, cf. 218-219; E. DANELI-
us, The Sins of Jerobeam ben-Nabat, JOR
58 (1967-68) 95-114.204-223; F. DAUMAS,
Hathor, LdÀ II (1977) 1024-1033; F. Gomaa,
Gebel Abu-Hassa, LdA II (1976) 432-433;
E. HonNuNG, Der Eine und die Vielen
(Darmstadt 1971) 274.
M. HEERMA VAN Voss
HAYIN
I. The word hyn occurs a number of
times in Ugaritic texts as an cpithet of
Kothar-wa-Hasis (-*Kothar) It has been
suggested that the same word is found in
Hab 2:5 (ALBRIGHT 1943; 1968) and Job
41:4[12] (Pore 1965) as a divine title.
II. The word hyn occurs in KTU 1.3
vi:22-23; 1.4 1:23; 1.17 v:18, each time in a
synonymous parallelism with Kothar-wa-
Hasis. The interpretation of the term is
based on comparative Semitic philology:
Syr hawnd means ‘intelligence’, hence Ug
hyn is usually translated as ‘intelligent’,
This meaning fits well with the name Kothar-
wa-Hasis: 'Skilful-and-Wise' (for other sug-
gestions see the literature mentioned by D.
PARDEE, Ugaritic Proper Nouns, AfO 36-37
[1989-90] 449). There is no reason to be-
lieve that Ayn is the proper name of the god;
a connection with the Greek god Hephaestus
is implausible (pace B. HARTMANN, De her-
komst van de goddelijke ambachtsman in
Oegarit en Griekenland (Leiden 1964)).
III. The attempts to find the epithet hyn
(conventionally vocalized *Hayin) in the
Hebrew Bible must be regarded as un-
successful. The first proposal concerns Hab
2:5 (ALBRIGHT 1943). Though perhaps not
“totally unconvincing” (Day 1985), it has
little to commend itself. The expression }™
1313, literally “wine is treacherous”, is sus-
pect, since the notion of treason (BGD) im-
plies volition. Moreover, the expected word
“it (‘Woe’) is missing; it may be concealed
by 11 (note that 1QpHab VIII 3 reads 717).
Commentators have therefore proposed to
emendate the text (for a survey see HALAT
391 s.v. i"). The interpretation of ì^ as
Hayin (Hiyón: "and though he be crafty as
Hiyón, a faithless man shall not succeed"
ALBRIGHT 1943) is definitely one of the less
likely emendations (also modifications in the
vocalisation of the MT must be regarded as
textual emendations), see HAAK 1992:60-61.
The second passage, Job 41:4[12]. is prob-
ably also textually corrupt. The correction
into hayin, though orthographically possible,
necessitates another minor correction. POPE
translates “Did I not silence his boasting, by
386
HE-OF-THE-SINAI
the powerful word Hayyin prepared?"
(1965:335), which implies a reading “273
for "3:0. The suggestion is ingenious,
though not very probable. It is true that in
the Ugaritic myths there are references to
-*Baal having slain -*Leviathan, and since
Leviathan is a sea-monster Baal may have
done so with the help of the weapons
Koshar made for him. Yet it seems strange
that the rare epithet Hayin should be used
for Koshar by an author addressing an
audience that was hardly familar with the
details of Ugaritic mythology. More prob-
able textual solutions have been offered.
They include the correction of /iín into hél,
‘strength’ (Day 1985: “I will not remain
silent ... with regard to the might and
strength of his frame"). or "én *árók, 'unpar-
alleled' (A. B. EnnLiCH, Randglossen zur
hebrüischen Bibel, Vol. 6 [Leipzig 1918]
340).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Furniture of El in
Canaanite Mythology, BASOR 91 (1943) 40
n. 11; ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan (London 1968) 221 n. 135; A.
Cooper. RSP Ill (1981) 445; J. Day. God's
Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cam-
bridge 1985) 63 n. 8; R. HAAk, Habakkuk
(VTSup 44; Leiden 1992) 60-61: M. H.
Pore, Job (AB 15; Garden City 1965)
335.338-339 (on Job 41:4[12]).
K. VAN DER TOORN
HE-OF-THE-SINAI ^72 ii
I. Occurring twice in the OT (Judg 5:5;
Ps 68:8-9) zéh sinai ‘He-of-the-Sinai’ is to
be understood according to the analogous
Nabatean divine name 'Dushara' as the
‘God (Lord) of the Sinai’ (H. GRIMME,
ZDMG 50 [1896]:573 n. 1).
II. The divine epithet ‘He-of-the-Sinai’
appears in Judg 5:5. Here 'He-of-the-Sinai'
is a qualification of > Yahweh, and stands in
parallelism to the epithet ‘God of Israel’.
Before becoming the god of Israel Yahweh
was the lord of the Sinai who came from
Seir/Edom to fight for Israel (Judg 5:4-5; cf.
Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3).
The Hebrew construction Yahweh zéh
sinai has an anology in the Nabatean
designation Dushara *Hc-of-the-Sara[-moun-
tain]'. The original name of this deity has
been completely superseded by the epithet
'du$ara'. Several authors want to delete
"He-of-the-Sinai' from Judg 5:5 as a gloss.
Thus FisHBANE argues that it is an inter-
polation indicating that "this (refers to the
event at) Mount Sinai" (1985:75). Consider-
ing the Nabatean analogy, this suggestion is
open to debate.
The argument in favour is strengthened
further by a second mentioning of 'He-of-
the-Sinai' in the OT. Ps 68:8-9 is a quota-
tion of Judg 5:4-5 which shows that the
author of this psalm treated ‘He-of-the-
Sina in his Vorlage as a divine name.
Furthermore, the author of Ps 68:9 replaced
Yahweh on the basis of Judg 5:4-5 by
'élohím thus creating a distich "before God
the Lord of Sinai. before God, the God of
Israel”. (Note, however, that Fishbane re-
verses the chronological order of these
hymns).
Judg 5:4-5 and Ps 68:8-9 show that there
was a tradition of a god ‘Yahweh-he-of-the-
Sinai’. This was originally a specification of
a god according to his cult-place. It can be
understood in analogy to the Uganitic divine
name -*'Baal Zaphon' by which a local
manifestation of the Northem Syrian
weather-god is differentiated from other
Baal-deities also venerated in Ugarit. That
further local Yahweh-manifestations were
also known in Israel is shown by thc in-
scriptions of Kuntillet Ajrud which know
"Yahweh of Teman" and "Yahweh of
Samaria” (J. Renz & W. RÖLLIG, Hand-
buch der althebräischen Epigraphik V1
[Darmstadt 1995] 61-62, 64).
Ill. Bibliography
M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in
Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985); J. JEREMIAS,
Theophanie (WMANT 10; Neukirchen
1965) 8-9; E. A. KNaur, Midian (ADPV;
Wiesbaden 1988) 48-50 [& lit]; T. F.
McDanliEL, Deborah never Sang. A Philo-
logical Study on the Song of Deborah
[Judges Chapter V] (Jerusalem 1983) 173-
387
HEALING GOD — HEAVEN
174; P. MAIBERGER, TWAT 5 (1984-1986)
819-838, esp. 824-825 [& lit.].
H. NIEHR
HEALING GOD > EL-ROPHE
HEAVEN DNJ oùpavóç (-voi)
I. The Hebrew word DJ (Sdmayim)
is plurale tantum and occurs 420 times in
the OT; only a limited number of these
occurrences refer to heaven as being divinc.
It has its cognates in other semitic languages
(e. g. Akk Sama or Sama’, Ug Smm, Aram
Smayyd, Ar sama’), the equivalent in Sumer-
ian is an, in Hittite we find the word nepiš
for ‘heaven’. The etymology of the word is
not completely certain; it is possible to de-
rive it from Akk £a mé ("of water", CT
25,50:17), but this can also be popular ety-
mology.
II. The Sumerian cunciform sign an
means heaven and it is also used for writing
the name of the Sumerian god An, the god
of heaven, and his Babylonian equivalent
Anu. He can be considered as the personi-
fied heaven (and sky, as the Sumerians and
Babylonians did not distinguish between
heaven and sky). His antiquity is still open
to debate but in the middle of the 3rd mil-
lennium BCE he is mentioned in the god-lists
from Fara. At the time of Gudea of Lagash
he is already at the head of the Sumerian
pantheon; during the Ur III and lsin-Larsa
periods his cult is also well documented by
hymns and prayers. He maintained this posi-
tion during the Old Babylonian period;
together with Enlil and Ea (and sometimes a
female deity like Nintu or Ishtar) he was
usually acknowledged as one of the senior
deities of the pantheon. As the god of
heaven he was not only considered the
father of the gods (cf. Afr i 7) but some-
times also of the demons. His consort was
either the goddess Antu (the ‘feminine
heaven’) or the goddess ki or ura$, ‘Earth’,
which clearly shows the cosmic relationship
of -*Heaven-and-Earth. Within the pantheon
and also Babylonian theology he was in
charge of the ‘divine ordinances’ (me) and
he decreed—as the ultimate source of autho-
rity—the fates. After the ‘rise of Nippur
some of Anu’s prerogatives were taken over
by Enlil. Nevertheless Anu’s cult was strong
until the Late Babylonian period, where he
still had his huge temple at Uruk; also ritu-
als for him from the Seleucid era have been
preserved there. There too he was connected
with Ishtar, his consort.
Outside the Sumero-Babylonian world,
heaven attained only a limited divine rank.
In the texts from Ugarit we can see that the
pair Heaven-and-Earth is deified and thus
can also receive offerings (KTU 1.47:12;
1.118:11; 1.148:5.24); there is also a rela-
tion to those texts which refer to Heaven-
and-Earth as witnesses to an oath in treaties
(cf. RS 18.06+17.365, line 6). KTU 1.100
has an interesting beginning: an incantation
against snake-bites. In lines 1-2 we find an
allusion to a theogony which might be of
Hittite-Hurrian origin (ARTU:146). At the
head of this list we find the sun-goddess
Shapshu who is the mother of Heaven and
Flood, who gave birth to Spring and
->Stone, the parents of the She-ass, who is
the main figure of the incantation. On the
other hand heaven does not figure promi-
nently as a divine entity in the Ugaritic pan-
theon. Poetical texts suggest that heaven can
speak (e.g. KTU 1.3 iii:24) but as a rule
heaven is merely the abode of the (heaven-
ly) gods. Worthy of special mention is
—Baal shamem, the ‘Lord of heaven’,
whose cult gained great importance among
the Phoenicians and the Arameans in the
first millennium. Texts from Anatolia give a
similar picture: Heaven (nepis) is invoked as
witness in treaties (e.g. KUB 21.1 iv 26;
KBo 8.35 ii 12), often together with Earth.
As a rule, though, heaven is only the abode
of gods; Hittite texts treat the (unspecified)
gods of. heaven (nepišaš DiNGIRMES,
DINGIRMES SAME) as a category of their
own or opposed to the gods of earth. The
Sungod and the Stormgod can often get the
epithet *of heaven'. Some offering lists and
festival texts also refer to heaven (and earth)
in a quite parallel way as these texts refer to
the other gods. Thus we can conclude that—
388
HEAVEN
as in Ugarit—heaven and earth as cosmic
entities were sometimes considered divine;
but their role is in no way comparable to
Anu’s position as a heavenly god and the
personified heaven in Mesopotamia.
In Greek religion heaven (Ouranos) is an
old but subordinate deity. According to
Hesiod (Theog. 126-128) he was bom from
Gaia (—Earth) whose husband he subse-
quently became. He begets with her the
—Titans and Cyclops. He is also incor-
porated in the theogonical myth where his
son Kronos dethrones him; only to be de-
throned himself by -*Zeus later. This theo-
gony was clearly influenced by myths from
the ancient Near East. Outside mythology,
Ouranos does not play a role of any import-
ance. On occasion he features as a god con-
nected with the taking of oaths (Homer, JI.
15:36; Od. 5:184).
III. Only a limited number of the 420
occurrences of ‘heaven’ in the OT refer to
its divinity. Heaven is the term for the space
above the earth where we can find the sun,
the moon and the -*stars, but also water
(Jer 10:13; Ps 148:4), rain (Gen 8:2, Deut
11:11), -*dew (Gen 27:28; Deut 33:28) or
snow (Isa 55:10). Since it is also the place
for the birds (e.g. Deut 4:17; Jer 8:7; Ps 8:9;
Lam 4:19), there is no real difference be-
tween heaven and sky. So it is no wonder
that heaven (or sky) can be opposed to Earth
thus forming the common Near Eastern pair
of 'Heaven-and-Earth' as description of the
whole cosmos. The word rdgia‘, ‘firmament’
can be used (cf. Gen 1:14-15.17.20; Ps 19:2;
Ezek 1:23.25-26; 10:1; Dan 12:3) in par-
allelism with $ámayim. Some occurrences of
séhagim, ‘clouds’ (cf. Deut 33:26; Jer 51:9;
Pss 36:6; 57:11; 78:23; 108:5; Job 35:5;
38:37) as parallel to Sdmayim give the
impression of heaven being first of all the
space above the earth. Of further importance
is the widely held view of the OT that
heaven was created by —God and thus can-
not obtain sanctity by itself (Isa 42:5; 45:18;
Pss 8:4; 33:6; Prov 3:19; 8:27; Neh 9:6).
Another aspect of heaven is its role as the
abode of God. God is in heaven where he
dwells on his throne (cf. Ps 2:4; 11:4; 1 Kgs
8:30). surrounded by the -Host of heaven
and all his —angels (Gen 28:12; 1 Kgs
22:19; 2 Chr 18:18; Pss 89:8-9; 103:21; Neh
9:6; Dan 7:10: cf. Job 1:6; 2:1). An ancient
idea of God's being in heaven has been pre-
served in Deut 33:26 and Ps 68:34 where he
is called the “rider upon the heavens” which
can be compared to the idea of God being
the “rider upon the clouds” (Ps 68:5; Isa
19:1), a term which can be used in a similar
way in connection with Baal, the -*Rider-
upon-the-Clouds. As God is present in
heaven, he also acts from there cither speak-
ing to men (Gen 21:17; 22:11,15; Exod 20:
22; Deut 4:26; Ps 76:9; Nch 9:13) or closing
up or opening heaven (e. g. Deut 11:17; 2
Sam 21:10; 1 Kgs 8:35; Ps 147:8). Thus
there is a close connection between God and
heaven—though God is always more than
heaven (1 Kgs 8:27; 2 Chr 2:5; 6:18; Jer
23:24).
Though heaven was not originally con-
sidered a mythical being in the OT, we can
find a kind of re-mythologization since the
Persian era: At a first stage we find the di-
vine title -^"God of heaven" (Ps 136:26;
Jonah 1:9; Ezra 1:2; 2 Chr 36:23; Neh 1:4-5,
2:4.20; Dan 2:18-19; Jdt 5:8; 6:19). Prob-
ably this is a revival of an older concept (cf.
Gen 24:3.7), as a male "God of Heaven" is
not unknown in the ancient Near East,
which also corresponds to a female Queen
of Heaven. In the Persian era it is possible
that this revival is due to Iranian influence
on the biblical religion: We can find Ahura
Mazda as a "god of heaven" who has cre-
ated heaven and earth. In such late texts not
only the God of Israel has become the God
of heaven; it is also possible now to speak
of heaven as a synonym for God himself. In
the Book of Daniel King Nebuchadnezzar is
humiliated to make him recognize “that
Heaven rules” (Dan 4:26)—which means
nothing other than to recognize God's rule.
A similar manner of speaking can be found
throughout the Books of Maccabees (1
Macc 3:18; 4:10.24.55; 12:15; 2 Macc
7:11): Heaven can save even a small number
of the Maccabees from their enemies when
they pray to heaven; the quotation from Ps
389
HEAVEN-AND-EARTH
118:1 in 1 Macc 4:24 clearly shows that no
difference is made between God and heaven.
The idiom here is the same as that of the
NT.
IV. In the NT (as in the LXX) the
semitizing plural ouranoi (used in about one
third of the instances) has the same meaning
as the singular. Only in 2 Cor 12:2-4 where
Paul relates that he was caught up to the
third heaven (v 2), that is to Paradise (v 4),
is the existence of more than one heaven
assumed (for Jewish and later Christian
parallels, see RAC 15, 190-192, 202-204).
Also for early Christians God is the God of
heaven (Rev 11:13; 16:11), the Lord of
heaven and earth (Matt 11:25 par.; Luke
10:21; Acts 17:24). He may be called (my,
our, your) Father in heaven (Mark 11:25-26;
Matt 5:16.45; 6:1.9; 7:11.21; 10:32.33; 16:
17.19; 18:10.14.19). Heaven is called his
throne (Matt 5:34; 23:23; Acts 7:49 [Isa
66:11]. In Mark 6:41 par. Matt. 14:18;
Luke 9:16 Jesus looks up to heaven before
blessing and breaking the bread. God speaks
(and acts) ‘from heaven’ (Mark 1:10-11 par.
Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22; John 12:28, cf. Mark
8:11 par. Matt 16:1; Luke 11:16 and Luke
17:29; Rom 1:18; see also Rev 10:4; 11:12;
20:9). Hence it is said that the New Jerusa-
Iem will come down from God and out of
heaven (Rev 3:12; 21:2.10).
‘In heaven’ means ‘with God (and/or his
angels)’. One may have a ‘reward in
heaven’ (Matt 5:12 par. Luke 6:23; cf. Matt
6:1) or ‘a treasure in heaven’ (Matt 6:20 par.
Luke 12:33; Mark 10:21 par. Matt 19:21;
Luke 18:22, cf. Col 1:5). In Luke 10:20
Jesus assures his disciples that their names
are written down ‘in heaven’. What Peter
binds or looses on earth will be bound or
loosed ‘in heaven’ (Matt. 16:19), and the
same is promised to the disciples in Matt
18:18. Parallel to Luke 15:7 speaking about
‘joy in heaven’ over a repentant sinner,
Luke 15:10 speaks about ‘joy in the pres-
ence of the angels of God’ (cf. Luke 12:8.9
‘before the angels of God’ in contrast to
‘before my Father in heaven’ in the parallel
passage Matt 10:32.33).
In a relatively small number of cases
‘heaven’ is used as a metonym for God.
This is the case in Mark 11:30-32 par. Matt
21:21-26; Luke 20:4-5, where in a dis-
cussion between Jesus and the Jewish
leaders the question of the authority of John
the Baptist (and Jesus) is raised. Here ‘from
heaven’ stands in contrast to ‘from men’,
ic. ‘of human ongin’. The same usage is
found frequently not only in 1 Macc but
also in later Jewish sources (sec Str-B I 862-
865). We may compare the Johannine use of
‘from heaven’ (John 3:27.31, cf. 6:31-58)
together with ‘from above’ (3:3.7.31; 8:23;
19:11, cf. Jas 1:17; 3:15.17) and ‘from God’
(6:46; 8:42.47; 9:33; 13:3). Next, the Prodi-
gal Son declares: “Father I have sinned
against heaven and before you" (Luke
15:18.21). Finally one should notice that
Matthew, who shares the notion ‘Kingdom
of God’ with the other Synoptics, prefers the
use of the expression ‘Kingdom of heaven’
without a clear difference in meaning (the
latter is used 32 times, in contrast to ‘King-
dom of God’ 4 times).
V. Bibliography
G. DALMAN, Vorsichtige Redeweisen von
Gott, Die Worte Jesu 1 (Leipzig 19302, repr.
Darmstadt 1965) 167-191; C. HOUTMAN,
Der Himmel im Alten Testament (OTS 30;
Leiden 1993); B. LANG & C. McDANNELL,
Heaven. A History (London, New Haven
1988); G. LOHFINK, “Ich habe gesiindigt
gegen den Himmel und gegen dich”. Eine
Exegese von Lk 15,18.21, TQ 155 (1975)
51-52; M. METZGER, Himmlische und ir-
dische Wohnstatt Jahwes, UF 2 (1970) 139-
158; G. RvcKMaNs, Heaven and Earth in
South Arabic Inscriptions, JSS 3 (1958)
225-236; Su-B 1, 172-184, 862-865: H.
TRauB & G. VON RAD, ovpavés, TWNT 5
(1954) 496-543; A. WoHLSTEIN, The Sky-
God An-Anu (Jericho, N.Y. 1976).
M. Hurrra (I-III) & M. pE JoNcE (IV)
HEAVEN-AND-EARTH [^N c'o3
I. In accordance with Mesopotamian,
Anatolian and North Syrian evidence we
find the word-pair ‘heaven and earth’ also in
the OT scriptures, mainly in deuteronomistic
390
HEAVENLY BEINGS — HEBAT
and prophetic texts, where the cosmos is
called upon as a witness. Besides these
occurrences we find heaven and earth in
parallelism to describe the whole cosmos.
II. Outside the Biblical world the pair
heaven-and-earth has different degrees of
divinity. First of all we can find certain gods
who bear epithets (AKKGE 54.64.81-82.133-
134.236-237. 39) such as “lord/king of
heaven and earth” (bél/arri Samé u erseti),
“judge” (dayyanu) or “light” (mine) or "cre-
ator” (bani) of heaven and earth. In addition
gods can be referred to as the “gods of
heaven and earth” (ilani Sa Samé u erseti).
Such phrases refer to heaven-and-earth as a
cosmic entity where certain gods can reside,
but which has no divinity of its own. Of
greater importance are those texts where
heaven and earth are entreated—parallel to
other personal gods (cf. the references given
by MEISSNER 1925:215-217.222.230.233.
236)—to witness the conclusion of a treaty.
Within the curse formulas we find different
gods side by side with the divine pair
heaven and earth. Thus we must conclude
that, in such occurrences we deal with a
(semi-)divine name. This we can observe
not only in Mesopotamian but also in Ugar-
itic and Hittite texts: In Hittite sources
heaven and earth can appear among the di-
vine witnesses in treaties (FRIEDRICH 1926:
24-25; 1930:80-81.112-113; KBo 8:35 ii 12;
KUB 26:39 iv 24-25), a similar picture is
provided by the Akkadian treaties from
Hattusha (WEIDNER 1923:30-31.50-51.68-
69.74-75). In Ugarit heaven and earth occur
in offering lists and in the godlist (KTU
1.47:12; 1.118:11: 1.148:5.24; RS 20.41:11)
as well as in treaty texts (RS 17.338 r. 4; 18.
06 +:6; cf. also the Sfire-Treaty KA/ 222:11)
which may be due to Hittite influence. In
theogonic speculations there seems to be no
place for the divine pair heaven-and-earth as
the ancestors of the other gods but such a
tradition is not totally unknown in Phoenicia
because Philo of Byblos treats ouranos and
gé as the parents of Kronos and thus in-
directly of the other gods (BAUMGARTEN
1981:188-191.236-237).
III. The materials from the OT yield a
picture which fits in neatly with the ancient
Near Eastern background concerning the
divinity of both cosmic entities. First of all
we find the word-pair (or parallelism)
heaven-and-earth as a fixed term for the
whole cosmos which has been created by
god (cf. Gen 1:1; 2:1.4; 14:19.22; Ps 148:
13; Prov 3:19; 8:27; Isa 42:5; 45:18; Amos
9:6; Neh 9:6); these references are an ex-
pression of the conception of 'God, creator
of Heaven and Earth’, an idea which is not
unfamiliar in the Near Eastern cultures (cf.
~+El-Creator-of-the-Earth). Besides ‘Heaven
and Earth’ having no divinity, they are also
depicted as trembling before God (Joel
4:16). They cven bring their praises to him
(Ps 69:35). We find another aspect of
heaven and earth in prophetic texts of judge-
ment and in deuteronomistic curse formulae:
Here again heaven and earth are god-like
and thus godly witnesses against those who
transgress the oaths or divine command-
ments (cf. Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1). In
other instances they are invoked to hear the
prophetic and divine judgement against Isra-
el (cf. Isa 1:2; Mic 6:2; Ps 50:4). Such ref-
erences can scarcely be separated from the
‘weaty-gods’ of the surrounding cultures.
But the OT also clearly shows that heaven
and earth are always subordinate to the God
of heaven and earth.
IV. Bibliography
A. 1, BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History
of Philo of Byblos. A Commentary (EPRO
89; Leiden 1981); J. FRIEDRICH, Staats-
vertriige des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer
Sprache. Vol 1 (MVAAG 31; Leipzig
1926); Vol 2 (MVAAG 34,1; Leipzig 1930);
B. MEISSNER, Babylonien und Assyrien.
Vol. 2 (Heidelberg 1925); E. WEIDNER,
Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (BoSt
8-9; Leipzig 1923).
M. HUTTER
HEAVENLY BEINGS -* SONS OF
(THE) GOD(S)
HEBAT
L Hebat (or Hepat) is an important
391
HEBEL — HELEL
goddess venerated by the Hurrians as well
as the Hittites. Her name is found as a theo-
phoric element in the biblical anthroponym
Eliahba (2 Sam 23:32 = 1 Chr 11:33),
written NZiT ZR, and originally pronounced
*Elli-Heba, *Elli of Hebat' (MAISLER 1930).
II. In the Hurrian pantheon, the goddess
Hebat occupies a high rank: she is the wife
of the weather-god Teshub and the mother
of Sharruma (DANMANVILLE 1972-75:326).
Her epithet *Lady of heaven' or -*'*Qucen of
Heaven' underscores her celestial character.
In the course of tradition, she has been as-
similated to the sun-goddess of Arinna. Yet
Hebat is not a solar deity. The theologians
of Ugarit equated her with Pidraya, one of
the daughters of -*Baal (Ug. 5 [1968]
503.525). She may have been associated
more particularly with Venus, as she corrc-
sponds rather closely to Ishtar. In Nuzi,
the spouse of Teshub is called Ishtar (R. F.
S. Starr, Nuzi, Vol. 1 [Cambridge MA
1939] 529), and elsewhere Pidraya (4Pi-id-
di-r{i-ya]) is assimilated to Ishtar (CT 25,
Pl. 17 ii 12).
Though Hebat’s role in the mythology
known to us is restricted, her cult was
important in the ancient Near East. Kizzu-
watna was a major centre of her worship.
Outside Anatolia het cult was known in
Aleppo, Alalakh, and Ugarit (DANMANVILLE
1972-75:328). Whether Hurrian or pre-
Hurrian (IL. J. GELB, Hurrians and Subarians
[SAOC 22; Chicago 1944] 106-107), Hebat
was especially popular in the carliest times
at Aleppo. It is significant that her name
occurs most often in anthroponyms from
Syria and Palestine. The Amarna letters
show that the city of Jerusalem had a king
called Abdi-Heba in the Late Bronze Period
(in-dHe-ba; EA 280:17.23.34; 285:2.14;
286:2.761; 287:2.65; 288:2; perhaps 119:
51).
III. Though the name Eliahba is tradi-
tionally analysed as consisting of 'é/ (God)
plus yp’ in the hiphil (to conceal, to pro-
tect), yielding a sense like ‘God protects’
(Nom, IPN 197; HALAT 53-54; W. F.
ALBRIGHT, JPOS 8 [1908] 234 n. 2), the
alternative analysis defining it as a Hurrian
name is attractive. The name Abdi-Heba
attested for the king of Jerusalem shows that
the pronounciation Heba for Hebat, with
deletion of the final -t. had gained ground in
Palestine. Considering the spread of the cult
of Hebat in Syria and Palestine, reflected in
the distribution of the relevant theophoric
anthroponynis, it does not come as a total
surprise to find one of David's combatants
(not necessarily an Israclite) carrying a
name referring to the Hurrian goddess.
IV. Bibliography
J. DANMANVILLE, Hepat. Hebat, RLA 4
(1972-75) 326-329; W. FEILER, Hurritische
Namen im Alten Testament, ZA 45 (1939)
216-229; V. Haas, Geschichte der Hethiti-
schen Religion (HdO 1/15; Leiden 1994)
383-392; B. MaiSLER, Untersuchungen zur
alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens
und Paldstinas (Giessen 1930) 38.
K. VAN DER TOORN
HEBEL -* ABEL
HELEL 95%
I. The astral! being Hélel, occurs as a
divine name only in Isa 14:12: "How you
have fallen from heaven. Bright Morning
Star (/iélél ben-Sühar), felled to the earth,
sprawling helpless across the nations!"
(NEB). However, translations of this verse
vary. After the opening words, the RSV
continues: "O Day Star, son of Dawn! How
you are cut down to the ground, you who
laid the nations low!" Alternatively, in view
of Gilg. XI 6, where the hero is described as
lying on his back doing nothing, the second
half of the verse may be rendered “(How)
you've been cut down to the ground. help-
less on your back!" (VAN LEEUWEN 1980,
rejected by SPRoNK 1986:214 n. 4). The last
three words of the v. remain difficult.
The Hebrew expression hélél ben-Sahar
means 'Shining one, son of dawn'. Heb
hélel comes from the root HLL, ‘to shine’,
and means 'the Shining, Brilliant One', here
evidently an epithet of the Morning-star,
Venus.
Etymologically, Heb hélél corresponds to
392
HELEL
Ugaritic All which occurs in the following
expressions: bnt hll snnt, ‘daughters of
Brightness, swallows (or perhaps ‘Shining
Ones’) and bnt hll b'l gml, ‘daughters of
Brightness, Lord of the Crescent Moon’
(KTU 1.24:41-42) used of the Kathirátu (Ug.
ktrt) who feature largely in the same text as
handmaidens to Nikkal. Ug All is not to be
connected with (Thamudic) Ar hilal, ‘new
moon’. Shahar also occurs in Ugaritic myth-
ology as the other half of the divine pair
-Shahar and -*Shalim, *Dawn' or 'Morning
Star’ and ‘Dusk’.
II. The search for a comparable myth in
neighbouring religions has led scholars to
Babylonian, Ugaritic and Greek mythology.
It would seem that Isa 14:12-15 reflects the
episode in Ugaritic myth where Athtar failed
to replace -*Baal! on the throne. Baal was
dead, and after mourning, burial and
sacrifice the goddess -*Anat asked -*El for
a successor. He in turn asked Athirat (cf.
-*Asherah) for one of her sons and eventual-
ly they decided on Athtar. "Thereupon
Athtar the Tyrant went up into the heights
of Saphon; he sat on the throne of Mightiest
Baal. His feet did not reach the footstool,
his head did not reach its top. And Athtar
the Tyrant spoke: ‘I cannot be king in the
heights of Saphon"". Accordingly, he came
down and became king over the whole carth
or perhaps the netherworld (KTU 1.6 i).
However, no mythological episode in Ugar-
itic connects either All or Shr with the pre-
sumption of rising to heaven and instead
being thrust into the underworld (cf.
-*Sheol).
Hélél has been considered to represent an
aspect of the moon. However, this would
involve repointing as hêlal and correcting
Shr to śhr. Helel has also been identified
with the Babylonian underworld god —>Ner-
gal or with Jupiter. Yet another identi-
fication is with Phaethon, of Greek mythol-
ogy. Phaethon was the son of Eos, the
Dawn-goddess, and this is matched by
Hélél's own parentage (bn Shr) since there is
strong evidence that in Hebrew, too, Sahar,
‘Dawn’, was feminine.
It has also been suggested that the pair of
gods ngh w srr (KTU 1.123:12), alleged to
mean ‘Brightness and Rebellion’, is “the
earliest occurrence of the magnificent myth-
ological poem, Isaiah 14:12-15” (ASTOUR
1964:1966). However, srr means ‘last night
of the lunar month’ (Ar) and both terms
refer to the moon, not to Venus, so there is
no connection with Isa 14.
HIE. In Isa 14:12-21, Hêlēl, son of Shahar
is asserted to have said to himself: “I will go
up to -*heaven, above the -*stars of God I
will place my throne on high. I will sit on
the Mount of Assembly in Saphon, I will
rise above the heights of the clouds, I will
make myself like the Most High". His pre-
sumption, instead, resulted in his translation
to the very depths of the underworld, to be
mocked as the erstwhile all-powerful tyrant.
If there are mythological overtones, as is
probable, it remains to be determined how
the myth was transmitted to Isaiah and used
by him.
One reconstruction of the transmission
history of Isa 14:12-15 suggests that an ori-
ginal poem on the fall of a king, and based
on Canaanite verse tradition, was transferred
to the fate of a king of Babylon. His down-
fall was explained by means of the myth of
Hélél, son of Dawn, in the light of current
belief concerning good and evil spirits and
angels. Babylon and its kings were repre-
sented as a manifestation of the rebellious
fallen angels (LonETZ 1976).
Alternatively, in pre-Classical Greece there
was already confusion between Phaethon and
Heosphoros (or Venus as the morning star),
both being sons of Eos by different fathers.
When the Phaethon myth reached the Levant,
Phaethon's attempt to scale the heights of
heaven became confused with the episode of
Athtar's failure to gain the throne in Ugaritic
mythology. The Greck names were simply
translated into Hebrew, but Shr, as in Ugaritic,
remained masculine (McKay 1970).
It is also possible to treat the whole of Isa
14 as a parody of the dirge and in particular
of the lament in 2 Sam 1:19-27. In Isa
14:12-15 an ancient myth of Hélél was
transmitted by the poet in the form of a
dirge. “By embedding this dirge in the cen-
393
HELIOS
ter of the overall lament, the poet assimi-
lates the tyrant to this primordial figure,
identifying the tyrant’s rise and fall with that
of Hélél, the Bright One. Thus, for the poct,
the tyrant's transgression, his harsh op-
pression of the people, is ultimately tracc-
able to his consummate arrogance in de-
siring to be like God. As Hélél climbed
higher and higher only to fall deeper and
deeper, so too is the tyrant’s fate” (YEE
1988:577-579).
Etymologically, Heb hélel can be explained
by Ug All (sec above), but at the level of
myth the strongest affinity is between Isa 14
. and the Athtar episode in the Ugaritic Cycle
of Baal. This is strengthened by common
terminology, in particular Ar m‘d, ‘mount of
the assembly’ and yrkty spwn, ‘heights of
Saphon’ (v. 13) which correspond to Ug plir
md, ‘plenary session’ (KTU 1.2 i:14) and
mrym spn, 'heights of Saphon' (KTU 1.3
iv:l) respectively. It has even been sug-
gested that Athtar’s epithet, ‘rz, means
‘luminous’ rather than ‘tyrant’. This would
lend further support to this identification
(CRAIGIE 1973), but this is not the accepted
opinion. In Isa 14, the King of Babylon is
designated mockingly as Hélél in the guise
of Athtar; but there is no evidence for the
acknowledgement of Hélél's real existence
or of his cult.
IV. Bibliography
M. C. Astour, Hellenosemitica (Leiden
1964) 268-271, 394-395; Astour. Some
New Divine Names from Ugarit, JAOS 86
(1966) 277-284; P. C. Craigie, Helel, Ath-
tar and Phaeton (Jes 14:12-15), ZAW 85
(1973) 223-225; S. ERLANDSSON, The Bur-
den of Babylon. A Study of Isaiah 13:2-
14:23 (Lund 1970); W. R. GALLAGHER, On
the Identity of Hél@] Ben Sahar of Is 14:12-
15, UF 26 (1994) 131-146; D. E. Gowan,
When Man Becomes God: Humanism and
Hybris.in the Old Testament (Pittsburgh
Theological Monograph 6; Pittsburgh 1975)
45-67; P. GRELOT, Isaie XIV et son arrière-
plan mythologique, RHR 149 (1956) 18-48;
GRELOT, Sur la vocalisation de 5n (Is.
XIV,12), VT 6 (1956) 303-304; S. L. LANG-
DON, The Star Hélél, Jupiter?, ExpTim 42
(1930-1931) 173; R. C. vaN LEEUWEN,
Hôleš ‘al gwym and Gilgamesh X1.6, JBL 99
(1980) 173-184; O. Loretz, Der kanaanii-
sche Mythos vom Sturz des Sahar-Sohnes
Hélel (Jes. 14, 12-15), UF 8 (1976) 133-136
[& lit]; J. W. McKay, Helel and the Dawn-
Goddess. A re-examination of the myth in
Isaiah XIV 12-15, VT 20 (1970) 451-46; E.
T. MULLEN, The Assembly of the Gods in
Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature
(Chico 1980) 238-241; U. OLDENBURG,
Above the Stars of El. El in Ancient South
Arabic Religion, ZAW 82 (1970) 187-208;
W. S. PniNsLOO, Isaiah 14:12-15-Humilia-
tion, Hubris, Humiliation, ZAW 93 (1982)
432-438; K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in
Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East
(AOAT 219; Kevelacr/Neukirchen-Vluyn
1986) 213-231; SproNK, Down with Helel!
The Assumed Mythological Background of
Isa. 14:12, “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied
auf..." (FS O. Loretz; 1998. fc.); N. WYATT,
The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements
in West Semitic Royal Ideology, UF 18
(1986) 421-436; Wyatt, Myths of Power. A
Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugari-
tic and Biblical Tradition (UBL 13; Minster
1996) 30-31; G. A. YEE, The Anatomy of
Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samu-
el 1 and Isaiah 14, CBQ 50 (1988) 565-586,
esp. 577-579.
W. G. E. WATSON
HELIOS “Hios
I. The word ños, sun, like šemeš
—Shemesh, is ambivalent between a true
name and a common noun. Only the context
can determine which aspect—stellar, relig-
ious, cosmic, political—is predominant in a
given text. The standard etymology (H.
Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörter-
buch [Heidelberg 1954] 1:631-632; P.
CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique de
la langue grecque 2 [Paris 1970} 410-411)
appeals to the psilotic epic form áéAtiog and
a Cretan (Hesych.) or Pamphylian (Hera-
cleides of Miletus) form aBéAtog to postu-
late an original *caFéAiog. cognate with
Sansc. sárya : in cach case an -/ stem,
394
HELIOS
*sayel-, *siil-, will have been given a suffix
in io- to mark personification. Helios would
thus be one of a well-known group of Indo-
European words for the sun and cognate
concepts (Lat. sol, Gaulish sulis, Lith. sdulé,
Goth. sauil, OHG sol, Slavic sólnitse; cf.
Olr. süil. 'eye'") which has been used to
posit the existence of an Indo-European sun-
god or sun-goddess. But in historical times,
Helios was weakly personified: sun worship
was an individual rather than a civic matter.
In the Graeco-Roman world, the religious
value of Helios was exploited mainly within
the context of changing cosmologies and the
elective affinity between absolutism and
solar imagery.
Helios occurs extremely frequently in the
Bible (196 times in LXX, 32 times in NT).
For OT senses, see —~Shemesh. In early
Judaism and the NT the meaning of the
word draws primarily upon this heritage,
connoting concretely day(-light), time of
day, direction, or figuratively brightness,
esp. in relation to divine Kaábód or doxa
(7*Glory); in apocalyptic contexts, a typical
image of the end of this world order is the
abolition or reversal of the luminaries. The
boldest of these figurative images is the
Jeme$ sédàqá, og Sixaiocvvns, of Mal
3:20 (4:2). "in whose wings lies salvation",
which must draw upon, while also contrast-
ing with, Near Eastern imagery of the
winged sun as bringer of justice (W.
RUDOLPH, Kommentar zum Alten Testa-
ment: Haggai ... Maleachi [Gütersloh 1976]
289). Some Babylonian influence upon
Jewish cosmology, esp. Enochian and Qum-
ran ‘astronomy’, is probable. but its theo-
logical influence was negligible. Philo’s debt
to the Stoic/Middle Platonic view of the sun
is meagre by comparison with the influence
of later Judaic conceptions. The composite
philosophic ‘solar theology’ of the later
Principate had no perceptible influence upon
early Christian thought and imagery, though
some limited iconographic transfer took
place.
II. Whatever the case earlier (cf. GooD-
ISON 1989), the bodies of the visible heavens
received scant attention among the divinities
sustained by the collective imagination in
Archaic and Classical Greece. The political
character of that religion, its variety across
the spectrum of city-states and ethné, gave
priority to divine figures not implicated in
natural rhythms, which could be given
specific local character in myth and cult.
The heavenly bodies were a common
property: "to sce the light" is a standard
Homeric phrase for being alive (/liad 18:61;
Od. 4:540 ctc.), frequently imitated by later
poets, as in Pindar’s apostrophe to light,
“mother of eyes” (Paean 9:2 Snell); “to
leave the sun’s light” is a common peri-
phrasis for "to die" (Hesiod Op. 155;
Theognis 569). Helios shines alike on mor-
tals and immortals (Od. 3: 1-3); he is "most
prominent of all the gods" (Sophocles, Oed.
Rex 660). This quality of belonging to the
neutral] "fabric of things" is expressed for-
mally in the status of Helios, Eos (Dawn)
and Selene as -*Titans, belonging to the
direct descent of Ouranos and Gaia, through
Hyperion and his sister Theia (Hesiod,
Theog. 371-374; cf. Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.2.
2). In Homer, Helios has virtually no ident-
ity separate from the solar disk: his com-
monest epithet is phaethén, “radiant”; an-
other Iliadic epithet is akamas, “tireless”,
which links the sun to its congener, -*fire,
itself. akamaton (c.g. Il. 5:4); he can be
forced by -*Hera to set (//. 18: 239-241),
and is not even identified explicitly as a
charioteer, though this detail appears already
in the Titanomachia frg. 3 Allen and Hom.
Hymn Demeter 88-89 (ca. 7th-6th century
BCE). The comparative lack of individuality
persists into the 4th century BCE: the poets
failed to discover more than a paltry local
narrative or two; his amours could scarcely
be fewer or more perfunctory, consisting as
they do mainly of alternative mothers of his
ill-fated son Phaethon (JESSEN 1912:80-81);
the ‘Homeric’ Hymn to Helios (no. 31; prob.
late 4th century BCE) is a patchwork of
pallid epic clichés. In the early iconography,
c. 500-480 BCE, and frequently well into Sth
century BCE, Helios is identified only by a
disk bizarrely placed upon his head (c.g.
YALOuRIS 1990: nos. 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14;
395
HELIOS
105-108); on the 4th century BCE Apulian
vases, his head, or even the entire figure
with chariot, is depicted within a nimbus
(ibid. 18-28; 77-82; 124-127). Moreover, the
myth that accounted for Helios’ role at
Rhodes also noted the gencral absence of
civic cult to the Sun in other Greek cities: at
the original division of the earth between the
Olympian gods, Helios was not present, and
failed to obtain a lot; -*Zeus would have in-
sisted upon another allocation of fiefs, but
Helios spied the island of Rhodes emerging
from the depths, and claimed it as his own
(Pindar, Olymp. 7: 54-76 with Scholiast; cf.
Diod. Sic. 5.56.3-5). All in all, “seine
Persönlichkeit ist ... wenig ausgepriigt und
sein Kult gering" (M. P. NILSSON, Griechi-
sche Feste (Stuttgart 1906] 427).
Nevertheless, the two aspects of Helios
which were later to be most productive are
already present in the epic and sub-epic tra-
dition: Helios as an eye, a tireless observer
of the human world; and Helios as a sign or
guarantor of (cosmic) order.
(1) Helios “observes everything, hears
everything” (Od. 11.109), is “spy upon gods
and men” (Hom. Hymn Dem. 62; cf. Od.
8:302), “looks down on all the earth and sea
with [his] rays from the divine aither”
(Hymn Dem. 69-70; cf. Od. 11:16). This
view of Helios, frequent in the tragedians,
e.g. Aeschylus, Agam. 632-633; [Acsch.],
Prom. 91; Sophocles, Trach. 102) should be
thought of as an implicit explanation of the
fact that Helios was one of the elemental
gods, including Gé and Zeus, invoked to
sanction an oath: the exemplary instance
occurs at /liad 3:103-107, 268-313; cf. 19:
249-265; Euripides, Medea 746-747/753-
754. This usage is not only parallel to Near
Easter oaths, but may well be based on
Indo-European practice. In historical times,
ordinary civic gods are perhaps most com-
mon, but appeal to Helios remained a major
sanction in oaths (e.g. sympolity treaty
between Teos and Kyrbisos, 3rd century
BCE: SEG 26:1306.52) and it may be
assumed that many of the rather limited
numbers of altars and votives to Helios
known from Greece outside Corinth, Mace-
donia and Rhodes, have some relation to
oath-taking. At Troezene, for example, Paus-
anias noted (2. 31. 5) an altar to Helios
eleutherios, which he believed to have been
dedicated in gratitude after the Persian War
of 490-489 BCE; if so, the choice may well
have been routed through the practice of
freeing slaves by fictitious dedication to
Helios as god of oaths (cf. JESSEN 1912:59).
The notion of Helios as a sanction of the
oath thus passed imperceptibly into a view
of Helios as witness, to unadmitted love, for
example, as in a skolion on a black-figure
vase by the Amasis painter found on Aigina
(SEG 35:252, side A, ca. 540 BCE), but in
particular of wrong-doing: the victim of an
alleged injustice, or his friends, appealed to
Helios as a witness of his maltreatment
(Aeschylus, Hiket. 213; Choeph. 984-989;
Sophocles, Elect. 824-825; Apollonius
Rhod., Argon. 4:229-230) or of his inno-
cence (Euripides, Herakles 858, cf. Soph.
Oed. Rex 660-661). Though the motif seems
already present in the Odyssean scene of
Helios requiring Zeus to punish Odysseus
and his companions for slaughtering his
herds (Od. 12:374-388, with AUFFAHRT
1989), its development was motivated by
the institution in democratic Athens, and
elsewhere, of public courts; it depended
upon familiarity with legal procedure. Awa-
reness of the importance of witnesses, and
the case with which false witness could be
bought, gave rise to the notion of the Sun as
an ideal, incorruptible witness of a subjecti-
ve truth. Helios, having always been hagnos
(Pindar, Olymp. 7:60, cf. Parmenides, 28
F10.2 Diels-Kranz), became dikaios too
("eye of justice, light of life" in Hymn.
Orph. 8:18). As such, the notion might over
time be indefinitely banalized, as on a boun-
dary-marker from Esengiftlig: in Bithynia,
which routinely calls upon Helios
panepoptés to guarantee the integrity of the
boundary (SEG 37. 1036.15-17, 2nd-3rd
century CE). Moreover these two aspects of
Helios were often fused in the Hellenistic
and Roman periods: Helios, in his capacity
as all-secing witness (Kupie “HAte, dis
Sixaims avatéaArs, pt AdBoitd og... from
396
HELIOS
Salamis in Cyprus, 3rd century BCE: SEG 6.
803, cf. ZPE 61 [1985] 212-213) is com-
monly invoked to avenge present or even
anticipated wrongs unconnected with oaths,
above all to avenge unsolved or alleged
murder (D. M. PiPPiDi, Tibi commendo,
RivStorAnt 6-7 [1976-1977] 37-44). Though
CUMONT (1923) claimed that the origin of
this belief was Syrian, the evidence for this
role is widely spread in space and time; in
Asia Minor at any rate there can be little
doubt that indigenous notions of the sun's
justice fused with Greek ones after Alexan-
der's conquest (cf. G. ByORCK, Der Fluch
des Christen Sabinus [Uppsala 1938] 72). It
is this theme of the sun's justice that inspi-
res not only the tradition of solar utopias,
based on the "table of the Ethiopians" in
Herodotus 3:17, cf. Orph. frg. 217 Kern, but
also the oracular and apocalyptic motif of
the “saviour from the sun” (Sib. Or. 13:151,
cf. D. S. Potrer, Prophecy and History in
the Crisis of the Roman Empire (Oxford
1990} 326-327).
(2) Helios as an emblem and guarantor of
cosmic order. The main stimulus to repre-
senting Helios as witness and avenger of
those unable to help themselves was the
sun's light, evoked as a token of an ideal
incorruptibility. But empirical familiarity
with the astronomical sun raised obvious
questions about its nature. In a word, the
sun invited cosmological speculation. Though
Homer is generally content to have Helios
rise out of, and fall into, Oceanus, the
Odyssey knows an island of Syria, where the
“turnings of the sun"—presumably the
summer solstices—take place (15:403-404),
a crux that gave rise to considerable debate
in Alexandrian Homer-scholarship; and soon
after Homer the issue of what happens to
Helios at night was tackled by Mimnermus
(ca. second half of the 7th century BCE),
who imagined him floating in a winged
golden bowl from West to East along the
Ocean (frg. 10 Dichl; cf. Stesichorus, frg.
8.1-4 Page). This became quite a favourite
subject for vase-painters (J. Déric & O.
GiGON, Der Kampf der Gótter und Titanen
[Olten & Lausanne 1961] 56-59). The regu-
larity of the sun's (mutable) course, its
“tirelessness”, always attracted attention:
Helios's threat to "descend to —Hades and
shine among the dead" (Od. 12:383) is the
earliest in a long tradition of reversals rc-
presented in terms of solar aberration. The
sun's elemental constancy inspired Zeus’
sacrifice to Helios (and Ouranos and Gé)
before the battle with the —Giants (Diod.
Sic. 5.71.3). Observations of solstices (and
of star-settings) were made all through the
Archaic period (cf. Cleostratus, 6 F4 D-K);
though Thales’ prediction of the solar
eclipse of 585 Bc probably depended upon
Babylonian records, it was grounded in
Greek practical astronomy. In their different
idioms, the Presocratics assumed that the
sun’s regular motions, daily and seasonal,
had to be explained: Anaximander’s image
of the chariot-wheel (12 All D-K), Anaxi-
menes’ raised North (13 A7; 28 D-K),
Parmenides’ strange “garlands” (28 A37 D-
K), Anaxagoras’ rotation of the aither (59
A42 D-K) are all attempts to come to terms
with the complex problems involved. By the
Sth century BCE, drawing upon this specula-
tion, the poets routinely think of the sun as
fire ([Aesch.], Prom. 22; Eur. Phoen. 3;
Phaethon 6 Diggle). A fragment from an
unknown play by Sophocles, invoking
Helios as "parent of gods and father of all"
(frg. 752 Radt), confirms that the blending
of this cosmological speculation with
mythological tradition was well under way
in the second half of the Sth century BCE.
Notwithstanding Parmenides’, and Hera-
clitus’ view of the sun as kept to its path by
the Erinyes (22 F94 D-K), the decisive
move towards combining cosmological spe-
culation with a self-consciously elevated
religiosity was made by the Pythagorean
Philolaus, for whom the sun reflected to
earth the cosmic fire (44 A19 D-K) within
the context of a complex model of the di-
vinely-ordained universe. The elaborate cos-
mologies of Plato’s Timaeus (32a-40d) and
Epinomis, drawing upon Philolaus, Par-
menides and probably Eudoxus, invest the
fixed and mobile -*'stars' with divinity and
soul. Zeno's view of them as "intelligent,
397
HELIOS
rational and fiery" (SVF 1.120) is directly
descended from Plato's cosmology; but in
the carly Stoic system the sun's fire plays a
kcy role in the ekpyrósis, since, as the guid-
ing principle, it gradually absorbs the other
stars and the rest of matter into itself until
the entire universe is consumed (SVF
1.510). In some sense, at least, the Stoic sun
is to be identified with Zeus, Soul and
—Pronoia (Cleanthes); and as such, despite
Panaetius' reconsideration of ekpyrósis, is
described by Cicero as dux et princeps et
moderator luminum reliquorum, mens mundi
et temperatio (Rep. 6:17, cf. Tusc. 1:68; Div.
2:89). In the same tradition, Seneca uses the
sun’s relation to the world as an image of
the role and power of the World Soul (Epist.
Mor. 41:5; cf. M. Aurelius, Conf. 12:30). A
diffuse Stoic cosmology combined in the
later Hellenistic period with the spread of
astrological ideas (e.g. O. NEUGEBAUER &
H. D. vAN HOESEN, Greek Horoscopes
[Philadelphia 1959] nos. 46.1; 81.48-51) to
promote the role of Helios as lord of the
ordered universe (mundi totius animum ac
planius. mentem: Pliny, HN 2: 12-13, cf.
Diod. Sic. 2. 30-31; Menander, Rhet. gr. 3:
438.10-24 Spengel; Cumont 1909 with
NILSSON 1974). The finest poetic expression
of this awareness of the sun as the most
splendid of the heavenly bodies is Meso-
medes’ Hymn (Hadrianic) (HEIrscH 1960:
144-150). As such, the sun became one of
the counters to be shuffled about by cos-
mological speculation quite unconstrained
by empirical concerns: in Middle Platonism,
Helios is the “heart” of the body of the cos-
mos (Plutarch, de fac. 928a-b), the embodi-
ment or receptacle of cosmic reason (cf.
ibid. 943a-e); in the Orphic Rhapsodies, he
is sect by the demiurge Phanes in command
of all things (frg. 96 Kern); in one Hermetic
cosmology, by extension of his traditional
promotion of life, he becomes himself a
demiurge vivifying matter by means of light
(Corp. Herm. 16:3-12; KLEIN 1962:149-
156); in the Mithraic mysteries, he has a
complex relation, of identity and difference,
with -*Mithras himself, sol invictus Mithras;
the Mnevis bull at Heliopolis in Egypt, de-
scending from, and ascending to, the sun,
provides the author of the gnostic Origin of
the World with a "witness" to the redeeming
work of Sabaoth (NHC II.S, 122:22-24).
Porphyry, whether or not he wrote a book
on ‘Helios’, played an important part in the
genesis of Macrobius’ solar syncretism in
Sat. 1. 17-23 (FLAMANT 1977).
Helios was perfectly suited to fulfil the
role of -*mediator required by the geo-
centric cosmology that established itself—
not merely among the educated—during the
Hellenistic period, and for that reason was
recruited under the Principate into all man-
ner of philosophico-religious systems with
tiny circulations. But the elective affinity
between Helios and monarchic power
undoubtedly also played a parn in legit-
imating such speculation. Though this
affinity was exploited above all during the
3rd century CE crisis of the Roman Empire
(MacCorMACK 1981:35-37; R. TURCAN, Le
culte impérial au Ille siècle, ANRW 11, 16.2
[1978] 996-1084). it originates in the solar
imagery used of Demetrius of Phalerum,
Antigonus Gonatas and Demetrius Poliorce-
tes at the very beginning of Hellenistic
monarchy. The discovery of Augustus’ sola-
rium at the Ara Pacis, centred on the solar
obelisk (E. BUCHNER, Die Sonnenuhr des
Augustus [Mainz 1982]), has reinforced the
traditional view of the cosmic symbolism of
the cuirass of the Augustus of Prima Porta
(ScHAUENBURG 1955:38-39. Moreover,
since SEvRIG (1971) poured cold water on
the traditional assumption that all Syrian
city cults were solar, there has been marked-
ly less enthusiasm for seeing imperial solar
imagery even after Septimius Severus as duc
primarily to ‘oriental influence’ (cf. Hu-
MANS 1989, GAWLIKOWSKI 1990). Even
Aurelian’s cult of Sol Invictus, based on his
vision at Emesa (HA Aurel. 23:3-6), was pri-
marily a pulling together of traditional thre-
ads of imperial imagery, to serve as a focus
of religious foyalisme at a period when the
central authority was in virtual collapse.
Constantine’s deployment of Sol Invictus as
comes Augusti, in the imagery of the Arch
(completed 315), his coinage between 309-
398
HELIOS
325 (BRUUN 1958; J. BLEICKEN, Constantin
der Große und die Christen [München
1992] 34-38, 58-61), and on his statue on
the porphyry column in the new Forum at
Constantinople, is an analogous strategy in
different circumstances. And, as the Calen-
dar of Filocalus makes clear, the association
between sun and imperial power continued
well into the 4th century CE in the context of
the games of 19-22 October and the birthday
of Sol Invictus on 25 December.
III. Despite considerable continuity, espe-
cially in liturgical contexts, with OT con-
ceptions of light and the luminaries, some
differences in cosmology are perceptible in
apocryphal and pscudepigraphic texts
(AALEN 1951:97-102). The luminaries are
conceived as prior to the cyclic changes of
human significance: the sun brings moming
and its setting brings nightfall; at creation, it
decides between -light and darkness (Jub.
2:8). The sun that shows God's glory is an
observed and observable sun, that daily rises
to its zenith and declines to its nadir (Sir
43:1-5; cf. 26:16), just as what is worth
remarking about the -moon is its regular
phases (Sir 43:6-8). In some cases it is prob-
able that the influence is from non-Jewish
sources. The account of the sun in / Enoch
72:6-35, designed to explain the observed
variation in the length of the day over a year
by appeal to a theory of 12 ‘portals’, is
probably ultimately Babylonian. Character-
ized by a “rigid schematism unrelated to
reality" (M. BLAcK, The Book of Enoch
[Leiden 1985] 387), the description is a
blend of religious imagination and disinter-
ested speculation: the sun, like the moon
and -*stars, is controlled by the angel
-*Uriel (cf. also 75:3; 82:8): they are driven
on their courses by heavenly wind (18:4;
72:5); the sun disappears in the west and is
borne at -*night round to the north (72:5).
Still more flamboyant is the description in 3
Apoc. Bar. 6:1-12, derived indirectly from
Greek sources, of the sun's chariot drawn by
40 angels, and preceded by the -*phoenix
that prevents the sun from burning up the
earth. Each evening four angels remove the
sun's crown and bring it back up to heaven
refurbished for the following day (8:3-4). In
this account, there is a separate ‘portal’ for
each day of the year (6:13).
But the sun is of most value in carly
Judaism, as in the OT, as an image of divine
kabéd. At creation, God rides through the
light like the sun (2 Enoch 24B:4). There is
an essential continuity between the sun and
heavenly light (Sir 42:17), even though di-
vine doxa is much more brilliant: “the eyes
of the Lord are 10,000 times brighter than
the sun” (23:19, cf. 3 Enoch 5:4). The
angels’ doxa is often compared to the sun's
brilliance (2 Enoch 19A:1; 3 Enoch 48 C 6
[p.168-169 Odeberg]) Indeed, some pas-
sages give the impression that doxa is
imagined as itself a sort of luminary: "their
cyes saw the majesty of his glory" (Sir
17:13); part of it was revealed to -*Moses
(45:3; cf. Exod 33:18); "I saw the cyes of
the Lord shining like the rays of the sun" (2
Enoch 39A:4) Such imagery prompted
Philo's analogies between wisdom and the
sun, which is “an imitation and likeness” of
God's light (Migr. Abr. 40). The parallel
between heavenly doxa and the empirical
sun gives plausibility to the psychological
slide that makes mystical experience norma-
tive (Somn. 1:72, cf. Mut. norm. 6). Philo,
though, is anything. but systematic: else-
where, it is human nous which is analogous
in the person to the sun in the cosmos; the
one emits physical light (phengos), the other
rays (augai). When reason sets, mystical
vision is possible: when divine p/iós shines,
human reason is occluded (Heres 263-264).
The most sustained Philonic account of
the analogy occurs at Som, 1:77-91, where
the sun is argued to have four allegorical
meanings in exegesis of passages in
Genesis: = nous (77-78); sense perception
(79-84); the divine /ogos—the intelligible
sun, the paradeigma of the natural sun (85-
86); and, as lord of the cosmos, God, to
whom all is as an open book (87-91; KLEIN
1962:24-31). From this and other passages.
Philo's conception of light may be divided
into two parallel pairs, structured upon the
contrast invisible/visible. God is the arche-
typal exclusive light, parallel to the em-
399
HELIOS
pirical sun in the visible world. The divine
Logos, which derives from God, is ‘intel-
ligible light’, ‘the intelligible sun’, ‘wis-
dom’, pneuma. To it corresponds ‘inauthen-
tic light’, the natural light of the world.
Opposed to these parallel pairs is ‘darkness’,
itself composed of two absences, of spiritual
and natural light. The mediatory role of the
sun in all this is obvious; it spans the dis-
junctures between physical and spiritual,
visible and invisible, presence and absence.
Philo's exegesis is nevertheless for the most
part only a slight extension of religious
metaphors already current in early Judaism:
only the fourth, and inexplicit, allegory of
Somn. 1:87-91 seems to be based on Stoic,
or Middle Platonic, solar imagery.
The same is emphatically true of the role
of the sun in the NT, which, ignoring
Philo's allegorizing, remains faithful to the
OT habit of taking natural phenomena as
concrete images for spiritual truths. The
empirical sun is never simply that, it always
has a residual connotation, as the visible
agent of God's impartial mercy (Matt 5:45,
cf. the argument for God's justice by the
gnostic Epiphanes, ap. Clement Alex..
Strom. 3.2.6.1 p. 198 Stählin), as a marker
of time in the cycle of day/night established
at creation (Mark 16:2, cf. Eph 4:26; Mark
1:32; cf. Luke 4:40 par), as the giver of the
light that the living see, but neither the dead
nor the blind (Acts 13:11; cf. Ps 58:8 etc).
At Rev 7:2, 16:12, “from the rising of the
sun” is not merely a direction but an al-
lusion to the OT notion that the East denotes
the quarter from which divine activity is to
be expected (Ezek 43:1-2, cf. AALEN 1951:
82-86). The OT fusion of fire and (sun-)light
as attributes of God stands behind the bum-
ing sun of the parable of the sower (Mark
4:6; cf. Matt 13:6; see also Jas 1:11, Rev
7:16; 16:8-9; cf. Ps 121:6; Isa 49:10). Other
occurrences are directly related to Jewish
imagery. Saul's vision on the road to
Damascus, the light brighter than the sun
(Acts 26:13), is a reprise of passages such as
Sir 23:19. The Jewish hierarchy of doxa,
from God's, through the angels' to that of
the saints (cf. Dan 12:3; 4 Ezra 7:97; 1
Enoch 38:4; 2 Enoch 66:7 ctc.), lies behind
various other passages in which ‘the sun’ is
an image for heavenly brightness: the faces
of —Jesus at the Transfiguration (Matt 17:2)
and the angel at Rev 1:16; the saints at Matt
13:43 (cf. Greg. Nyssa, In psalm. inscr. 2:6,
PG 44, 611a) The hierarchy is evoked
explicitly by Paul, 1 Cor 16:41. Finally, the
sun plays a notable part in the imagery of
NT apocalypse, drawing upon Isa 13:10,
34:4 and esp. 60:19, “the sun shall be no
more your light by day” (cf. Ass. Mos.
10:5). Here again there is a contrast, implied
or explicit, between the abolition of the
luminaries at the end of time, and the doxa
of God and of Israel, which will shine alone
(Rev. 21:23, 22:5, more loosely, 8:12, 9:2).
The light is sometimes itself seen as destruc-
tive of the wicked (e.g. QH VI.17-19
Dupont-Sommer). This contrast is carried
over directly into the Christian vision by
Mark 13:24 ~ Matt 24:29; the parallel phe-
nomena in the “days of the sinners” (e.g.
Sib. Or. 3:802-3) are alluded to by the
Lucan eclipse at the crucifixion (Luke 23:
45; cf. 21:25). At Pentecost, Peter cites Joel
3:1-5 [2:28-32] (Acts 2:20, cf. Rev. 6:12).
Early Christian comparisons between God
and the sun derive directly from this Judaic
notion of divine doxa (Odes Sol. 11:13-4;
Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autol. 2:15; Min.
Felix, Octavius 32:5-6, 8-9). Already in
Hebr 1:3, Christ's relation to the Father is
represented as the brightness (apaugasma)
of divine doxa (cf. Wis 7:26; AALEN 1951:
201-202), and this image is common in 2nd-
3rd century CE (Justin, Dial. Tryph. 128:3-4;
Tertullian, Apol. 21:12-14), giving way in
later 3rd century CE to the formula “light
from light” (D6LGER 1929:284-286). The
transfer of the image of Mal 3:18-20 [4:2],
the “sun of righteousness” (Jerome, /n Amos
3, 6:12/15, CCSL LXXVI p.312), to Christ
depends upon the apocalyptic side of the
same tradition, in the context of the suffer-
ing of the righteous (“righteousness shall be
revealed like a sun governing the world":
1Q27:1 tr. Vermes; cf. Wis 5:6; AALEN
1951:178-179). Both themes are already
present in the Christian adoption, from the
400
HERA
early 2nd century ce, of Sunday as the
status dies (Justin, /Apol 67:8; Tertullian,
Apol. 16:11), which is figuratively also the
‘eighth day’, the end of the world (Barn. 15:
8b-9 with PRIGENT ad loc.). Sun as doxa
fuses with purging fire to produce the strik-
ing apocalyptic imagery of Thomas the Con-
tender (NHC 11.7, 144, probably from
Edessa, 3rd century CE). The iconography of
the three early cases (3rd century cE) of
Helios representing Christ, on the other
hand, derives from the model of imperial
Sol Invictus, signifying Christ's majesty
(HusKiNSON 1974:78-80; MacCorMack
1981:172).
IV. Bibliography
S. AALEN, Die Begriffe ‘Licht’ und ‘Finster-
nis’ im AT, im Spátjudentum und im Rabbi-
nismus (Oslo 1951) 96-236; C. AUFFAHRT,
Der drohende Untergang (RGVV 39; Berlin
1991) 370-385; P. BRUUN, The disappcaran-
ce of Sol from the coins of Constantine,
Arctos 2 (1958) 15-37; F. CUMONT, La théo-
logie solaire du paganisme romain, Mémoi-
res prés. par divers Savants |2, 2 (Paris
1909) 448-480; CuMONT, II sole vindice dei
delitti ed il simbolo delle mani alzate,
Memorie della Pontificia Accademia romana
di Archeologia | (1923) 65-80, with Syria
14 (1933) 392-393; F. J. DOLGER, Die
Sonne der Gerechtigkeit und der Schwarze
(Münster 31971; ed. 1, 1918); DÓLGER , Sol
salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen
Altertum (Münster 31972; ed. 1, 1920);
DÖLGER, Sonne und Sonnenstrahl als
Gleichnis in der Logostheologie des christ-
lichen Altertums, Antike und Christentum |
(1929) 271-290; J. FLAMANT, Macrobe et le
néoplatonisme latin à la fin du IVe siècle
(EPRO 58; Leiden 1977) 652-680; M. Gaw-
LIKOWSKI, Helios (in peripheria orientali),
LIMC 5 (1990) 1034-1038 (icon.; L.
Goopison, Death, Women and the Sun:
Symbolism of Regeneration in Early Aegean
Religion (BICS Supp! 53; London 1989); E.
HeitscuH, Drei Helioshymnen, Hermes 88
(1960) 139-158; S. E. Humans, Sol
Invictus, een iconografische studie (Diss.
Groningen 1989); J. HUSKINSON, Some
pagan mythological figures and their
significance in carly Christian art, Papers of
the British School at Rome 42 (1974) 68-97;
O. JESSEN, Helios, PW 8 (1912) 58-93; F.-
N. KLEIN, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon
von Alexandrien und in den Hermetischen
Schriften (Leiden 1962); C. LETTO,
Helios/Sol, LIMC 4 (1988) 592-625 (icon.);
S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in
Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1981); M. P. Nits-
SON, Geschichte der griechischen Religion
I] (München 19743) 507-519; L. PRELLER,
Griechische Mythologie 1.2 (rev. ed. C.
Robert; Berlin 18944) 429-437; K. Scuau-
ENBURG, Helios: archüologisch-mythologi-
sche Studien über den antiken Sonnengott
(Berlin 1955); H. SEYRIG, Antiquités syrien-
nes 95: Le culte du soleil en Syrie à l'épo-
que romaine, Syria 48 (1971) 337-373; N.
YALOURIS, Helios, L/MC 5 (1990) 1005-
1034 (icon.).
R. L. Gorpon
HERA “Hpa
I. The name Hēra (the form of her
name in Mycenaean Greek is Era), perhaps
a feminine form of the Greek noun hërös
(hero', meaning 'master'), or /ióra ('sea-
son’, sec Pausanias 2.13.3), was genea-
logically linked with other Greck deities as
the daughter of Kronos and Rhea (Hesiod,
Theog. 454), and sister of Zeus. While the
name Hera itself does not occur in either the
Bible or the Apocrypha, nevertheless the
theophoric name Herakles (Heracles) does
occur in 2 Macc 2:19-20. This name is com-
posed of two elements, ‘Hera’ and '-kles’.
Though the -a- is problematic, since theo-
phoric names based on ‘Hera’ normally use
an -o-, as in Herodotus and Herodikos,
nevertheless it is certain that the goddess
Hera is part of the etymology of the name
Herakles. Some have conjectured that the
morpheme -kles was derived from the Gk
term kleos, ‘fame’, and proposed that Hera-
kles means ‘fame of Hera’, or ‘one who
became famous because of Hera’. Yet while
Hera is prominent in the Herakles cycles of
myth, she is usually cast in the role of his
antagonist. The name Herakles is simply a
401
HERACLES
common personal name formed in a way
analogous to names such as Diocles,
Athenocles, and Hermocles. The names
Herod (Hpoóng) and Herodias, however,
are connected to the Greek hérds.
II. One of the more important early
centres of Hera’s cult was a sanctuary
between Argos and Mycenae in the Pelopon-
nesus, while another was on Samos, an
island off the west coast of Asia Minor. A
number of the earliest and larger temples
erected in the Greek world were dedicated
to Hera, usually outside cities, including the
Temple of Hera on Samos (ca. 800 BCE),
and two large temples in Paestum (Italy)
built in the sixth and fifth centuries respect-
ively. In Olympia, a temple was dedicated to
Hera earlier than the famous sanctuary dedi-
cated to Zeus. In Greek myth and religion,
Hera played two important roles, one as the
queen of the gods, also called “the mother
of the gods” (Pausanias 2.4.7), who sits on a
golden throne (Pausanias 2.17.4; 5.17.1), the
only legitimate wife of Zeus. Her other
major role was as the goddess primarily
responsible for overseeing the institution of
marriage (Aristophanes, Thesm. 973; Paus-
anias 3.13.9) and many other important and
risky aspects of the life of women (Paus-
anias 8.22.2), particularly childbirth (Homer,
Iliad 11.270-271; Hesiod, Theog. 921-922).
However, Hera was never invoked as a
-mother, and is never depicted as a mother
with a child. The marriage of Zeus and Hera
was understood as a sacred marriage (hieros
gamos or theogamia) in many city-states of
the Greek world, serving as a prototype for
human marriage. The ritual reenactment of
the sacred marriage of Zeus and Hera was
also performed to ensure fertility. In Athens,
the month Gamelion (meaning ‘marriage
month’) was dedicated to Hera, and sacri-
fices were made. to her and Zeus Heraios.
On the twenty-sixth of Gamelion the anni-
.versary of the sacred marriage of Zeus and
Hera was celebrated.
III. Bibliography
W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge
MA 1985) 131-135; C. DowNiNG, The
Goddess: Mythological Images of the Femi-
nine (New York 1981); W. K. C. GUTHRIE,
The Greeks and their Gods (Boston 1950);
K. KERÉNYL Zeus and Hera (Princeton
1975); C. R. Lowc, The Twelve Gods of
Greece and Rome (Leiden 1987); M. P.
NiLSSON, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek
Mythology (Berkeley 1932) 189-192; H. W.
PARKE, Festivals of the Athenians (London
1977) 104-106; W. PórscHER, Der Name
des Herakles, Emerita 39 (1971) 169-184;
P. E. SLATER, The Glory of Hera: Greek
Mythology and the Greek Family (Boston
1968).
D. E. AUNE
HERACLES 'HpaxAng
I. Heracles was undoubtedly the most
popular mythical hero of ancient Greek
mythology; he was also one of the most
complex. Etymologically the name derives
from ^"Hpa (Hera) and xAéog (fame).
Though he is explicitly mentioned only in 2
Macc 2:19-20, there is evidence to suggest
that Heracles traditions were incorporated
into the cycle of Samson legends found in
the Old Testament and in certain aspects of
the depiction of —Jesus in the Christology
of Hebrews.
II. Ancient mythographers divided the
exploits of Heracles into three groups: (1)
The Twelve Labours (athloi or erga), or
canonical adventures (performed for Eurys-
theus in order to purify himself for killing
his wife Megara and his children). These
included the almost impossible task of con-
quering a number of nearly invulnerable
beasts including the Nemean Lion (which
provided his characteristic lionskin cloak),
the Lernaean Hydra, the Erymanthian Boar,
the Ceryncian Hind, the Stymphalian Birds,
the Cretan Bull, the Thracian mares, the
cattle of Geryon and Cerberus the hound of
Hades, as well as such impossible tasks as
cleaning the stables of Augeas, getting the
Amazon Hippolyta's girdle, and retrieving
the apples of Hesperides; (2) the Subsidiary
Activities (parerga) or noncanonical adven-
tures, considered incidental to the Twelve
Labours; and (3) the Deeds (praxeis), a
402
HERACLES
variety of exploits including military-type
expeditions during which Heracles con-
quered and civilized much of the world.
These three categories of heroic adventures
were framed by accounts of Heracles’ mir-
aculous birth and death and apotheosis. The
birth of Heracles was extraordinary. as one
might expect of a demi-god. >Zeus had
sexual relations with the mortal Alcmene,
disguised as her husband Amphitryon
(Hesiod, Shield of Heracles 35-56). Twins
were born, though Iphicles was the real son
of Amphitryon, but Heracles the son of
Zeus. >Hera (the patron of Eurystheus)
tried to destroy Heracles by sending a ser-
pent to kill him, but the infant strangled it
(Pindar, Nem. 1.50-70). At the end of his
life, mortally wounded by a poisoned gar-
ment, Heracles died on a funeral pyre on
Mount Oeta and was apotheosized joining
the immortal gods on -*Olympus (Apollo-
doros 2.7.7). The cycle of Heracles myths
reflected in these major categories (with the
exception of his apotheosis) were already
well known in Homer, and can be traced
back to the Mycenaean period (1550-1150
BCE), for the two places most closely asso-
ciated with Heracles were Thebes and
Tiryns, important Mycenacan centres. Hera-
cles differed from other Greek heroes in
several respects: (1) Though the worship of
heroes characteristically centered at their
tombs where their physical remains were
thought to be buried, no specific tomb was
associated with Heracles. (2) Heracles was
worshipped at some locations as a deceased
hero, i.e. a chthonic deity apotheosized
through death, and at others as an Olympian
god. While some ancients suggested that
these two forms of worship indicated that
there were originally two different figures
named Heracles (Herodotus — 2.43-44;
Cleanthes in Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta
l.115-16, frag. 514; Diodorus 1.24.1-8;
5.76.1-2), others were able to reconcile the
apparent contradiction by supposing that
while the phantom (eidólon) of Heracles re-
sided in Hades, Heracles himself dwells
with the immortal gods on Olympus (Odys-
sey 11.602-4, a later interpolation; Hesiod,
Theog. 950-55; Ehoeae or Catalogue of
Women frag. 25, lines 20-28). Arrian took
this speculation a step further and proposed
three different figures named Heracles: the
son of Alcmene, the Tyrian Heracles and the
Egyptian Heracles (Anabasis Alexandri
2.16; see Diodorus 3.74.4-5), while Varro
proposed that forty-three different figures
bore the name Heracles (Augustine Civ. Dei
18.12).
Archaeological evidence from Mesopot-
amia suggests that the figure of Heracles is
found as early as the middle of the third
millennium BCE (SCHWEITZER 1922:133-
141; BURKERT 1979:80-83). In the represen-
tations on Akkadian cylinder seals, a hero
probably named Ninurta (the son of Enlil
the storm god), is shown conquering lions,
bulls, snakes, and even a seven-headed
snake (->Nimrod). In Sumerian represen-
tations a hero is fitted out, like the later
Greek Heracles, with a club, bow and lion-
skin. Heracles’ quest for the apples of
Hesperides is similar to the quest for immor-
tality in the popular epic of Gilgamesh. The
various traits of this superhuman helper
which became part of the folklore of the
archaic Greeks centered around the Heracles
figure (the name emerged long after the pat-
terns were set), not as a warrior but as a
master of animals (BURKERT 1979:94-98).
In many of the exploits of Heracles, he
transfers the mastery of animals (particularly
the dangerous one and the one difficult to
obtain or conquer), to people.
According to the lexicon of the interpre-
tatio Graeca which prevailed from the fifth
century BCE on, Heracles was identified with
—Melqart, whose name means “king of the
city", and who was called the ‘Baal of Tyre’
(CIS 1.122), a west Semitic god who was the
primary deity of the Phoenician city of Tyre,
and later of its major colony at Carthage
(Herodotus 2.44; Arrian 2.24.5-6; 3.6.1;
Curtius 4.2.10; Diodorus 5.20.2; Strabo
16.2.23). The Carthaginian triad of deities
consisting of -*Baal Shamen, -*Astarte and
Melqart became known through their Hel-
lenistic counterparts of Zeus, Asteria and
Heracles (Athenaeus, Deipn. 392d). The
403
HERACLES
Samaritans worshipped Melqart as Zeus
Xenios on Mount Gerizim (2 Macc 6:2).
Both Greeks (as early as the sixth century
BCE) and later the Romans identified
Melqart with Heracles (2 Macc 4:18-20;
Josephus, Ant. 8.146; Contra Ap. 1.118-19;
Eusebius, Praep. evang. 1.10 (38a]) and
depicted him wearing a lion skin. Menander
of Ephesus, quoted in Josephus, Ant. 8.146
and Contra Ap. 1.118-19, mentions that
Hiram king of Tyre built new temples in
honour of Heracles and Astarte. These two
figures are associated in a tradition perhaps
of Samaritan origin in Epiphanius Haer.
55.2.1, to the effect that the father and
mother of the Biblical Melchizedek were
Heracles and Astarte. In Palmyra, Heracles
was identified with —Nergal, an underworld
deity in Mesopotamian mythology, and is
depicted with’ both club and lion's skin
along.with other items of a more explicitly
chthonic nature (SEYRIG 1945; TEIXIDOR
1977:145-146).
II. Several variations of the Heracles-
figure occur in Israelite and early Jewish
sources. The legendary Old Testament figure
Samson: belongs to the Levantine Heracles
tradition, and Samson continued to be con-
nected to Heracles by Christians in late an-
tiquity (Augustine, Civ. Dei 18.19), and in
the frescoes of the Via Latina catacomb
Samson is depicted as Heracles (SIMON
1955; MALHERBE 1988:581-583). The name
Samson means ‘man of the sun’, a legend-
ary ancient Israelite hero endowed with
supematural strength and who performed
many fantastic feats which have parallels in
cycles associated with such mythical heroes
in Greece and Mesopotamia as Heracles,
Ninurta and Gilgamesh. MARGALITH (1987)
has argued that the figure of Samson is
linked to.a variety of heroic adventures from
the late Bronze Age cycle of Heracles
stories. Such scenes as Samson having his
hair cut in the rooms of Delilah resembles
Heracles at the court of Queen Omphale (the
motif of magic hair is a Greek, not a Near
Eastern mythical theme). Samson’s slaying
of a lion: bare-handed (Judg 14:6, as Hera-
cles killed the Nemean lion) to win the
favour of a maiden is a common motif in
Greek legend.
Heracles is explicitly mentioned in the
lost writings of a Semitic (possibly Jewish)
author named Kleodemus Malchos, possibly
a resident of Carthage. A single fragment of
his work is found in Josephus (Ant. 1.240-
41; see Eusebius, Praep. evang. 9.20;
Jerome, Quaest. in Gen. 25.1-6), in a quo-
tation of Alexander Polyhistor. In an ex-
panded interpretation of Gen 25:1-6, using
an interpretatio Iudaica, Kleodemos claims
that Japhras and Apheras, sons of -*Abra-
ham and Keturah, joined Heracles in a cam-
paign against Libya and the Libyan -*giant
Antaios (an exploit narrated in Diodorus
Siculus 4.17.4-5; Apollodorus 2.5.11), and
that he later married Abraham's grand-
daughter.
The enormous popularity of Heracles was
due to several factors. While the gulf
between mortality and immortality was rare-
ly bridged in Greek religious tradition, the
fact that Heracles achieved immortality at
the end of his life provided hope for ordi-
nary people. Further, the life of Heracles be-
came a paradigm for Stoics and Cynics for
the positive value which could be placed on
suffering. The similarities between some of
the important themes associated with the life
of Heracles and the historical -*Jesus in
Hebrews suggests that the author of
Hebrews modelled Jesus at least in part on
Heracles as a Hellenistic saviour figure.
According to Heb 12:3-4, Jesus is held up as
one who endured despite abuse, hostility
and suffering and received a heavenly
reward. In the Hellenistic world, Heracles
was similarly held up as an example of en-
durance in suffering (Aristides, Or. 40.22;
Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.36; 9.8). One dis-
tinctive feature of Hebrews is that Jesus is
presented as having undergone a process of
education or paideia through which he
learned obedience and ultimately attained
perfection (Heb 2:10; 5:8-9; see 12:7). This
correlation between suffering and training
was associated with Heracles (Dio Chryso-
stom, Or. 4.29-32; Epictetus 3.22.56-57).
According to Heb 4:14-16, Jesus is a great
404
HEREM — HERMES
high priest who has “passed through the
heavens” and can therefore understand our
weaknesses since he has experienced temp-
tation as have Christians who can pray bold-
ly for grace to help in times of need. One
important function of Heracles was as a
helper and giver of strength in the diffi-
culties of life. There are numerous examples
of prayers and references to prayers to Hera-
cles to help in the trials of life (Pindar, Nem.
7.94-97; Homeric Hymn to Heracles 9;
Julian, Or. 7.220a; Dio Chrysostom, Or.
8.28). The obedience of Christ to the will of
the Father is emphasized in Heb 5:8-9 and
10:5-10. The exemplary obedience of Hera-
cles to the will of Zeus is frequently men-
tioned in ancient sources (Diodorus 4.11.1;
Epictetus 2.16.44; 3.22.57; Menander Rhetor
2.380). These are some of the more signifi-
cant ways in which popular conceptions of
Heracles contributed toward the rather dis-
tinctive presentation of the image of Jesus
found in Hebrews.
IV. Bibliography
D. E. Aune, Herakles and Christ: Herakles
Imagery in the Christology of Early Chris-
tianity, Greeks, Romans and Christians:
Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe
(Minneapolis 1990) 3-19; J. BOARDMAN et
al., LIMCIV.1 (1988) 728-838 and V.I
(1990) 1-262; C. BoNNET, Melqart: cultes et
mythes de l'Héraclés tyrien en Méditerranée
(Studia Phoenicia VIII; Leuven 1988); W.
Burkert, Griechische Religion der archai-
schen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart
1977) 319-324; BURKERT, Structure and
History in Greek Mythology and Ritual
(Berkeley 1979) 78-98; A. J. MALHERBE,
Herakles, RAC 14 (1988) 559-583; O. MAR-
GALITH, Samson's Riddle and Samson's
Magic Locks, VT 36 (1986) 225-234; Mar-
GALITH, More Samson Legends, VT 36
(1986) 397-405; MARGALITH, The Legends
of Samson/Heracles, VT 37 (1987) 63-70;
M. P. NILSSON, The Mycenaean Origin of
Greek Mythology (Berkeley 1932) 187-220;
F. PFISTER, Herakles und Christus, ARW 34
(1937) 42-60; H. J. Rose, Heracles and the
Gospels, HTR 31 (1938) 113-142; B. ScH-
WEITZER, Herakles (Tübingen 1922); H.
SeyriG, Heracles-Nergal, Syria 24 (1945)
62-80; M. SımonN, Hercule et le Christianis-
me (Paris 1955), J. TEIXIDOR, The Pagan
God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman
Near East (Princeton 1977); A. VERBANCK-
PIERARD, Le double culte d’Héraclés: légen-
de ou réalité? Entre hommes et dieux (ed.
A.-F. Laurens; Paris 1989) 43-65.
D. E. AUNE
HEREM -* TABOO
HERMES ‘Epps
I. Hermes was one of the most popular
and frequently represented, if most complex,
of the Greek Olympian deities. Identified by
the Romans with Mercury, he was asso-
ciated from the archaic through the Hellen-
istic periods with cunning and theft, music
and eloquence, travel and commerce, and
(especially as the Hellenistic Hermes
Trismegistus) magic, alchemy and astrology.
In the Bible, Hermes occurs as a divine
name in Acts 14:12, and as the name of an
otherwise unknown Roman Christian greeted
by Paul in Rom 16:14.
II. The name, Hermes, is attested from
three palace archives of the Late Bronze
Age: Knossos, Pylos, and Thebes (SIEBERT
1990:285-286). The nature of the Greek
Hermes is neither Minoan nor Mycenaean,
however, but is associated with the hermae.
ithyphallic stone pillars capped with a head
or bust of Hermes that were employed
throughout Greece as topographic markers.
The oldest form by which Hermes was
represented (Herodotus 2.51; Dio Chryso-
stom 78.19; Pausanias 1.24.3, 4.33.3), these
ubiquitous herms stood upon the thresholds
of private homes and estates, at the gate-
ways of towns and cities, before temples
and gymnasia, along the side of roadways
and at crossroads, at the frontiers of terri-
tories and upon tombs, the portal between
this and the underworld, to mark the bound-
aries of inhabited space and to protect its
productive areas against incursions.
In Homeric myth, in which the character
of Hermes is already fully developed. he is
405
HERMES
the son of Zeus and the Arcadian nymph
Maia (the daughter of Atlas), and the
younger half-brother, therefore, of — Apollo
(Homer, Od. 14.435; Hesiod, Th. 938; H.
Merc. 1-4; Pindar, Ol. 6.80). Even as an
infant, Hermes’ kratos, ‘strength’ or ‘might’,
is compared to that of his older brother (H.
Merc. 406-407), and, emphasized by the
Homeric tradition, becomes one of Hermes’
epithets (//. 16.181, 24.345; Od. 5.49; see
also H. Merc. 101, 117; H. Cer. 346, 377).
On the evening of the day of his birth,
Hermes stole fifty head of cattle from
Apollo’s sacred herd (H. Merc. 18-19, 68-
74) to ensure, as one of the younger of the
Olympian deities, that he might be honoured
in the same way as Apollo and the other
Olympians (H. Merc. 173) by instituting the
equitable practice of sacrifice (H. Merc.
115-137; see Od. 14. 418-436). As ‘lord of
the animals’, both domestic and wild (H.
Merc. 564-571), Hermes is frequently repre-
sented in art as the Kriophoros, the ‘ram-
bearer’ or ‘good shepherd’ (Pausanias
4.33.5, 5.27.5. 9.22.1), caring for and guar-
ding his flocks against predators; because
domesticated animals are not only required
for all sacrifice, but are the basis of the
‘riches and wealth’ of the pastoral economy
of ancient Greece over which Hermes, as
‘keeper of the herd’ (H. Merc. 488) and
their increase, presided (Hesiod, Th. 444;
Homer, JI. 14. 490-491; H. Merc. 491-494,
529; Pausanias 2.3.4). It is not surprising
that some considered the Arcadian shepherd-
god, Pan, to be Hermes’ son (H. Pan. 1, 27-
41), and the two are often invoked together
(Aristophanes, Th. 977).
Wherever livestock represent the princi-
pal form of wealth, cattle-theft will be fre-
quent (Homer, //. 11.677-681; Hesiod, Op.
348; Th. 1.5.3), and Hermes is described as
the very ‘prince of thieves’ (H. Merc. 175,
292), a ‘thief at the gate’ (H. Merc. 15), a
cunning and crafty “watcher by night” (H.
Merc. 15) and the ally of nocturnal activity
(H. Merc. 97, 290). Throughout the night,
the wily Hermes hastily drove his purloined
cattle “through many shadowy mountains
and echoing gorges and flowery plains” (H.
Merc. 94-97), having them walk backwards
so that their hoofprints gave an appearance
of their joining Apollo’s main herd rather
than being stolen away. Walking normally
himself, he relied on newly fabricated san-
dals to disguise the tracks of his own ‘swift
feet’ (H. Merc. 75-86; 225). Hermes’ extra-
ordinary mobility, even as an infant, is thus
emphasized by Homer who elsewhere por-
trays the divine traveler as flying “over the
waters of the sea and over the boundless
land", borne by immortal, golden sandals
(Od. 5.44-46; Il. 24.340-342; sec also H.
Cer. 407; H. Pan. 29; Horace, Carm. 2.7.13;
Orph. Hymn 28.4), an image that anticipates
the common representation of Hermes (and
his Roman counterpart Mercury) as having
winged shoes or sandals (e.g.. Philo, Quod
Omn. Prob. 99; PGM 5.404, 7.672, 17b.5).
As quick of mind as swift of foot, the
clever and cunning -*shepherd provided an
image for success not only for a pastoral
economy, but also for cultural and urban
commerce. Apollo's anger at the theft of his
cattle had been assuaged by Hermes' sin-
ging to the accompaniment of the lyre which
Hermes had invented on the day of his birth
even before the cattle-theft (H. Merc. 17,
39-61), and which Apollo accepted as a pay-
ment that he conceded was worth the fifty
cattle (H. Merc. 437-438). The association
of the lyrical competition between Hermes
and Apollo (Pausanias 9.30.1) was celebra-
ted at the Pythian games from their begin-
nings where contests of musical performan-
ce were honoured alongside athletic prowess
(Pindar, Pyth. 12). Established later at the
Nemean and Isthmian games, music became
part of Greek classical education in which
proper styles of music were held to contri-
bute to courage (Plato, Resp. 398C-399D;
Leg. 653D-673A; 795A-812E) and to ethics
(Aristotle, Pol. 1339A-1342B). The herm or
statue of this ‘leader of men’ (Pausanias
8.31.7) came to stand, therefore, before the
entrance to stadiums (Pausanias 1.17.2;
5.14.9; 8.32.3; 8.39.6), where he was honou-
red as the god of gymnastics and agonistics
(Pindar, Ol. 6.79, Pyth. 2.10, Isthim. 1.60;
Pausanias 1.2.5, 5.14.9; Horace, Carm.
406
HERMES
1.10.3; Ovid, Fast. 5.667; Aristides, Or.
37.21, 26.105).
Plato intellectualized Hermes’ creative
talents as having to do with speech (logos):
“he is an interpreter (herméneus), and a
messenger (angelos [Homer, Od. 5.29; H.
Cer. 407; H. Pan. 29; see Philo, Quod Omn.
Prob. 99]), wily and deceptive in speech,
and is oratorical. All this activity is con-
cerned with the power of speech" (Plato,
Crat. 407E-408A; see Phdr. 264C). This
abstracted and rationalized view of Hermes
was continued by the philosophical tradition
(Comutus 16; Porphyry in Eusebius, PE.
3.114; Aristides, Or. 37.21) as well as in
popular perception (PGM 5.403, 407; 7.670;
17b.3). As a figure of the word (logos). Her-
mes was reportedly equated with the
-*Saviour by the Naassenes, an early Chris-
tian-Gnostic group (Hippolytus, Ref. 5.2).
As his associations with the lyre and music,
together with poetry and oratory were one,
the divine composer and poet became the
deity of littérateurs, called by Horace
"Mercuriales viri" (Carm. 2,17.29-30).
As the deity chartered by Zeus himself to
preside over trade (H. Merc. 516-517),
Hermes was invoked further as the “Hermes
of the Market” (Pausanias 1.15.1, 2.9.8,
3.11.11, 7.22.2, 9.17.2), and deity of Mer-
chandise and Sales (Aristides, Or. 37.21).
Diodorus Siculus reports that Hermes in-
vented "measures and weights and profits to
be gained through merchandizing. and how
also to appropriate the property of others all
unbeknown to them" (5.75.2), an association
between commerce and theft already explicit
in the Homeric Hymn (H. Merc. 514-517).
And, the Greek Magical Papyri preserve a
spell in which a figure of Hermes, the
"finder of thieves" (PGM 5.188), was used
to promote good business (PGM 4.2359-
2379). Even today, in parts of modem
Greece, theft is equated with courage, in-
genuity and entrepreneurship, an ethos of
cunning deception that is still considered
primarily a sporting contest in which a chal-
lenge with respect to status is communicated
(STEWART 1991:73, 62).
As a good thief is clearly a brave and
clever man, there is a correlation between
good thieving and good marnage (STEWART
1991:69-73), a relationship that suggests the
ancient association between Hermes and
Hestia, goddess of the hearth. Although
Plutarch reports that the ancients associated
Hermes with -*Aphrodite (Coniug. praec.
138D) with whom he fathered Hermaphro-
ditus (Ovid, Met. 4.288-293), he was more
often paired ‘in friendship’ with Hestia,
first-bom of Rhea and Kronos, in both lit-
erature (H. Vest. [29]) and in representation
(Pausanias 5.11.8). Whercas Hestia repre-
sents the spatial principle of stability around
a fixed centre of home or village that is
inhabited and known, Hermes is the per-
sonification of the ambiguities and uncer-
tainties of encounters with social others in a
variegated external world of travel, trade
and commerce that, while unpredictable,
must necessarily be traversed (WERNANT
1983); it is in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes
that the proverb is preserved: "It is better to
be at home: harm may come out of doors”
(H. Merc. 36-37).
Hestia's hearth is round whereas the herm
is square (Thucydides 6.27), and Hermes is
known as the tetragénos (Heraclititus, All.
72.6; Pausanias 4.33.4; Babrius 48); in the
Greek Magical Papyri, Hermes, as ‘square’,
is contrasted. with the circle (PGM 5.402,
8.670, 17b.3); and he was born on the fourth
day of the month (Z7. Merc. 19; Aristo-
phanes, PI. 1126). The number four is,
according to Plutarch, “particularly asso-
ciated with Hermes” (Q. Conviv. 9.2). He
surveys, in other words, the cardinal points
of the terrestrial world (KERÉNY1 1996:67-
68; VERNANT 1983:147), in addition to the
chthonic world in which his herm is so
firmly planted (Cicero, Leg. 2.26.65;
Horace, Sat. 1.8; see PGM 4. 1444, 1464)
and whose portals he guards (Aeschylus,
Ch. 1, 620; Pers. 628-632; Sophocles, El.
110-111). As such, Hermes is the deity
‘most friendly’ to mortals (//. 24.334-335;
Orph. Hymn 28.4, 9), lending ‘grace and
glory to all [their] work' (Od. 15.319-320)
as he guides them along the road of life
(Od. 15.319; /I. 24.153, 182, 437-439, 461,
407
HERMES
681; Aeschylus, Ein. 89-92), during the
dark night also when, as the deity of sleep
(Homer, //. 24.343-344; Od. 5.47-48, 24.3-
4), Hermes is the ‘conductor of dreams’ (H.
Merc. 14). In perhaps his most well-known
role, that of psychopompos, he continues his
tutelage until the dangerous frontier of death
is finally passed (//, 24.334-338; Od. 24.1-
18; Diodorus Sic. 1.96; Plutarch, Amator.
758B; and in iconography) —a frequent
theme of the tragedians (e.g., Aeschylus, Ch.
124-126; Sophocles, Aj. 832, OC. 1540-
1548; Eunpides, Alc. 743-744) that was
adopted by the Pythagoreans (Diogenes
Laertius 8.1.31). It is in this comprehensive
sense of the protective guide of humans in
their quotidian activities that Hermes is
euangelos, the ‘bringer of glad tidings’ (JG
12.5.235 [lst century BCE]; Hesychius s.v.),
and implementer of Zeus’ will, or that of the
celestial Olympians collectively, among the
inhabited world (//. 24.169, 173; Od. 1.38,
84-86; 5.29; H. Cer. 407-408; H. Pan. 28-
29; H. Vest. 8). In the summary of Plato,
Hermes was dispatched by Zeus “to bring
respect for others and justice among men, to
the end that there might be order in the
cities and a bond of friendship among them”
(Plato, Prot. 322C) Thus was Hermes
viewed as the divine figure in accordance
with whom humans might discover their
rightful place in the socio-political world,
even as the ancient herms provided the
markers for organizing their world topo-
graphically.
As ‘Lord of the World’ (PGM 5.400,
7.668, 17b.1), of its order and its elements
(PGM 17B.16-19), Hermes came to be asso-
ciated with the central Hellenistic notion of
—Tyche/- Fortuna, ‘luck’ or ‘fortune’ (PGM
8.52). Roman coins of the Imperial period
depict Fortuna carrying the typical caduceus
of Hermes (RIC 2, p. 16, no. 11 [69-71 c&]).
The Greek word hermaion, ‘gift of Hermes’,
has the sense of an unexpected, i.e., god-
sent, piece of luck, and one of Hermes’ cpi-
thets is Kerdóos, ‘the gainful (Lucian, Tim.
41; Alciphron 3.47; see Plutarch, De Trang.
An. 12). In the Greek Magical Papyri,
Hermes is equated with the ‘thread of the
Moirai’, ‘the fates’ (PGM 7.675-676, 17b.
11). A third century BCE inscription identi-
fies Hermes with tychón (Inschr. Magn. 203;
compare Clement of Alexandria, Protr.
10.81 and Hesych. in Theognost. Can. 33),
who apparently was personificd as a minor
god of chance even as was fyché as the god-
dess (LS7). Related to the phallic character
of the herms, Tychon was originally a
priapic deity (Diodorus Sic. 4.6; Strabo 588)
who may have originated in Cyprus (H.
USENER, Der heilige Tychon [Leipzig/Berlin
1907]). The name, which carries a general
sense of tyché or luck for its bearer
(ALGRM 5: 1386), may have preserved this
attribute of Hermes as a Christian homonym
in the hagiography of St. Tychon, a fifth-
century bishop of Amathus in Cyprus, (A.
B. Cook, Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion
[Cambridge 1914-1940] 1I: 175-176, in addi-
tion, see II.1: 675; and 1L.2: 878 n. 11, 879
n. 17 and 1163 re: Zeus; K. PREISENDANZ,
Tychon, ALGRM 5: 1381-1387).
Although one of the most well-known
and often-mentioned deities of the Greco-
Roman world, few temples were dedicated
to Hermes and few festivals celebrated in
his name, and these were predominantly in
Arcadia, the likely region of his historical
origins (H. Merc. 1-2; 18.1-2). Pausanias
refers to a festival of Hermes in Tanagra in
which a boy carries a lamb around the walls
of the city on his shoulders in imitation of
Hermes who allegedly had averted a plague
Athenaeus writes of the Hermaia, a Cretan
festival characterized by the reversal of
social roles (639B). Although he had been
given a technique of divination by Apollo
(H. Merc. 550-568), Hermes had little to do
with such activity apart from a minor oracle
at Pharae (Pausanias 7.22.2-3).
A late Hellenistic (second-fourth centu-
ries CE) anthology of philosophico-religious
writings, including also magical, alchemical
and astrological texts, was collected under
the name of Hermes Trismegistus or
‘Hermes the thrice-great’, the Hellenistic
name for the Egyptian deity Thoth (PGM
4.886, 7.551-557), one of the most diverse
408
HERMES
and popular of the Egyptian deities. Sur-
vivals of a more extensive literature (sec
now, for example, Codex VI 6 from the Nag
Hammadi library), the sometimes contradic-
tory teachings of this Corpus Hermeticum
have little in common but their claim to this
common revelatory deity. And some have
argued that Thoth, sometimes cuhemerized
in the Hermetic literature as an Egyptian
sage, shares little or nothing with the Greck
Hermes but his name. However, Thoth had
already been identified with the Greek
Hermes in the fifth century BCE by
Herodotus (2.67, 2.138; see thereafter
Diodorus Sic. 1.16, 5.75; Strabo 104, 816;
Plutarch, Q. Conviv. 9.3, Is. et Os. 3, De
Gerr. 2: Cicero. De Nat. Deor. 3.22.56;
Horace, Carm. 1.10.3; Ovid, Fasti 5.668).
Another tradition, attributed to the third cen-
tury BCE Egyptian priest, Manetho, reports
that the ‘second Hermes’, i.e., Hermes Tris-
megistus, had received his teachings from
‘Thoth, the first Hermes’ (Ps.-Manetho;
Appendix I, Manetho, ed. W. G. WADDELL
[Cambridge, Mass. 1964] 208-211).
Like the Greek Hermes, the Egyptian
Thoth was a guide of souls who conducted
the dead to the underworld, an inventive
trickster and the messenger of the gods, the
inventor of writing (see Pliny, HN 7.191)
and the lord of wisdom (FOWDEN 1986:22-
23; COPENHAVER 1992:xiii-xlv). Thoth's
association with wisdom may be alluded to
in the Bible in Job 38:36: “who has put wis-
dom into [/nvti" The Hebrew word [/nvt,
otherwise unknown, corresponds closely to
the consonantal orthography of the Egyptian
form of ‘Thoth’ during the 18th Dynasty
when the deity’s popularity had spread to
Phoenicia (M. Pope, Job, 3rd. ed. [Garden
City 1973] 302). Further, Thoth was the god
of language, magic, medicine, the heavenly
bodies and their influence on individual
destiny (FOWDEN 1986:22-23). Hermes had
been associated specifically with language
since Plato (see above), as had been Thoth
(Phdr. 274D; Phib. 18B), and with magic,
or ‘wonderous deeds’, since Homer. The
sandals which Hermes fabricated to help his
escape with Apollo's cattle, for example, are
described as "wonderful things, unthought
of, unimagined" (H. Merc. 80-81). Further,
Hermes is described as possessing a golden
staff or wand (rhabdos) which, similar to
Circe's own magic wand (Homer, Od. 10.
238, 319), enabled him to overpower human
senses (Homer, //, 24.343). Hermes’ rhabdos
is described as the gift of Apollo: “gold,
with three branches...accomplishing every
task, whether of words or deeds that are
good, which [Apollo] claim[s] to know
through the utterance of Zeus" (H. Merc.
529-532). Chrysorrhapis, ‘of the golden
wand’ is, in fact, also one of Hermes’ epi-
thets (Homer, Od. 5.87, 10.277; H. Merc.
539). According to the Odyssey, Hermes
showed Odysseus the uses of the herb
"Moly' (10.302-306). a pliarmakon that pro-
tected him against Circe's own alchemical
pharmakon (Od. 10.287-292). And, in the
Hellenistic period, he was known as the
‘inventor of drugs" (PGM 8.27) and onc of
the founders of the Hellenistic alchemical
tradition (Zosimos, On the Letter Omega 5).
Some considered Hermes also to be the
inventor of astrology (Hyginus, Poet. Astr.
2.42.5) and the Christian-Gnostic Peratai
cited Hermes Trismegistus in their astro-
logical speculations (Hippolytus, Ref. 5.9).
R. REITZENSTEIN has suggested that these
Hermetic texts may constitute ‘Lese-Mys-
terien’, ‘literary mysteries’, in which a reader
experiences the effects of actual cultic in-
itiation imaginatively (Hellenistic Mystery-
Religions [1926], Eng. trans. J. E. Steely
[Pittsburgh 1978] 51-52, 62). Whatever their
social and cultic origins. one of the most
interesting characteristics of these texts, the
production of which was contemporary with
those of the New Testament, is the influence
of the Old Testament and intertestamental
traditions upon both (Dopp 1964).
HI. The Greek Hermes played a con-
tinuing role in the religious environment of
early Christianity (see e.g., Philo, Decal. 54;
Quod Omn. Prob. 101; Leg. 93-102), as
evinced by the recurring polemics of the
Church Fathers against him (e.g., Justin, /
Apol. 21-22; Hippolytus, Ref. 5.2; Clement
of Alex., Protr. 2.24, 4.44, 10.81; Origen,
409
HERMES
C.Cels. 1.25, 6.78; Lactantius, /nst. 1.10.7);
and he is one of the few Greco-Roman dci-
ties mentioned in the New Testament by
name. When Barnabas and Paul fled the
hostile mobs that confronted them in Icon-
ium, they went first to the city of Lystra in
Lycaonia (Acts 14:5-6). a Roman colony
established by Augustus as part of the de-
fence of the Province Galatia, where, upon
the healing of "a man cripple from birth" by
Paul (Acts 14:8-10; compare the similar
account in Acts 3:2-8 of a healing by Peter),
the crowds acclaimed the apostles as “gods
come down to us in the likeness of men”.
Whereas Paul was reputedly taken for a
deity also by the inhabitants of Malta fol-
lowing his survival of a poisonous snake
bite (Acts 28:6—in this case, however, a
healing follows the acclamation), the deities
with whom the apostles were identified in
Lycaonia were specifically named by the
Lystrans: “Barnabas they called Zeus, and
Paul they called Hermes” (Acts 14:1 1-12).
The two apostles were identified with deities
by the Lystrans because of Paul’s wonder-
ous cure of the cripple (Acts 14:11), but
Paul was identified specifically with’ Hermes
“because he was the chief speaker” (ho
hégoumenos tou logou)—almost precisely
the characterization of Hermes by the third-
century neo-Platonist, Iamblichus, as the
god “who is the leader in speaking" (Iam-
blichus, Myst. 1.1: ho tōn logén hégemén).
Inscriptions and statues associating these
two deities are documented from this region,
but only from the third century CE (H.
SwoBODA, J. KEIL & F. KNoLL (eds.),
Denkmdler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und
Isaurien [Bmo/Leipzig/Vienna 1935] no.
146). At the beginning of the first century,
however, Ovid had told a story, set in near-
by Phrygia, in which Jupiter (Zeus) and
Mercury (Hermes) also appear together dis-
guised as mortals (Met. 8.611-725).
The narrative point of the identification of
Barnabas and Paul with Zeus and Hermes
by the Lystrians and the dramatic rejection
of this identification by the apostles (Acts
14:14) seems to be the establishment of a
sharp contrast, in the context of the Lycaon-
iin mission, between gentile deitics and the
Christians" "living God" (Acts 14:15), on
the one hand, even as a distinction between
the “unbelieving Jews” and the Christians is
made in the previous and following passages
(Acts 14:1-7, 19-23), on the other. Addition-
ally, the warrant of Hermes and Zeus had
been associated, since Plato, with the verac-
ity of ambassadors and messengers (Leg.
941A; Diodorus Sic. 5.75.1: see Philo, Quod
Omn. Prob. 99). Thus, the author of Acts is
also indicating the legitimacy of the Chris-
tian foreign mission in the narrative context
of Paul’s and Barnabas’ first entirely non-
Jewish audience.
‘Hermes’ also appears in the New Testa-
ment as a personal name in the list of those
to whom Paul sends greetings in Rome
(Rom 16:14). Hermes was the most: com-
mon theophoric name in the Roman empire,
including Greece (J. BAUMGaRT, Die rémi-
schen Sklavennamen [diss. Breslau 1936]
47); even as Hermes was “essentially a god
of simple people” (GUTHRIE 1950:91), ‘his
name was borne mostly by humble people
and especially by gladiators (see, e.g.,
Martial 5.24 and the analysis by VERSNEL
1990:206-251). Theophoric names ideally
indicated an alliance with the deities from
whom they were taken and something of
their ‘power and honour’ (Plutarch, Def.
Orac. 421E); but despite the account in Acts
of Barnabas’ and Paul’s rejection of any
association with Zeus and Hermes, the elim-
ination of pagan theophoric names was not
so carly and thorough as might have been
expected. The frequency of the name
Hermes in Christian circles, especially as a
martyr-name, is a case in point (I. KAJANTO,
Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian
Inscriptions of Rome and Carthage [Hel-
sinki 1963] 87, 97). Although nothing more
is known with any certainty about the
Hermes of Rome greeted by Paul, he was.
according to Eastern (Greck) liturgical tradi-
tion, one of the ‘seventy’ disciples of Jesus
(Lk 10:1) who succeeded Titus as Bishop of
Dalmatia to become Bishop of Salona
(Spalato) in Dalmatia before suffering
martyrdom (the Menaion and the Menologion
410
HERMON
for November 4; see also the sixth-century
Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus).
IV. Bibliography
W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge,
Mass. 1985) 156-159, 283-284; B. P.
CoPENHAVER, Hermetica: the Greek Corpus
Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a
new English translation, with notes and
introduction (Cambridge 1992); C. H.
Dopp. The Bible and the Greeks (London
19641); S. EtrrREM, L. BÜRCHNER & A.
STEIN, Hermes, PW 8 (1913) 738-792 ; L.
R. FARNELL, The Cults of the Greek States,
vol. 5 (Oxford 1909) 1-31; B. C. FARNOUX,
Mercure romain, les *Mercuriales' et l'insti-
tution du culte impérial sous le Principat
augustéen, ANRW II 17, | (1981) 457-501;
W. FaurH, Hermes, KP 2 (1967) 1069-
1076; G. FowbEN, The Egyptian Hermes. A
Historical Approach to the Late Pagan
Mind (Cambridge 1986) [& lit; W. K. C.
GurnuRiE, 7he Greeks and their Gods
(Boston 1950) 87-94; K. KERÉNYI, Hermes
der Seelenführer (Zürich 1944); Eng. trans.,
M. Stein, rev. ed. (Woodstock, CT 1996);
M. P. NILSSON, Geschichte der griechischen
Religion, 2 vols. (Miinchen 1955-1961)
1:501-510; W. F. OTTO, The Homeric Gods,
trans. Moses Hadas (Boston 1954) 104-124;
W. H. ROSCHER, W. DREXLER & C. SCHE-
RER, Hermes, ALGRM 1, 2 (1886-1890)
2342-2432; *G. SIEBERT, Hermes, LIMC S5,
1 (1990) 285-387 [& lit]; C. STEWART,
Demons and the Devil (Princeton 1991); P.
STOCKMEIER, Hermes, RAC 14 (1988) 772-
780; J. P. VERNANT, Hestia-Hermés: Sur
l'expression religieuse de l'espace et du
mouvement chez les Grecs. Mythe et pensée
chez les Grecs, new rev. ed. (Paris 1988),
I:124-170; Eng. trans. (London 1983) 127-
175; H. S. VERSNEL, Ter Unus. Isis, Diony-
sus, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism
(Leiden 1990) 213-251; F. J. M. DE WAELE,
The Magic Staff or Rod in Greco-ltalian An-
tiquity (The Hague 1927).
L. H. MARTIN
HERMON 1275;
I. Mount Hermon is mentioned several
times in the Hebrew Bible (c.g. Deut 3:8;
Josh 11:3.17). The prominent mountain at
the west-end of -*Lebanon and Anti-
Lebanon rises to a height of 2.814 m above
sea-level. Its modern name is Jebel e&-Seh
"Mountain of the Hoar” or Jebel et-tal$
"Mountain of Snow", both designations
pointing to the long-lasting snow-cap on its
summit. The etymology of Hermon (Heb
hermén) is disputed: a) The root uRM I
Niph. means “to be split", cf. Ar harama
"perforate". This may describe the situation
of the mountain massif separated from the
Lebanon. b) HRM II Hiph/Hoph. only,
means “consecrate (to annihilation)” and
belongs to the same word-field as Ar haram,
the “consecrated, separated district" and
may refer to the exalted position of the
mountain and its holiness, too. The ending
-ón may be used in analogy to lébàánón as a
denominative adjective. As an imposing
mountain, Hermon has been endowed with
divine traits in West Semitic traditions.
II. In carly times the name of the Her-
mon is not known in extra-biblical sources,
but according to Deut 3:9 “the Sidonians
call him -'Sirion, the Amorites Senir". This
last designation, used also in Egyptian (sur
Ramses Ill, sec J. Simons, Handbook for
the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists
Relating to Western Asia (Leiden 1937) list
XXVII 117, $-n-n-r) and the OT in Ezek
27:5; Cant 4:8; | Chr 5:23, is in the Assyr-
ian annals of Shalmaneser II] reported as the
refugee of king Hazacl of Damascus (k¥'sa-
ni-ru, WO | [1947/1952] 265:6; 2 [1954/
1959] 38:49; Irag 24 [1962] 94:22). Later
on the Assyrians in the time of Sennacherib,
Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal used the
name K''si-ra-ra (references in S. PARPOLA,
Neo-Assyrian Toponyms [AOAT 6; Kevelacr/
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970] 312) with the addi-
tional information that cedar-beams had
been cut there. It is probable that not Her-
mon alone but the whole Anti-Lebanon is
meant in this context. Therefore in a lipsur-
litany (used as an incantation for purifi-
cation) the k""sj-ra-ra (var. [si-rJa-a) besides
the Lebanon is invoked.
According to the OT, Hermon is inhabi-
411
HEROS
ted by Hiwites (Josh 12:5; Judg 3:3),
belongs to ~Og from —Bashan (Josh 12:5)
and forms, as the region belonging to the
tribe of Manasseh, the northern frontier of
the Eastern-Jordan country (Josh 11:17;
Deut 3:8). These—historically incorrect—
attributions show the significance of the
land-mark of this holy mountain, where
—Baal Hermon (Judg 3:3; 1 Chr 5:23) was
venerated. Therefore in Ps 89:13 Hermon
and Mount —Tabor “sing forth Your (Yah-
weh's) name". Nevertheless no Iron Age
sanctuary has yet been found on Hermon or
in its surrounding valleys.
TII. In Hellenistic-Roman times Hermon
belonged to the kingdom of the Ituraeans.
The ruins of various little temples of Hellen-
istic type may point to places where Ituraean
cults were performed. At the top of the
mountain at Qasr *Antar a sanctuary with an
oval temenos has been identified (C.
WARREN, PEFQS | [1869/1870] 210-215)
and an inscription is dedicated tou theou
megistou kai) hagiou, “to the greatest and
holy god”. He is adored by people who
swore in his name. This brings to mind the
tale in 7 Enoch 6:4-6 about the 200 —angels
who met on the top of Hermon, swearing an
oath therc before they came down to im-
pregnate human wives. Another inscription
from Qal'at Gandal, dated 282 CE, mentions
a priest of "Zeus megistos", the Greek
designation of the Baal Hermon. At the foot
of the mountain another sanctuary has been
identified with the cult of Leukothea, prob-
ably a local representation of -Astarte
(OGIS 611). Not far from there a little sanc-
tuary has been found at Senaim with an altar
showing the: relief of Helios, so this sun-
god may also have been venerated at
Hermon. Bearing this in mind it is not sur-
prising to hear that Eusebius in his Onomas-
ticon (ed. Klostermann, Vol.IIl/] [1904] 20)
sub Aermon testifies that Hermon was still
venerated as a holy mountain in his days.
IV. Bibliography
S. APPLEBAUM (ed.), The Hermon and Its
Foothills (Tel Aviv 1978); C. CLERMONT-
GANNEAU, Le Mont Hermon et son dieu
d’aprés une inscription inédite, Recueil
d'archéologie orientale 5 (1903) 346-366;
S. Dar, The History of the Hermon Settle-
ments, PEQ 120 (1988) 26-44: R.
DussAUD, Topographie historique de la
Syrie antique et médiévale (Paris 1927) 389-
395; Y. IKEDA, Hermon, Sirion and Senir,
Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 4
(1978) 32-44; E. Lipinsxi, El'S Abode, OLP
2 (1971) 13-69; P. MOUTERDE, Cultes an-
tiques de la Coelésyric et de l'Hermon,
MUSJ 36 (1959) 51-87; A. DE NICOLA,
L’Hermon, monte sacro, BeO 15 (1973)
239-251.
W. ROLLIG
HEROS Tipos
I. Heros (7jpws) is a word of uncertain
etymology, perhaps related to the name
—Hera (Augustine, CD 10,2; ADAMS 1987).
It has two main semantic fields: in Greek
myth and epos, a heros is a human warrior
of the heroic age; in religion, he is a (real or
fictitious) dead person who remained power-
ful also in death, and who therefore received
cult. Religious theorists defined heroes as
intermediate beings between man and -*god
(uiOroi half-gods). In the Bible Heros
occurs only in the toponym ‘City of the
Heroes', which is the LXX rendering for
Goshen in Gen 46:28-29.
II. Greek religion counted a theorctically
limitless number of heroes who range from
godlike figures like -Herakles to ordinary
dead humans. Evolutionary historians of relig-
ion tried to categorize them along two main
lines of development (BRELICH 1958:1 1-16):
a Euhemeristic model understood all heroes
as former mortals who had become objects
of cult, and a rival theory defined them as
decayed gods; combinations were tried as
well (FARNELL 1921; BURKERT 1977:314).
In the course of Greek religious history,
the concept of heros underwent some
changes. It is uncertain whether heroes
existed already in Mycenacan religion; the
Linear B tablets seem to attest offerings to
Trisheros (Tiriseroe in Pylos, GÉRARD-
ROUSSEAU 1968:222-224). In the hexametri-
cal poetry of the early archaic age (Homer
412
HEROS
and Hesiod), the hérées were the human
warriors of an earlier age: they had fought
the wars of Thebes and Troy, they were
sung in the epos, and they partly continued
their existence on the Islands of the Blessed
(Hesiod, Erga 156-173). Together with the
rise of the polis in the 8th century BCE,
many formerly unattended Mycenaean
tombs began to receive cult as the presumed
graves of heroes known through the epos,
especially local ancestors, like Menelaus in
Sparta or Agamemnon in Mycenae; often,
their cult place was transferred to the
agora—they had become symbols of pol-
itical identity (WHITLEY 1988; CALLIGAS
1988). Greek colonization introduced the
cult of the founder hero (oikistés), usually
on the agora of the colony; it became one of
the main cultic tokens for the colony's pol-
itical identity. Hero cult continued this func-
tion; when political circumstances changed,
a hero could be replaced by another (c.g.
Sikyon, 6th century BcE: Herodotus 5,67:
Amphipolis, 422 BcE: Thucydides 5,11).
To the Greeks, heroes always were his-
torical beings, often ancestors, despite their
frequent origin from myth and epic. This
opened up the possibility of heroization of
deceased historical persons, even contem-
poraries. But at least in the archaic and clas-
sical ages, heroization always resulted from
a particular status during life, or from an
unusual death. Founding heroes (who could
be purely mythical, like the Neleid founders
of Ionian cities) and warriors had performed
special deeds during their life; warriors still
fitted into the epic definition of heroes. In
other cases, symbolic value and future pro-
tection seem more important, as with the
heroes of Kleisthenes' newly founded ten
tribes (KRoN 1976).
A second wave of heroic cults is attested
in the 4th century BCE. lt resulted from the
new need for Greek self-definition best
attested by [socrates which led to the resto-
ration and intensification of traditional hero
cults (ALCOCK 1991). During the Hellenistic
age, ordinary humans, whose heroization
had began in extraordinary cases during the
archaic and classical age, were more and
more honoured with heroic cult; only in
very rare cases, was this honour extended to
living contemporaries. Though modern
interpreters tend to emphasize the indis-
criminate use of the title hérós which would
make it virtually synonymous with “dead”,
the evidence proves that on the contrary
héróes still were humans whose life or death
was in some way outstanding (GRAF
1985:123-137). Prominent among the new
heroes are (1) the ahóroi (those who died
young) and (2) the ewuergetai, the bene-
factors; both often received tomb and cult
not among the ordinary dead outside the city
walls, but inside the polis in the gymnasium
or on the agora.
A hero makes himself felt by showing
superhuman power after death—he is at
least expected or dreaded to do so; this
holds true for traditional heroes and for
more recent ones. The epic heroes promoted
to national powers are protectors of their
polis; in order to increase such protection, a
community could introduce a new heroic
cult or reinforce an existing one like the
Spartan cult of Orestes, whose bones were
brought to Sparta and buried in the newly
founded Oresteion during a calamitous war
with Tegea in order to help them (Herodotus
1,67 Pausanias, 3.11.10; WipE 1893:352).
During the reconstruction after the Persian
wars, Kimon brought the bones of Theseus
into his earlier sanctuary on the agora (Plut-
arch, Theseus 36; for a list of Attic cults of
Theseus, see KEARNS 1989:168-169); in this
case and in that of all founder heroes, the
hope of continued protection by thc heros
fits his role as a national symbol (GARLAND
1992:82-98). Athletes had to show not only
extraordinary prowess in order to receive
cult, but also a special form of death, be it
madness and miraculous disappearance (Cle-
omedes of Astypalaea, Pausanias, 6,9.7;
FARNELL 1921:365-366) or less common
features (Theagenes of Thasus whose statue
killed an enemy, Paus. 6,11,8; FARNELL
1921:365).
This continued with the heroicized mor-
tals of the hellenistic epoch. The euergetai
(benefactors) often were extraordinary men,
413
HEROS
and their cult as hérées euergétai did not
only commemorate their bencfactions but
also expressed the wish for continual
benefit. In some cases mortals received
heroic cult not with their individual name
but with a designation of their heroic func-
tion, Aérés ploutodotés (“Giver of Riches”,
GraF 1985: 129-130), hérds eumenés
(^Well-disposed", GRAF 1985:121-125); this
is comparable to the old Aérós iatros ("Phy-
sician") in Athens (KEARNS 1989:171-172).
Those who had died young (ahóroi) were a
dangerous category among the dead; they
were not called for, they came back out of
an unfulfilled desire for life and potential
hate for those still living; the making of a
hero was preceded by manifestations of their
continued activity, like appearance in dre-
ams (a young man, HERMANN & POLATKAN
1969:Nr. 1) or more dreadful signs (the
heros of South Italian Temesa who was
identified with Polites, a Homeric hero
whom the Temesians had killed; he
strangled the natives of Temesa until he was
appeased by sacrifice and finally driven out,
Von GEISAU 1975). Such malevolent heroes
(ahóroi, biaiothanatoi) could play a role in
magic, as mediators between the world of
the living and the dead and helpers of the
sorcerer (PGM IV 1390-1495, "heroes or
gladiators or other victims of violence").
Heroic cult was never uniform. Though
often containing elements of non-Olympian
ritual, it does not altogether fit into the
dichotomy of Olympian and chthonic (Bun-
KERT 1977:306-312). The sanctuaries of
heroes were not only tombs but exhibited
different forms, from the enclosed tomb to ^
the femenos with grove, well, temple and
altar (KEARNS 1992). Only when divine and
heroic cult are paired, does the dichotomy
become relevant (e.g. in Olympia, where the
nightly sacrifice of a black victim into a pit
in the precinct of Pelops preceded the sacri-
fice at the altar of -*-Zeus Olympios). In
other instances, a heroic cult may contain
elements of Olympian ritual as well as those
of funeral cult, including ritual lament. The
one central feature of heroic cult, though, is
the common meal at the /hhérdion (NOCK
1944) as an expression of the importance
which the hero has for the community
gathered around his cult-place; from it,
heroic iconography develops the meal scene
as a standard theme in its iconographic
repertoire (DENTZER 1982).
Ill. Herós appears in Gen 46:25 LXX
(Jos. Ant. 2,184) as the translation of Heb
Gesen, Heroopolis in Egypt. Jewish writers
could consider heroes as a typical Greek
phenomenon (Philo, plant. 14; Josephus
Bell. Iud. 2,156). Philo disputes the mytho-
logical concept of hémitheoi as the offspring
of divine and human on theological grounds
(vit. contempl. 6,3; decal. 156); but he
accepts the philosophical definition of
heroes as the purest souls living close to the
ether, and he identifies them with the
angeloi of Mosaic tradition (Plant. 14; but
sec Gig. 6, where he considers the -angels
of Gen 6:2 as daimones).
Christian writers first accepted the term
and the concomitant belief in dangerous and
demonic dead (Tertullian. De an. 49,2).
Augustine, however, argued for a positive
connotation of the term and a differentiation
from the negative daemones: in the Chris-
tian sense, heroes were the martyrs (CD
10,21). This not only followed a use of the
word already known in Christian poetry, but
laid the theoretical foundation for the cult of
the saints as the Christian hero cult (BROWN
1981).
IV. Bibliography
D. Q. ApAMs, Hérós and Hĉrå, Glotta 65
(1987) 171-178; S. E. ALcock, Tomb Cult
and the Post-classical Polis, AJA 95 (1991)
447-467; P. BRowN, The Cult of the Saints.
Development and Function in Latin Chris-
tianity (Chicago 1981); A. BRELICH, Gli
eroi greci. Un problema storico-religioso
(Rome 1958) W. BURKERT, Griechische
Religion der archaischen und klassischen
Epoche (Stuttgart 1977); P. C. CALLIGAS,
Hero-Cult in Early Iron Age Greece, Early
Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the
Fifth International Symposium at the Swed-
ish Institute at Athens (cds. R. Hägg & N.
Marinatos & G. C. Nordquist; Stockholm
and Göteborg 1988) 229-234; J.-M. DENT-
414
HOBAB — HOLY ONE
ZER, Le motif du banquet couché dans le
Proche-Orient et le monde grec du Vile au
IVe siécle avant J.-C. (Paris 1982); L. R.
FARNELL, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of
Immortality (Oxford 1921); R. GARLAND,
Introducing New Gods. The Politics of
Athenian Religion (London 1992), H. VON
GEISAU, Polites 2, KP 4 (1975) 978; M.
GÉRARD-ROUSSEAU, Les mentions reli-
gieuses dans les tablettes mycéniennes
(Rome 1968); F. GraF, Nordionische Kulte.
Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische
Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios,
Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia (Rome
1985); P. HERMANN & K. Z. POLATKAN,
Das Testament des Epikrates (Sitzungs-
berichte Wien 265:1, 1969); E. KEARNS,
The Heroes of Attica (BICS, Suppl. 57; Lon-
don 1989); KEARNS, Between God and Man.
Status and Functions of Heroes and Their
Sanctuaries, Le sanctuaire grec, Entretiens
sur l'antiquité classique 37 (eds. O.
Reverdin & B. Grange; Vandoeuvres/
Genève 1992), 65-99; U. KroN, Die zehn
attischen Phylenheroen. Geschichte, Mythos,
Kult und Dastellung (Mitteil. Arch. Inst.
Athen. Beih. 5; Berlin 1976); A. D. Nock,
The Cult of Heroes, HTR 37 (1944) 141-174
= Essays on Religion and the Ancient World
(Oxford 1972), vol. 2, 575-602; J. WHITLEY,
Early States and Hero Cults. A Reappraisal,
JHS 108 (1988) 173-183; S. Wipe, Lakoni-
sche Kulte (Leipzig 1893).
F. GRAF
HOBAB -> HUMBABA
HOKMAH ~ WISDOM
HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS -> HOSIOS
KAI DIKAIOS }
HOLY ONE vp
I. The Hebrew root Qn indicates ‘to be
reserved for a god, to be sacred’ and is fre-
quently used in the Hebrew Bible. A num-
ber of nominative forms are derived from
this root: gadef ‘prostitute’ and gode¥
‘sacred object. sacred place, holiness’. The
adjective gad6§, ‘the Holy One’, is attested
as a name for Yahweh in the MT. The
root QDŠ occurs frequently in West-Semitic
languages as a verb, as an adjective ‘holy’,
or as a substantive ‘sanctuary, sacred object,
sacred personnel’ (HOFTUZER-JONGELING,
DNWSI 993-97 s.v. qd5,.3). A number of
scholars assume that in Üraritic texts qd§
refers to a deity. A figure called gd¥(.1)
appears on Egyptian monuments in the con-
text of Canaanite deities. The identity of the
supposed deity qd3 is a debated issue.
HI. Ugarit. The root Qp is attested in
Ugaritic as a verb (XELLA 1982: 10), as an
adjective ‘holy’ (XELLA 1982: 13), or as a
noun. The meanings ‘consecrated gift
(XELLA 1982: 10) and ‘cultic personnel’,
vocalized qad(i)óu (XELLA 1982: 12-13;
HUEHNERGARD 1987) arc known, but ‘holy
place’ or ‘chapel’, vocalized gid3u, is the
most frequently attested meaning (XELLA
1982: 10-12; HUEHNERGARD 1987).
In some of the literary texts from Ugarit,
the term qds is used as a divine epithet. The
gods are sometimes called ‘the sons of qd3',
in the parallelism ‘the gods // the sons of
qds (ilm //| bn qd&, KTU 1.2 1 20f, i 37f, 1.17
i 2f, i1 6-8. i 12f, i 21f). Secondly, the hero
Keret is said to be the 'son of El and the
offspring of the Benevolent One and qd3
(krt bnm il §ph lpn wqds, KTU 1.16 i 10f, i
20-22); ‘the Benevolent One’ is a standard
epithet of ->El (M. Pore, El in the Ugaritic
Texts [Leiden 1955} 44). Two important
interpretations have been put forward to
explain these references.
A number of scholars consider qd3 to be
an epithet or name of >Asherah (atrt), the
mother goddess and consort of El. This fits
neatly into the context of the references; the
parallelism ‘the gods // the sons of qd can
be juxtaposed to the parallelism ‘the gods //
the sons of Asherah’ (ilm // bn atrt, KTU
1.3 v 3f, v 38f; 1.4 i 10f, iv 51, v 1). Both
phrases would refer to the same group of
deities. This thesis has been defended by,
amongst others, GEsE 1970: 149-50; J.C.
DE MOOR, The Seasonal Pattern in the Uga-
ritic Myth of Ba*lu (AOAT 16; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1971) 130: Dav 1986: 389.
415
HOLY ONE
The principal difficulty presented by the
identification of qdX with Asherah is the fact
that gd3 is morphologically masculine and
therefore not an adjective appropriate of a
female deity. M. Dauoob, Psalms I (AB
16; New York 1966) 176 tries to solve the
problem by the assumption that qd stands
for the abstraction ‘holiness’, and that there-
fore it could be applied to a goddess. This
line of reasoning does not carry conviction.
The problems inherent in the identification
of qd* with Asherah have been spelled out
by XELLA 1982: 13-15. He argues that there
is no compelling reason to identify the ‘sons
of Asherah’ with the ‘sons of gd’; it is not
excluded that different groups of deities are
intended. The reference to the ‘sons of qd
in KTU 1.2 iii 19f ([k.bn] / [gd]3). occurring
in a similar context as references to 'sons of
Asherah' earlier in the myth, can also be
read the ‘sons of Asherah’ ((k.bn] / [atr]s).
Note however that his suggestion is not
taken over by he editors of KTU? (1995),
who merely observe that the restauration
[qd]§ is uncertain. The mythological paren-
tage of Keret (‘son of El and the offspring
of the Benevolent One and qd3’) only refers
to his father, the creator god El. Keret is
‘the offspring of the benevolent and holy
one (= El)’, since bn il is parallel to Sph Ifpn
wqds. Xella also rejects the proposal to con-
sider qdš an abstract noun ‘holiness’,
applied to Asherah, and concludes that qdš
in the Ugaritic literary texts is an epithet of
El. M. Pore, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Lei-
den 1955) 43-44; WicGiNs 1991: 389;
Wyatr 1995: 186; and K. VAN DER TOORN,
Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and
Israel (Leiden 1996) 326, also interpret gd¥
as an epithet of El.
Egypt. A number of objects are known
from the New Kingdom, mainly from the
Ramesside period, which bear witness to the
cult of a deity qd3, considered to be Canaan-
ite on account of her name (for references to
the objects & lit see STADELMANN 1984).
On stelas and amulets she is represented as
a nude goddess in a characteristic attitude,
showed frontally, standing on a lion and car-
rying snakes and/or flowers in her hands.
She wears a wig shaped as that of —Hathor
and is frequently depicted in the context of a
triad with -*Min and —Resheph. Both her
attributes (nudity, wig) and the link with
Min and Resheph indicate an association
with fertility and sexuality. The representa-
tion of qd£ in Egyptian art is atypical, espe-
cially in view of the frontal representation,
but the style, attributes and formalized com-
position of her representation suggest a nati-
ve Egyptian development of an unknown
Syrian model (HELCK 1966: 7-10). On some
objects (STADELMANN 1984: nos. A. 1, 6; B.
5, 8, 10) qd$ wears a moon crescent on her
head.
One representation (STADELMANN 1984:
no. A. 3) identifies the figure by an inscrip-
tion containing the names of three Semitic
deities qdš.t “strat Snfut. STADELMANN
1967: 114-15 explains the arrangement of
the lines by assuming that qd3.t refers to an
aspect of the goddesses mentioned, linking
the line giving qd&r with the two other
lines, resulting in an interpretation “the holi-
ness of —Astarte, the holiness of —Anat".
Others interpret this object as representing a
fusion of three Canaanite deities (e.g. Day
1986: 389). The most plausible option is to
consider the stela as an expression of wors-
hip to three related Canaanite deities, repre-
sented by a single figure (WiGGINS 1991:
384-86).
Other references bear out that gd§ recci-
ved worship as an independent deity, espe-
cially in the city of Memphis. In pSallier 4
r. 1,6 (R. A. Caminos, Late-Egyptian Mis-
cellanies (Oxford 1954] 333 and 337-38)
she appears in an enumeration of the pan-
theon of Memphis and in pLeiden 3434345,
23, 2 (A. Massert, The Leiden Magical
Papyrus I 343+1 345 [OMRO Supplement
op de Nieuwe Reeks 34; Leiden 1954] 27
and 91) she appears in a magic spell. In the
inscription on a stone bowl, the authenticity
of which has been questioned (STADEL-
MANN 1984: 27), she is mentioned alongside
—Ptah, Anat and Astarte (D.B. REDFORD,
New light on the Asiatic campaigning of
/Horemheb, BASOR 211 [1973] 36-49).
WicGINS 199]: 387 argues that the Egyp-
416
HOLY ONE
tian theonym is best rendered *QedeSet, a
Semitic female name. Egyptian texts treat
the theonym as a feminine word, but the
hieroglyphs chosen to render this theonym
are not explicit about the final consonant.
The orthography of the theonym is qd$i.t
(STADELMANN 1984: nos. A. 1, 3, C. 1, 2)
or qd (STADELMANN 1984: nos. A. 6 [7];
B. 5, 6, 8; C. 3). In Late Egyptian the femi-
nine marker -t was no longer pronounced,
but was often preserved in the orthography
(J. CERNY & S. I. GROLL, A Late Egyptian
Grammar [StPsm 4; Rome 1984] 88 1.9 and
4.1.1). In this case, however, in all examples
the final - is part of a compound determina-
tive to indicate a female deity, composed of
the signs 'bread' (A. GARDINER, Egyptian
Grammar [3rd ed.; Oxford 1957], sign X 1)
and ‘egg’ (idem, sign H 8). Moreover, there
are no attestations of this theonym in which
a group writing is used to explicitly render
the feminine ending -at(u) of Semitic words
or names (CERNY & S. I. Grott, A Late
Egyptian Grammar [StPsm 4; Rome 1984]
$8 4.1.1; J. E. Hocu, Semitic Words in
Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and
Third Intermediate Period [Princeton 1994]
443-45). The available indications therefore
are insufficient to demonstrate the proposed
pronunciation.
The supposed link between Ug qd¥ and
Eg qd¥, as well as their identification with
Asherah, are frequently taken for granted,
mainly on the authority of influential text-
books (W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the
Gods of Canaan [London 1968] 106; F. M.
Cross, Canaanite Myth and hebrew Epic
[Cambridge, Mass. 1973] 33-35) Two
recent dissertations give an overview of the
available information, without accepting or
rejecting the traditional identification (C.
FREVEL, Aschera und der Ausschliesslich-
keitsanspruch YHWHs: Beitraege zu literari-
schen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikono-
graphischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion
[BBB 94; Weinheim 1995] Vol II, 887-889;
T. BıLDER, Asherah. Goddess in Ugarit,
Israel and the Old Testament [JSOTSup
232; Sheffield 1997] 54-61). However, the
identification of Ug qd3 and Eg qdš should
be abandoned for linguistic reasons. The
Ugaritic references are undoubtedly mascu-
line, whereas the Egyptian references are
grammatically feminine. The hieroglyphic
writing does not allow one to establish the
morphological shape of the theonym. The
best option is to consider Ug gd¥ an epithet
of El, and Eg qdš(.t) the epithet of a Can-
aanite goddess taken over and developed in
Egypt.
The origin of the Canaanite goddess
appearing on Egyptian monuments is unk-
nown. W. HELCK supposes a relationship of
this goddess with a nominal form of the root
Qps, meaning ‘votive gift, sacred object’,
originally referring to a figurine. When such
figurines, serving as amulets, were worship-
ped in their own right, the term gd began to
serve as an epithet of the Great Syrian God-
dess (1966: 7-10). WINTER 1983: 112-113
regards qd§ as the representation of an erotic
aspect of the Syrian great goddess and E.
LiPiNsKi, The Syro-Palestinian Iconography
of Woman and Goddess, /EJ 36 (1986) 89-
90, interprets Eg qd§ as a word meaning
‘amulet’ or ‘sacred object’ and draws a
parallel with Akk qudau, ‘ring’, worn as a
fertility amulet and mentioned in first mil-
lennium cuneiform texts. These specula-
tions, however, remain dubious and do not
take into account the gender of the deity. A
simple solution is to translate ‘the Holy
One’, an epithet of an unidentified Canaan-
ite goddess.
In Palestine and Syria terracottas and
bronze reliefs and jewelry with representa-
tions of a naked lady in the style of the
Egyptian qd§ attest to the spread of the
Egyptian type of this female deity during the
Late Bronze Age (WINTER 1983: 113-114
and fig. 38-43). These objects presumably
served as fertility amulets and, in view of
the close resemblance of the Egyptian and
Syrian representations, the same deity must
be involved.
III. The adjective gd applied to El in
Ugaritic texts can be compared to the name
qādôš given to Yahweh in some Bible pas-
sages (K. vAN DER ToonN, Family Religion
in Babylonia, Syria and Israel [Leiden
417
HOLY SPIRIT
1996] 326). In these cases it is not marked
by an article and appears in the singular (Isa
40:25; 57:15; Hab 3:3; Job 6:10) and plural
(Hos 12:1; Prov 9:10; 30:3). The application
of the title to Yahweh is presumably the
result of the identfication of Yahweh with El
(note the parallelism of Qad6§ or Qédédsim
with El and —Eloah in Hos 12:1; Hab 3:3).
The precipitate identification of Ug / Eg
qd with Asherah constituted an argument
for the much disputed etymology of thc
deity Ug Arrt, Akk Azirtum / Asratum and
Heb *akérd (->Asherah) as ‘(sacred) place’
on the basis of the Semitic root ?TR (Wvarr
1995: 183). Since also Ug qdi might be
interpreted as 'sanctuary', this increased the
plausibility of the identification of Asherah
and *Qudshu (cf. Dav 1986: 388-89; GESE
1970: 150; DE Moor 1973: 473-74). But
since the identifation of gd¥ and Asherah
has become dubious, this argument to def-
end the proposed etymology of *asérd no
longer holds.
IV. Bibliography
J. Day, Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and
Northwest Semitic literature, JBL 105
(1986) 385-408; H. Gese, M. H&FNER & K.
RupoLPH, Die Religionen — Altsyriens,
Altarabiens und der Mandder (Stuttgart
1970); W. HELCK, Zum Auftreten fremder
Gótter in Agypten, OrAn 5 (1966) 1-14; J.
HUvEHNERGARD, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syl-
labic Transcriptions (HSS 32; Atlanta 1987)
173; J. C. DE Moor, 778 , TWAT I (1973)
473-81; R. STADELMANN, Syrisch-Paldsti-
nensische Gottheiten in Agypten (Leiden
1967) 110-123; STADELMANN, Qadesch,
LdÀ 5 [1984] 26-27; N. Wyatt, Asherah,
. DDD! (1995) 183-195; U. WINTER, Frau
und Göttin (OBO 53; Fribourg & Göttingen
1983); S.A. Wiccins, The Myth of Ashe-
rah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess, UF 23
(1991) 383-394; P. XELLA, QDS. Semantica
del "sacro" ad Ugarit, Materiali Lessicali ed
Epigrafici 1 (Rome 1982).
F. vaN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
HOLY SPIRIT japa nm mnveüya üyvov
I. The expression ‘holy spirit’ occurs
only three times in the OT (Ps 51:13; Isa
63:10.11) but is part of a large semantic
field in which rĉah, referring to some form
of divine action, is the central component
(about 250 times in the OT). In the NT the
expression occurs 84 times whereas pneuma,
referring to the divine spirit (with or without
attributes), occurs about 350 times. Within
the Bible neither ruh nor pneuma are used
as a divine name. They are not worshipped
as divine beings. The religious use of the
words derives from general, non-religious
usage. The basic meaning of both words is
'air in motion’, either as ‘wind’ or as
‘breath’. ‘Wind’ as an action beyond human
control easily develops into a metaphor of
divine or supernatural action. ‘Breath’ is
inherent in every living creature and hence
becomes an equivalent of ‘life’ and ‘soul’ as
opposed to ‘death’ and -*'dead'. It develops
into the meaning ‘spirit’, i.e. that which dis-
tinguishes man from other creatures. In the
realm of the divine it means ‘spirit? as a
quality or attribute of the deity as distinct
from the earthly world.
II. In the OT, the two basic meanings of
Heb rtiah, ‘wind’ and ‘breath’, converge
when the word is connected with — Yahweh
as his ‘spirit’ (23 times) or as the ‘spirit of
—God" (16 times), or with a possessive pro-
noun referring to the deity.
The most important areas of divine action
in which the divine rüal is involved are (a)
the charismatic leadership in the early
period before kingship, and (b) ecstatic
prophecy.
(a) Charismatic leadership: In times of
distress and oppression Yahweh singles out
leaders to liberate the oppressed people and
empowers them through his niah to fulfil
this task. Often the spirit enables them to
perform miraculous acts of military or even
physical strength. 1 Sam 11:6 shows that the
spirit may also arouse anger. Usually these
experiences are transitory. 1 Sam 16:13 tells
that the spirit of God came upon David
‘from that day onward"; this marks the tran-
sition from an occasional action of the spirit
to a frequent repetition of the same experi-
ence which leads to the idea of a permanent
418
HOLY SPIRIT
endowment. The connection between king-
ship and the spirit, so prominent in Saul and
David, is not found in later texts. It returns
in prophecies of an eschatological ->saviour,
king or prophet (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1).
(b) Ecstatic prophecy: in 1 Sam 10:10
Saul meets a company of prophets (hebel
nébi'im) who are in ecstasy (hitnabbé’) and
Saul soon shares their experience when the
spirit seizes him. Nothing is said about their
prophesying activities, but in 10:6 Saul is
told that they come with harp, tambourine,
flute and lyre and that he, like them, will
become another man. A similar story is told
in 1 Sam 19:18-24: Saul's messengers meet
a company of prophets (/aliáqat hannébiim,
LXX ekkléesia | prophétón) in ecstasy
(nibbé?im, niphal), with Samuel standing at
their head and soon they share this experi-
ence as the spirit of God comes upon them.
This happens also to the second and the
third group of messengers and finally even
to Saul himself. These stories show that
such companies of prophets operating under
the influence of the spirit of God were no
exception. Samuel's participation implies
that such collective ecstasy was considered
legitimate within Jahwistic religion.
Apart from Num 11:16-30. where the
moment of ecstatic behaviour serves to le-
gitimate the administrative office of the
elders, no outbursts of the spirit are recorded
in pre-conquest traditions. Presumably
collective ecstatic experiences as recorded in
| Sam 10 and 19, though familiar in many
cultures (cf. J. LiNDBLOM 1962:58), orig-
inate in Canaanite religion (sec RINGGREN
1982:195-196). This is confirmed by the
story of 1 Kgs 18:20-40, where the prophets
of — Baal are said to ‘rave’ (yitnabb&'ii, as |
Sam 10:5-13 and 19:20-24).
This type of collective prophecy devel-
oped into a more institutional form in thc
pre-exilic period. A classic example is 1
Kgs 22:5-28: the king of Israel assembles
four hundred prophets to give him an oracle
on his plans to attack Ramoth-Gilead. Ap-
parently they belong to the royal court. Over
against these institutional prophets there is
the solitary prophet Micaiah, a representa-
tive of the type of prophets like Elijah and
Elisha. Both the royal prophets and the inde-
pendent prophet claim to possess the spirit
of Yahweh and the verb NB’ is applied to
both in the meaning ‘to prophesy’. This is
also the case in the prophetic writings, esp.
in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
It is significant that, apart from Mic 3:8,
rüah is never used to authorize the prophets
who claim to speak the word of Yahweh.
The reason for this is probably that the
prophets whom they considered to be false
prophets claimed to possess the spirit as in 1
Kgs 22:24 (sec ALBERTZ 1979:748-749). In
post-exilic prophetic texts prophecy and the
spirit are again connected (cf. Isa 61:1, Zech
7:12, Ezek passim: the spirit not only falls
upon him and makes him speak the word of
Yahweh but also ‘moves’ him to various
places where he receives messages to pro-
claim, cf. 3:12. 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5), not
as a real event but as a visionary experience,
as stated explicitly in 11:24.
The idiom in connection with rûal as
‘wind’ or ‘breath’ (as e.g. ‘blowing’ [NŠSB,
Isa 40:7] or ‘bursting forth’ [Ns', Num
11:31]) is not transferred to the usage of
riiah as spirit. The spirit-idiom serves to
express the way in which the spirit is
experienced, either as moving towards
people or as being in or with them.
A distinction can be drawn between ani-
mistic and dynamistic idiom. In animistic
idiom the spint is pictured as a more or less
personal being who ‘comes upon’ pcople
(Hyu ‘al, Num 24:2, Judg 3:10; 11:29; 1
Sam 19:20, 23; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14), or ‘over-
powers’ them (SL# ‘al, lit. ‘to be strong’,
mostly rendered as ‘to take possession’,
Judg 14:6. 19; 15:4; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6;
16:13: 18:10), or ‘falls upon’ them (NPL ‘al,
Ezek 11:5). The spirit *moves' (P*M, Judg
13:25). ‘carries away’ (NS, 1 Kgs 18:12;
2:16; Ezek 3, 14; 8. 3; I1, 1; 43, 5). The
spirit 'departs' from people (swr, | Sam 16:
14) or ‘passes’ from one person to another
(BR. | Kgs 22:24; 2 Chr 18:23). In dy-
namistic idiom the spirit 'clothes' or 'sur-
rounds' (LBS, mostly rendered 'takes pos-
session’, Judg 6:34; 1Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 24:
419
HOLY SPIRIT
20). People may be ‘filled with spirit’ (ML’,
Exod 28:3; 31:3; 35:21.31). The spirit is
‘poured out upon’ all people collectively
(*RH, Isa 32:15; SPK, Ezek 39:29; Joel 3:1-2;
Zech 12:10; ysq Isa 44:3).
When the coming of the spirit is not
experienced as a momentary event it results
in enduring presence of the spirit. This state
is expressed in a much simpler idiom in
which the distinction between animistic and
dynamistic is less prominent. The idiom
consists of two different phrases: that of the
spirit ‘resting upon’ people (NWH ‘al, Num
11:25-26; 2 Kgs 2:15; Isa 11:2, often with-
out a verb as e.g. Num 11:17) which may
have been understood originally as ani-
mistic, and that of the spirit ‘being in or
with’ people (HYH bé, Gen 41:38; Num 27:
18; Isa 61:1) which may have been of dy-
namistic origin. They arc, however, no
longer connected with different concepts of
the spirit.
In the OT the spirit is primarily an in-
strument of divine action upon individuals
or on the community, not in a metaphorical
way (like ‘hand’ or ‘arm’) but as belonging
to God or even as a part of God. In Isa 30:1
and 40:13 the spirit is mentioned in juxta-
position to God himself, thus preparing the
way to a concept of God as spirit (John
4:24). The OT does not represent the spirit
as a divine being connected with, yet dis-
tinct from God. It is always functioning as
an intermediary between God and mankind.
The phrase ‘holy spirit’, so prominent in
the NT and subsequent Christian literature,
appears in the OT only three times. In Ps
51:13 the psalmist prays that God will not
drive him from his face, i.e. from his pres-
ence, and will not take away from him his
holy spirit. The parallelism suggests that the
divine spirit stands for the principle of life
in the human person: the plea of the psalm-
ist is that he stay alive. In Isa 63:10-11 there
is a double reference to the spirit of God's
holiness, representing his holy presence
among his people. When thcy sin and rebel
against God they grieve his representative in
them, the holy spirit.
II. Pneuma occurs 379 times in the NT.
In the singular it always means ‘spirit’,
either divine or human (except in 2 Thess
2:8). The plural usually refers to -*unclean
spirits, -^angels (Heb 1:7.14), or to multiple
manifestations of the divine spirit (Rev 1:4;
3:1; 4:5; 5:6).
The word Pneuma occurs independently,
though in nearly two-thirds of the cases
characterized as hagion, ‘holy’; less frequent
are the occurrences in genitival construc-
tions with such terms as theou, kyriou (eit-
her God or -*Christ), Christou or /ésou. It
also occurs with following qualifying geniti-
ve, as e.g. ‘truth’ (John 14:17; 15:26;
16:13), or as a hendiadys with qualifying
nouns, as ¢.g. ‘power’ (1 Cor 2:4).
In the imagery used in connection with
the spirit, two groups of related images can
be distinguished. In the one the spirit is
described in a personal way, cither as subject
or as object; in the other the spirit is descri-
bed as a power, force or influence, either
material or immaterial. The language used is
partly derived from biblical idiom and partly
from contemporary hellenistic material. The
following is a representative survey.
In the capacity of a person, the spirit is
described as being sent by God (Gal 4:6
exapesteilen, in 4:4 used with reference to
the -*son of God, | Pet 2:12, the Paraclete-
sayings in John 14:26; 15:26), or as coming
upon people (Acts 1:8; 19:6; John 16:13),
presumably to stay with them and to become
active when called upon (like the daimón
paredros, see REILING 1973:88-90). In par-
ticular in Acts this personal idiom is used:
the spirit speaks (8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2;
20:23), sends (13:4), forbids (16:6) and
appoints (20:28). Alternatively people can
lie to (5:3), tempt (5:9), resist (7:51), grieve
(Eph 4:30) or insult (Heb 10:29) the spirit.
This usage paves the way to later doctrinal
developments.
Otherwise, the spirit is described as being
poured out like rain (Acts 2:17-18.33; 10:45,
cf. Rom 5:5); people arc filled with the spirit
(Acts 2:4; 4:8.31; 9:17; 13:9) as a moment-
ary experience, or are full of the spirit (Acts
6:3; 7:55; 11:24; 13:52; Eph 5:18) as a per-
manent endowment. The same imagery is
420
HOLY SPIRIT
found in hellenistic sources (sce REILING
1973:114-121). Baptism in or with the spirit
(Mark 1:8 and par.; John 1:33; cf. 1 Cor 12:
13) is a metaphor derived from immersion
in water. Like the Delphian enthousiasmos
the spirit can be quenched (cf. VAN UNNIK
1968). The idiom of the gift, or the giving
of the spint is also part of non-personal
usage (Luke 11:13; John 3:34; Acts 8:18;
15:8: 1 Cor 12:7; 1 Thess 4:8; 1 John 3:24;
4:13). The general phrase ‘to receive the
spirit (John 20:22; Acts 2:38; 8:15.17.19;
10:47; 19:2; Rom 8:15; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:2,
14) is ambiguous.
In the gospel tradition Jesus is pictured
as a pneumatikos, a man full of the spirit
and acting in the power of the spirit. The
spirit was bestowed on him immediately
after having been baptized by John. Mark
1:10 describes the descending of the spirit as
a visionary experience of Jesus himself,
Matt 3:16 and Luke 3:21-22 as a visible
event. John refers to it as an event observed
by John the Baptist. The symbol of the
-*dove (not mentioned in John) may refer to
bat qól because of the following proclama-
tion from heaven (cf. H. GREEVEN, nepio-
xepá, TWNT 6 [1959] 68, -*Dove) or to the
image of the so-called ‘soul-bird’ (‘Seelen-
vogel', sce A. SCHIMMEL, Seelenvogel, RGG
5 [1961] 1637), but it plays no part in the
symbolism of the holy spirit until much
later. This common tradition identifies Jesus
as the eschatological prophet of Isa 61:1,
anointed with the spirit (cf. 11QMelch 18;
Luke 4:18-21; Acts 10:38).
The first act of the spirit is to send Jesus
into the wilderness to be tempted by the
— devil. The words used by the evangelists
are indicative of their respective ideas of the
relationship between Jesus and the spirit. In
Mark 1:12 the spirit drives him (ekballei, a
technical term of exorcisms) more or less
violently, in Matt 4:1 he is led by the spirit
(anéchthé hypo tou pneumatos, a neutral
phrase). In Luke 4:1 Jesus is the subject of
the clause: he returns full of the spirit
(plerés pneumatos hagiou, in Acts 6:3.5.8;
7:55; 11:24 used to describe permanent
endowment with the spirit) and he is led in,
not into, the wilderness under the influence
of the spirit (en tói pneumati, a less explicit
phrase than those of Mark and Matthew).
This picture of a spirit-endowed prophet is
also reflected in Luke: Jesus returns to
Galilee endowed with the power of the spirit
(en dynamei pneumatos 4:14) and in the
synagogue of Nazareth he identifies himself
às the spirit-anointed prophet of Isa 61:1.
In the synoptic report of Jesus' ministry
the spirit is mentioned only twice: in the
logion of the -*sin against the holy spirit
(Mark 3:29; Matt 12:31-32; Luke 12:10 but
placed in a different context), and in the Q-
logion of Matt 12:28 (Luke 11:20 has
‘finger’ instead of pneuma), inserted in the
Marcan Beclzebul-controversy preceding the
logion. The common element in these texts
is that Jesus drives out -*demons through
the spirit and to ascribe this to Beelzebul is
an unforgivable sin. The spirit both author-
izes and empowers Jesus to drive out the
demons (cf. Luke 4:36). Their overthrow is
proof of the presence of the kingdom of
God and, implicitly, of the power of the
spint through Jesus.
In Matthew and Luke the story of Jesus’
public ministry is preceded by stories about
his birth in which the spirit plays an import-
ant part. Matt 1:18-23 tells that before
having had intercourse with Joseph -*Mary
was found to be pregnant of the holy spirit
(ek pneumatos hagiou) and that this was
confirmed to Joseph by an angel in a dream.
In Luke the angel -*Gabriel tells Mary that
she will have a son and that the holy spirit
will come upon her and that the power of
the Most High will overshadow her. There-
fore her son to be born will be called ‘holy
'and 'son of God'. Matthew's statement is
too short to admit of any interpretation of
the role of the spirit. The Lucan version,
however, is more explicit: the spirit comes
upon Mary (eperchomai) as upon the dis-
ciples at Pentecost (Acts 1:8; the actual
story has ‘filled with the holy spirit’, 2:4).
The overshadowing (episkiazein) of Mary
by the power of the Most High recalls the
cloud which overshadows Jesus and those
with him in the transfiguration story (Mark
HOLY SPIRIT
9:7 and par.) and the cloud overshadowing
the tent of mecting and the —glory of God
filling the tent (Exod 40:35 LXX; Num
9:18; 10:34-36, cf. Deut 33:12 LXX; Isa
4:5). These parallels refer to the active pres-
ence of God in a general way but not to
anything near the conception of a human or
divine being as in Luke 1:34. The associa-
tion of the spirit with conception cannot
therefore be explained in terms of this
usage, nor in terms of the divine spirit over-
shadowing and obscuring nous when enter-
ing a human person (Philo, Somn 1 119, see
LEISEGANG 1922:25-27). Whatever the ori-
gin and background of this image, the inten-
tion of both statements in Matt 1:18 and
Luke 1:34 is to connect Jesus with the spirit
from his conception on. Yet this does not
keep the evangelists from recording the
common tradition of the spirit descending
upon Jesus at baptism. The fact that no-
where in the rest of the NT the so-called
virginal conception is mentioned or alluded
to suggests that it is a secondary tradition,
not supported by the pre-gospel tradition nor
by the primitive teaching as transparent
from the Pauline letters. Despite its great
impact on later doctrinal developments the
notion of the virginal conception does not
belong to the earliest picture of Jesus as the
messenger of the kingdom of God, anointed
with the holy spirit (for a theological inter-
pretation of these texts see R. E. Brown,
The Birth of the Messiah [New York 19932]).
The experience of the spirit is one of the
most characteristic features in the life of the
carliest Christian communities. The promisc
of its coming, recorded in the gospel tra-
dition (Mark 1:8 and par.; Luke 24:49; Acts
1:8; John 7:39; 20:22; sce also the Paraclete-
sayings in 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-11.13-15),
reflect this experience. The Book of Acts
reports its coming in the community of
Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem (2:1-4) and its
reception when people accept the gospel
(8:15; 10:44; 19:6, also referred to in the
phrase lambanein to pneuma Gal 3:3; Rom
8:15-16; 2 Cor 11:4). Hence the spirit was
believed to be permanently present in the
communities and to influence the conduct of
the believers towards one another (Gal 5:22;
Rom 14:17), and to inspire them to lead a
life kata pneuma, following the guidance of
the spirit. Those who fail to meet this stan-
dard are not entitled to be called pnewmati-
kos (1 Cor 3:1-4).
The spirit was experienced in more direct
manifestations, either as a rekindling of a
present gift or as a sudden outpouring.
These manifestations relate to (1) revelation,
(2) power, and (3) worship.
(1) Paul ranks apostles, prophets and
teachers (in this order) at the top of an enu-
meration of gifts of the spirit (1 Cor 12:28)
and claims that the wisdom which he
preaches as an apostle, his gospel, was re-
vealed to him by the spirit (1 Cor 2, 10) and
this may also apply to prophecy and
teaching. Of these two prophecy is the most
prominent revelatory manifestation of the
spirit. It is attested in three Pauline letters (1
Thess, 1 Cor, Rom), in Rev, 1 John, Did. 11
and Hermas, Man. 11.
The Sitz im Leben of primitive Christian
prophecy is the gathered community, the
‘gathering of righteous men who have faith
in the divine spiri (Hermas, Man. 11, 9),
where the spirit is present and can become
active when invoked. The prescnce of the
spirit in the gathered community is a presup-
position for prophecy to function. When
prophets speak their messages the congre-
gation has to judge whether or not they are
inspired by the spirit of God. Discerning the
spirits (diakrisis pneumatón) is itself a. gift
(1 Cor 12:10; 14:29) and a case of thc
principle similia similibus cognoscuntur. Yet
sometimes external criteria are mentioned,
pertaining cither to the moral (Matt 7:15-20;
Did. 11, 8-12) or the doctrinal (1 Cor 12:3;
| John 4:1-6) side of the phenomenon.
Prophecy is instant speech inspired by the
spirit and spoken hic et nunc in the congre-
gation. More than one prophet may speak
but a certain order must be kept (1 Cor
14:29-33). Direct inspiration by the spirit
does not cause a loss of consciousness as
with the Montanist prophetesses (Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. V 17); the prophet is supposed to
have control over his prophetic inspiration
(1 Cor 14:32).
The content of prophetic speech is not
422
HOLY SPIRIT
clearly stated. The Book of Acts mentions
prophetic predictions of events to come (11:
28; 21:4) and Paul states that prophecy
serves “for upbuilding, encouragement and
consolation” (1 Cor 14:3). Presumably,
prophecy, preaching and teaching overlap in
the life of the community. The ‘word of
wisdom’ and the ‘word of knowledge‘
which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 12:8 are prob-
ably favourite terms in the church of the
Corinthians since they are not mentioned
elsewhere.
(2) The standard phrase to describe acts
of power effected or inspired by the spirit is
‘miracles and signs’ (terata kai sémeia),
probably to be understood as a hendiadys:
miraculous acts which signal the power of
the spint, usually in support of the preach-
ing of the gospel (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 14:3;
15:12; 2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:19; Heb 2:3).
The Greek expression reflects the Hebrew
idiom "órót. ümópétim, ‘signs and wonders’
(see, e.g. Deut 4:34). The nature of the mir-
acles is never specified. Sometimes the word
‘power’ (dynamis) is added as a qualifica-
tion of the miracle (Acts 8:13; Rom 15:19, 2
Cor 12:12), sometimes ‘acts of power’
(dynameis) are mentioned as an equivalent
(Acts 19:11; 1 Cor 2:4; 12:10, 28; 1 Thess
1:5). According to 1 Cor 12:9-10 they are to
be distinguished from ‘acts of healing’
(charismata iamatón). Such acts are re-
ported in Acts, sometimes as a collective
event (5:16; 8:7; 28:9). sometimes as an
individual healing (3:6-8; 9:18; 16:18; 20:
10). Acts 19:12 shows that in Luke's under-
standing there is no clear distinction
between acts of power and acts of healing.
(3) Prayer, too, is experienced as an act
of the spirit. The Abba-invocation is de-
scribed both as spoken by the believers
under the inspiration. of the spirit (Rom
8:15) and as an utterance of the spirit itself
in the hearts of the believers (Gal 4:6). The
same concept of the spirit-inspired prayer
(oratio infusa, see HEtLER 1920:224-227)
underlies Rom 8:26. Whether the ‘groans
that cannot be spoken’ (stenagmoi alalétoi)
refer to glossolalia is not certain. Speaking
in tongues, or languages, is mentioned in
Mark 16:15, in Acts and in 1 Cor 12 and 14.
In Mark 16:15 speaking in new tongues is
one of the signs that will accompany the
believers. In Acts 2:1-13 “speaking in other
tongues” (lalein heterais glóssais) is speak-
ing in foreign languages understood by the
inhabitants of the countrics where the lan-
guages are spoken; in 10:46 it is mentioned
together with praising God and in 19:6
together with prophecy. Apparently the
author of Acts does not know glossolalia
from personal experience. In 1 Cor 12 and
14 Paul attempts to tone down an overesti-
mation of the phenomenon by comparing it
to prophecy: speaking in tongues is an indi-
vidual experience of prayer in incomprehen-
sible words. The words must be translated in
order to be understood by the congregation.
Whether or not such translations occurred is
not indicated. 1 Cor 14:13-19 shows that
speaking in tongues comes close to praying
and singing.
(c) Notwithstanding the frequent occur-
rence of pnewna or pneuma hagion as an
independent notion, in the NT the spirit is
not envisaged as a divine being (hypostasis),
but as an instrument of divine action or
revelation.
The relationship between the spirit and
the exalted Christ is described in various
ways. Acts 2:33 sees the spint as poured out
by Christ and 16:7 refers to the spirit as
pneuma lēsou (cf. also Phil 1:19; 1 Pet
2:11). Rom 8:9-11 shows how easily the
phrases pneuma theou, pneuma Christou and
Christos can be used interchangeably.
IV. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ & C. WESTERMANN, MN
Rüah, THAT 2 (1979) 726-753; *D. E.
AUNE, Prophecy in Early Christianity
(Grand Rapids 1983); H. CROUZEL, Geist
(Heiliger Geist), RAC 9 (1976) 490-545; G.
DAUTZENBERG, Glossolalie, RAC 11 (1981)
225-246; DAUTZENBERG, Urchristliche
Prophetie (Stuttgart 1975); J. D. G. DUNN.
Baptisn in the Spirit (London 1970);
*DuNN, Jesus and the Spirit (London
1975); G. D. FEE, God's empowering pre-
sence: the Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul
(Peabody 1994); H. GUNKEL, Die Wirkun-
gen des heiligen Geistes nach der populdren
Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der
423
HOREPH
Lehre des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen
1888); F. HEILER, Das Gebet (München
1920); J. JEREMIAS, XD) nāb?, THAT 2
(1979) 7-26; *H. KLEINKNECHT et al.,
Pneuma etc., TWNT 6 (1959) 330-453; H.
LEISEGANG, Pneuma Hagion; Der Ursprung
des Geistbegriffs der synoptischen Evange-
lien aus der griechischen Mystik (Leipzig
1922); J. LINDBLOM, Prophecy in Ancient
Israel (Oxford 1962); D. Lvs, RUAH Le
souffle dans l'Ancien Testament (Paris
1962); W. E. MiLLs, Speaking in Tongues,
A Guide to Research on Glossolalia (Grand
Rapids 1986) [& lit]; S. MonENZ et al.,
Geist, RGG 2 (19623) 1268-1279; E. Mosi-
MAN, Das Zungenreden geschichtlich und
psychologisch untersucht (Tübingen 1911);
J. PANAGOPOULOS (ed.), Prophetic Vocation
in the New Testament and Today (Leiden
1977); F. Prister, Ekstase, RAC 4 (1959)
944-987; J. ReminG, Hermas and Christian
Prophecy (Leiden 1973); H. RINGGREN,
Israelitische Religion (Stuttgart 1982); H.
SAAKE, Pneuma, PWSup XIV (1974) 387-
412; H. ScHLÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, Ruah
bewegt die Welt (Stuttgart 1992); *W. H.
ScHMIDT et al., Geist/Heiliger GeisUGeistes-
gaben I, II, III, TRE 12 (1984) 170-196 [&
lit); W. C. van UNNIK, 'Den Geist lóschet
nicht aus’ (1 Thessalonicher V 19), NovT 10
(1968) 255-269; VAN UNNIK, A Formula
describing Prophecy, Sparsa Collecta 2
(Leiden 1980) 183-193; H. WEINEL, Die
Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im
nachapostolischen Zeitalter bis auf lrendus
(Freiburg 1899); R. R. WiLsoN, Prophecy
and Ecstasy: A Reexamination, JBL 98
(1979) 321-337.
J. REILING
HOREPH ']1
I. The name 'Horeph' is a hapax in the
OT. It occurs as a possible theophoric el-
ement in the personal name Elihoreph: one
of Solomon's secretaries in 1 Kgs 4:3. It has
been connected with the Egyptian god
~ Apis: and, alternatively, with the Kassite
god Harpa/e. In epigraphical Hebrew, the
putative divine name Horeph is probably at-
tested in the seal inscription /l'zyw bn hrp
(DiRINGER 1934:196 No 37: TiGcay 1986:
77). Besides, in Hebrew a noun /üórep
occurs indicating the autumnal season (e.g.
Gen 8:22; Zech 14:8; Ps 74:17). It is unclear
whether this noun and the possibly theo-
phoric element are identical or homonyms.
II. According to a proposal by Mar-
QUARDT (1896), Horeph is a misspelling of
the Egyptian deity Apis. The name Eli-
horeph is to be read ’r/ip, ‘Apis is my light’,
or ?lyhp, ‘Apis is my god’. Additional ar-
guments have been adduced by DE Vaux
(1939) and METTINGER (1971). In this con-
nection, Phoenician personal names with the
theophoric element Apis are cited by DE
Vaux: bnhp and ytnhp. The LXX reads
Eta (B), or EAraB (LucRev). This sup-
ports the interpretation of DE Vaux and
METTINGER. The vocalisation of the MT is
explained by METTINGER as follows: “For
religious reasons (Apis as sacred bull and
god of fertility), this mixtiun. compositum
with the name of a foreign god was inten-
tionally distorted to form a pejorative by the
insertion of a resh. This insertion associated
the name with the Hebrew root connected
with shame, disgrace, blasphemy. The point-
ing could represent a revocalisation with the
vowels of M2 shame” (1971:30). The
Egyptian etymology corresponds to the
Egyptian background of the Solomonic state
offices proposed by DE Vaux and MET-
TINGER. This background is contested by
Mazar, who supposes a Canaanite origin.
Accordingly, Horeph is interpreted in a dif-
ferent way: “I propose that the second com-
ponent of the name is the god Harpa/e. This
deity was worshipped by the Kassites in
Babylonia, and identified by them with
Enlil, the lord of the Gods. He was also
worshipped by the Hurrians, and his name
appears as a component in personal names
from Nuzi" (MAZAR 1986:137-138; for the
equation EN.LÍL = Harbé see K. BALKAN,
Kassitenstudien 1 [AOS 37; New Haven
1954] 106-107). The deity Harbe allegedly
occurs as a theophoric element in a personal
name known from the El Amarna correspon-
dence: Ka-da-a$-ma-an-EN.LíL, *Kadashman-
424
HORON
Harbe, king of Babylon ' (EA 1:1; 2:2; 3:3;
5:2; R. S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names
(Winona Lake 1993] 156). Against Mazar,
TiGay (1986:77) argues that the Kassite
deity Harpa/e is not mentioned in inscrip-
tions from the first millennium BCE. He then
suggests a relation between frp and the per-
sonal name /iáríp in Neh 7:24; 10:20.
HI. The evidence of the LXX led MONT-
GOMERY & GEHMAN (1951:115) to a com-
pletely different emendation. The Greek
addition in 1 Kgs 2:46 reads “over the
plinthion". "The plinthion was the quadrans
(...), which was not only a sun-dial but also
an instrument for determining the scasons
by the the lengths of the sun's shadow, the
instrument being adjusted to the latitude."
Thus the putative name is emended to a
title: “7 hlhrp ‘Over-the-Year’ (compare
BHS): “The office was parallel to that of the
Assyrian limu, after the years of which func-
tionaries all official documents were dated.”
(MONTGOMERY & GEHMAN 1951:115). This
construal is perhaps misleading; see REHM,
who argues for a different interpretation of
plinth(e)ion and a military function of the
office (1972:98). Such proposals are inter-
esting but remain doubtful. So the question
of the origin of ‘Horeph’ is still left open in
the new Hebrew dictionaries (HALAT 54;
Ges.18 64).
IV. Bibliography
D. DIRINGER, Le iscrizioni antico-ebraiche
palestinesi (Firenze 1934); J. MARQUARDT,
Fundamente israelitischer und jüdischer
Geschichte (Göttingen 1896); B. MAZAR,
The Early Biblical Period. Historical
Studies (S. Ahituv & B. A. Levine, eds.;
Jerusalem 1986) 126-138; T. N. D. MET-
TINGER, Solomonic State Officials (ConB OT
Series 5; Lund 1971); J. A. MONTGOMERY
& H. S. GEHMAN, À Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Books of Kings (Edin-
burgh 1951); M. REHM, Die Beamtenliste
der Septuaginta in 1 Kón 2,46h, Wort, Lied
und Gottesspruch. FS J. Ziegler (J.
Schreiner ed.; Würzburg 1972) 95-101; J. H.
Ticay, You Shall Have No Other Gods
(HSM 31; Atlanta 1986); R. pE Vaux,
Titres ct fonctionnaires égyptiens a la cour
de David et de Salomon, RB 48 (1939) 394-
405.
U. RÜTERSWÜRDEN
HORON ^ii
I. In the OT, Horon is a divine element
in the place-name Beth-Horon (House of
Horon; Ges.!8 146). Two cities were known
as Beth-Horon, the one Lower Beth-Horon
(bet ‘Stir el-fóga; 16 km nw of Jerusalem)
and the other Upper Beth-Horon (bét ‘tr et-
tahta; 18 km nw of Jerusalem). The topo-
nym is known from a topographical list of
the pharao Shoshenk at Karnak (van DUK
1989:60) and from a Hebrew ostracon from
Tell el-Qasile (TSSI I 4 B). Perhaps Horo-
naim in Moab (Isa 15:5, Jer 48:3) is also
related to the god Horon (KA/ II, 179). The
name of the deity may be connected with
arabic haur ‘bottom (of a well), (broad)
depression’. “It is not impossible that the
name of the god is a similar adjectival
expression, meaning primarily the ‘deep
one, the one inhabiting the underworld.'"
(ALBRIGHT 1936:9).
II. Horon is mentioned as an element in
personal names from Mari (H. HUFFMON,
Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts
[Baltimore 1965] 32,192) and from the
Egyptian execration texts (VAN Duk 1989:
59). In Ugarit, some of his character traits
can be recognized, though he does not play
a prominent role in the pantheon (DE Moor,
UF 2 [1970], 222). Horon does not appear
in Ugaritic proper names (NA'AMAN, UF 22
(1990], 253 n. 28) there is only one
*bdhwrn on a Phoenician seal (XELLA 1988:
57).
In the Ugaritic myths and epics, Horon is
invoked in curses, in KTU 1.16 VI 54-58.
Kirtu says to his son: “O son, Horonu break,
Horonu break your head, (and) ‘Athtartu,
consort of Ba‘lu, your skull! May you fall
down at the height of your years, in the
prime of your strength, and yet be humbled!”
(ARTU 222-223) The same formulation is
used in Yammu's speech adressed to Baal
(KTU 1.2 i: 7-9 reconstructed).
In Ugaritic incantations, Horon is invoked
425
HORUS
against snakes. One of these incantations,
perhaps the best preserved Ugaritic text
(KTU 1.100), is difficult to understand. Ac-
cording to KOTTSIEPER (1984:109). the sun
goddess is sent by her daughter from east to
west to ask several gods and goddesses to
provide her with snake charms. Finally,
Horon agrees. The text shows that his do-
minion lies in the netherworld, referred to as
mgd ‘fortress’ (Translation: ARTU 146-156;
Dietrich & Loretz, TUAT Hl, 345-350). In
the incantation KTU 1.82, the ‘creatures of
Horon’ (Ugarit bnat hi{rn] ) are (evil) ances-
tral spirits from the netherworld (ARTU 177;
DE Moor & Spronk, UF 16 [1984] 242-
243). In this ritual, Horon occurs several
times. He is viewed in a negative sense, as
the chief of harmful -^demons. In this role,
Horon is ambivalent; he can also be invoked
against demons (RIH 78/20; ARTU 185;
Dietrich & Loretz, TUAT If, 333-336).
This is also evident in KTU 1.107 (CaQuor,
LAPO 14, 95-100): —El and Horon shall
take away the poison of a snake. It is inter-
esting to see that Horon is placed here at the
top of a list of deities.
The wives of Horon are mentioned in the
first Phoenician incantation on an amulet
from Arslan Tash (7th century). The passage
reads: "with an alliance of Horon whose
command is perfect and of his seven concu-
bines, yea, the eight wives of the holy Lord"
(KAI 27:15-18; DE Moor 1983:108).
This positive aspect of Horon as a helper
against demons is also found in the Egyptian
Papyrus Harris. In a passage refering to
magical means of rendering a wolf harmless
it is stated: “Horon makes thy fangs im-
potent, thy foreleg is cut off by Arsaphes,
after ->Anat has cut thee down.” (ALBRIGHT
1936:3; perhaps -*Resheph is mentioned
[instead of ‘Arsaphes’]; VAN Duk 1989:63).
Another passage reads: “O Horon, drive (the
beasts) from the (harvest) field; O Horus, let
none enter!” (ALBRIGHT 1936:4), In this
context Horon is called a ->*shepherd’.
During the first millennium BCE the cult
of Horon spread throughout the Medittera-
nean World. He is mentioned in a Punic in-
scription from Antas (SZNYCER 1969-1970);
here he is connected with Sid (Sidon). In a
Greek inscription from Delos, Horon is men-
tioned together with -*Heracles as a god
venerated by the people of Jamnia (in Pales-
tine). The final note is interesting: "Every-
thing may be sacrificed except goat”
(ALBRIGHT 1936:4-5).
Horon was also venerated in Egypt since
the time of Amenhotep II (STADELMANN
1967:81; HeLcK 1971:454). In texts from
the Theban West Bank, he was identified
with Shed. Horon is depicted as a falcon
clutching snakes in its talons; the reason lies
in the identification with -Horus (VAN
Duk 1989:62-63). In the delta Horon was
worshipped as a desert-god, protecting against
the enemies coming from the desert. In
Giza, Horon was identified with Harmakhis,
the Great Sphinx (VAN DuK 1989:65-68).
III. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Canaanite God
Haurón (Hórón), AJSL 53 (1936) 1-12: A.
Caquor, Horon: revue critique et données
nouvelles, AAAS 29-30 (1979/80) 173-180;
J. VAN Duk, The Canaanite God Hauron
and his Cult in Egypt, GM 107 (1989) 59-68
[& lit]; J. Gray, The Canaanite God Horon,
JNES 8 (1949) 27-34; W. Heck. Die
Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3.
und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden
19712); I. KOTTSIEPER, KTU 1.100 - Ver-
such einer Deutung, UF 16 (1984) 97-110;
J. C. DE Moor, Demons in Canaan, JEOL
27 (1983) 106-119; R. STADELMANN,
Syrisch-palüstinische Gottheiten in Agypten
(Leiden 1967); M. SzNycer, Note sur le
dieu Şid et le dieu Horon d'après les nou-
velles inscriptions puniques d’Antas (Sar-
daigne). Karthago 15 (1969-1970) 69-74; P.
XELLA, Per una riconsiderazione della
morfologia del dio Horon, A/ON 32 (1972)
271-286 [& lit; XELLA, D'Ugarit à la
Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Horon,
Eshmun, WO 19 (1988) 45-64.
U. RÜTERSWÜRDEN
HORUS 7, *^ii
I. Hor, Gk Horos (Horus) is the name
of a number of Egyptian gods. It has been
426
HOSIOS KAI DIKAIOS
suggested that it occurs, as a (theophoric
element in) biblical personal name(s). It is
found in Sihér, Josh 13:3; Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18;
1 Chr 13:5; cf. Josh 19:26. This toponym
renders Eg “Lake of Horus” (on the n.-e.
Egyptian border), in spite of the Hebrew
interpretation as “The Black One” (BIETAK
1983:625).
Il. Two are very prominent among the
Horuses. The sky-god (A), and the son of
*Osiris and ~ Isis (B). A is also called
“Horus the Elder” (Haroéris) or “Horus the
Eldest’, B “Horus the son of Isis ” (Har-
siése) and “Horus the Child” (Harpokrates).
A is depicted as a falcon or falcon-headed
human. “Distant One”—possibly the right
translation of his namc—is a suitable
description of the high-flying bird of prey. B
is a boy, reared and sheltered by his mother.
As a young man, he becomes Osiris’ vindi-
cator and successor to the throne. He is the
prototype of the "Beloved Son" who takes
care of his father after his death. Harpo-
krates was very popular in the Graeco-
Roman period.
A and B have some characteristics in
common so that amalgamations become
understandable. They are both confronted
with -Seth as an antagonist. Fighting with
his rival (and brother), A was wounded in
the eye, the source of light. Assignment of a
territory to each of them ended the struggle.
The eye was made "healthy" (udjat) again.
A later version of this myth looks upon Seth
not as an equal opponent, but as a criminal.
B takes Seth, his uncle, for an evil god from
the beginning, because he murdered Osiris.
The latter conflict resulted in the villain's
condemnation. A is a royal deity right from
the start of Egypt’s history. He protects the
earthly ruler who is identified with him.
Taking over office from Osiris, B is the pre-
decessor of the Pharaohs. He also looks
after the deceased king. The august sky-god
was "He of Behdet (Edfu)" where he en-
joyed his main cult. Influence from Helio-
polis, the solar centre. during the Old King-
dom generated "Horus of the Horizon"
(Horakhty). Syncretized with the sun-god
~Re, he became Re-Horakhty. The disk is
his typical head-gear, and, provided with
wings, his conspicuous manifestation.
IH. The biblical anthroponyms in which
the name Horus allegedly occurs are ’ashiir
(1 Chr 2:24: 4:5); Hür (Ex 17:10.12; 24:14);
Hüri (1 Chr 5:14); Háray (1Chr 11:32);
Hüràm (Y Chr 8:5): Harneper (1 Chr 7:36);
‘ammihfir (2 Sam 13:37), and Pashür (Jer
20:1 etc.; 21:1: 38:1; Ezra 2:38; 10:22; Neh
7:41: 10:4: 11:12; 1 Chr 9:12). Some identi-
fications are, however, disputed, others are
at the very least uncertain; cf. KB and
HALAT s.v. The one instance which gives
the impression of being positively Egyptian
is Harneper. though that name may contain
Eg hr, “face”.
IV. Bibliography
M. BiETAK, Schi-Hor, LdA V (1983) 623-
626; H. BONNET. Horus, RARG 307-314;
and cf. entries p. 306, 314-318; J. CERNY,
Ancient Egyptian Religion (London 1952)
155; E. HonNuNG, Der Eine und die Vielen
(Darmstadt 1971) 274; W. SCHENKEL,
Horus, LdA III (1977) 14-25: and cf. entries
p. 13, 25-64.
M. HEERMA VAN VOSS
HOSIOS KAI DIKAIOS
AiKatoc.
I. Both Ootog ('pious, holy') and
Sixarog (‘just. righteous’) occur countless
times in the Greek Bible as epithets of both
humans and -'God. Also the combination of
both words occurs, e.g. Deut 32:4; Tit 1:8;
Rev 16:5: cf. Eph. 4:24, as is very often the
case in pagan Greek literature. As the name
ofan »angel or a pair of angels "Octo; xai
Aixatog occurs, almost always in this com-
bination, on several dozen inscriptions,
mostly from third century CE Phrygia and
Lydia in Asia Minor, which were discovered
during the last decades (many of them were
published in MAMA IX and TAM V K; sce
also Drew-Bear 1978: 38-40, and esp.
RicL 1991-1992).
II. Divine angels played an important
role in the pagan world of the second and
third centuries CE (MITCHELL 1993:46-47).
The inscriptions inform us about the exist-
"Ooiog xai
427
HOST OF HEAVEN
ence of a cult of an angelos or angeloi in
central and western Asia Minor, sometimes
organized in the form of an ‘Association of
Friends of the Angel(s)’ (o\AayyéA@v ovu-
Biwotc), viz.. Hosios kai Dikaios. In a num-
ber of inscriptions the double names only
refer to one supernatural being, in other
ones, however, to a pair (e.g. Oeoig Ocio
xai Atxato); sometimes Hosios is the only
deity mentioned (e.g. DREw-BEAR 1978:39
n. 5; ibid. 40 n. 29 further examples). There
is some debate about whether this angelos
or those angeloi are just (a) messenger(s) of
the gods or rather a particular type of super-
natural being(s). The latter is suggested by
the fact that some of the inscriptions are
dedicated to —'Zeus Most High and the
Divine Angel’; in such cases Oeiog "Ay-
yE€Aog seems to be a separate deity (refer-
ences in KEARSLEY 1992:207). But on some
of the reliefs below or above these inscrip-
tions the representation of a Hermes-like
male figure bearing a winged herald's staff
suggests, rather, that we have to do with (a)
messenger(s) between the divine and human
world, although this is far from conclusive.
Some scholars believe that the rather
uncommon term angelos was borrowed
from Graeco-Jewish communities in thc
area, especially because the terms óotog and
6ixatog are standard epithets of God in the
LXX (SHEPPARD 1980/81). These are not
persuasive arguments, but Jewish influence
certainly cannot be ruled out altogether. The
nature of the cult of Hosios kai Dikaios
remains still largely unknown to us. Their
female counterpart Hosia is less frequently
attested (MITCHELL 1993:25-26).
HII. Although dating from the post-NT
period, these inscriptions may shed some
light on the question of angel-worship in
Asia Minor (SHEPPARD 1980-81), much dis-
cussed in connection with Col. 2:18 where
Paul (?) warns his readers against the ad-
herents of angel-worship (@pnoxeia tav ay-
yéAwv), which apparently played a role in
Colossian ‘philosophy’ (Col. 2:8). This syn-
cretistic movement was profoundly in-
fluenced by Jewish ideas and customs or
may even have been of Jewish origin (but
see SCHWEIZER 1976:100-104 and POKORNY
1987:95-101).
IV. Bibliography
T. Drew-Bear, Nouvelles inscriptions de
Phrygie (Zutphen 1978); *R. A. KEARSLEY,
Angels in Asia Minor: The Cult of Hosios
and Dikaios, New Docs 6 (1992), 206-209;
S. MIMCHELL, Anatolia: Land, Men, and
Gods in Asia Minor, vol. 2 (Oxford 1993):
P. POKORNY, Der Brief des Paulus an die
Kolosser (Berlin 1987); *M. RıcL, Hosios
kai Dikaios, Epigraphica Anatolica 18
(1991) 1-53; 19 (1992) 71-102; E. ScuwtiI-
ZER, Der Brief an die Kolosser (Neukirchen
1976); A. A. R. SHEPPARD, Pagan Cults of
Angels in Roman Asia Minor, Talanta 12-
13 (1980-81) 77-101.
P. W. VAN DER Horst
HOST OF HEAVEN OJT NYS
I. At the origin of the conception of a
‘host of heaven’ stands the metaphor of
-Yahweh as warrior. When waging his
wars, Yahweh was helped by warriors and
an army (e.g. 2 Kgs 6:17; 7:6; Isa 13:4-5;
Joel 4:11; Hab 3:8; Ps 68:18). Only a few
examples of this military background of the
host of heaven have been preserved in the
OT (Dan 8:10-11, cf. Josh 5:13-15). Due to
a semantic shift, host of heaven also desig-
nates the divine assembly gathered around
Yahweh, the heavenly king (1 Kgs 22:19 =
2 Chr 18:18). In the course of Israelite relig-
ious history this concept underwent several
changes.
II. The clearest impression of the Israel-
ite conception of host of heaven is given by
an early prophetic narrative (1 Kgs 22:1-28).
In a vision Micah ben Jimlah sees “the
LoRD seated on his throne, with all the host
of heaven standing beside him on his right
and on his left" (1 Kgs 22:19). This picture
is borrowed from terrestrial realities: A king
sitting on his —throne and his ministers and
attendants surrounding him. Though not
using the term ‘host of heaven’ this picture
of the divine -*council also underlies Isa 6,
where Yahweh as king carries the title
*LonD of hosts’ (Isa 6:3.5). In the course of
428
HOST OF HEAVEN
time, the host of heaven was subject to an
astralization in accordance with previous
developments in Mesopotamian and Syro-
Canaanite religions. This is shown by the
texts which understand the host of heaven as
sun, -*moon and -*stars (Deut 4:19; cf. Ps
148:2-3) or set host of hcaven in parallelism
to sun and moon, thus meaning the stars
alone (Deut 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2; cf.
Dan 8:10). The veneration of the astralized
‘host of heaven’ took place on the roofs (Jer
19:13; Zeph 1:5). That this veneration was
not confined to popular religion is shown by
the fact that even kings were reproached for
having practised this cult (2 Kgs 21:3, 5 2 2
Chr 33:3, 5; Jer 8:2; 19:13). Also in the
temple of Jerusalem there were altars for the
worship of the host of heaven (2 Kgs 21:5),
which were removed during the cult-reform
by Josiah (2 Kgs 23:4-5). Under the in-
fluence of the Assyrian domination of
Judah, a tendency towards Yahweh mono-
latry arose, which implied a rejection of the
astralized host of heaven in Deuteronomistic
circles. That is why in Judaean texts of late
pre-exilic and exilic times the worship of the
host of heaven, often set in parallelism to
the worship of foreign gods (Deut 17:3; 2
Kgs 17:16; 21:3; 23:4-5; Jer 19:13; Zeph
1:4-5), is strictly forbidden to the Judaeans.
As a result of the rise of monotheism during
the exilic and postexilic periods, Yahweh
became a universal god. In spite of the
Deuteronomistic rejection of the astralized
host of heaven, theologians continued to use
the mode! of the host of heaven. In the texts
mentioning Yahweh's domination over the
host of heaven this term can mean every-
thing in heaven. ‘Host of heaven’ is used in
this sense in the creation story of the Priest-
ly Code, where the end of Yahweh’s cre-
ation work is described as “And heaven and
earth were completed and all their host”
(Gen 2:1). Here and in postexilic texts the
meaning of *host of heaven' remains vague.
Perhaps stars or celestial beings are meant
(Isa 24:21-23; 34:4; 40:26; 45:12: Jer 33:22
[cf. Gen 15:5]: Ps 33:6; Neh 9:6; cf. Aram
Dan 4:32). In a series of other postexilic
texts, ‘host of heaven’ has regained its
ancient positive connotation of Yahweh's
divine council. In most cases Yahweh's
hosts and not the hosts of heaven are men-
tioned. In Ps 103:19-21 Yahweh is said to
be enthroned in heaven. All his messengers,
mighty ones, hosts and ministers are called
upon to bless him. This is also the case in
Ps 148:1-5, where Yahweh's messengers
and hosts are called upon to praise Yahweh.
Additionally in v 3 the parallelism of ‘host
of heaven’ and sun, moon and stars has been
preserved. According to Dan 8:9-13, Antio-
chus III is represented as a he-goat. His hom
grew as great as the host of heaven and "it
cast down to the earth some of the host and
some of the stars and trod them underfoot”.
As in Ps 148:3, the parallel of ‘host of
heaven' and the stars is maintained.
In the NT stratia tou ouranou occurs
twice. Here it can mean the assembly of
angels praising god, thus reflecting the OT
conception of the divine council (Luke
2:13). In Acts 7:42 the host of heaven is
referred to in an OT allusion.
IV. Bibliography
L. K. HaNpY, Among the Host of Heaven.
The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureau-
cracy (Winona Lake 1993); HaNpYv, The
Appearance of Pantheon in Judah, The Tri-
umph of Elohim: From Yawisms to Judaisms
(ed. D. V. Edelman; CBET 13; Kampen
1995) 27-43; C. Houtman, Der Himmel im
Alten Testament (OTS 30; Leiden 1993) 67-
72, 194-207; O. KEEL & C. UEHLINGER,
Güttinnen, Gótter und Gottessymbole (QD
134; Freiburg 1992) 390-399; T. N. D. MET-
TINGER, YHWH SABAOTH - The Heaven-
ly King on the Cherubim Throne, Studies in
the Period of David and Solomon and other
Essays (ed. T. Ishida; Tokyo 1982) 109-138,
esp. 123-128; E. T. MULLEN, The Divine
Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew
Literature (HSM 24; Chico 1980) 111-280;
H. Nievr, Der héchste Gott (BZAW 190;
Berlin 1990) 71-94; H. RINGGREN, N23
saba’, TWAT 6 (1987-89) 871-876; H.
SPIECKERMANN, Juda unter Assur in der
Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129; Géttingen
1982) 221-225; A. S. VAN DER WOUDE,
THAT 2 (1976) 498-507; M. WEINFELD,
429
HUBAL —
The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of
Heaven and its Background, UF 4 (1972)
133-154, esp. 149-154; G. WESTPHAL,
Drzý SDS, Orientalische Studien. FS T.
Noeldeke 2 (ed. C. Bezold; Giessen 1906)
719-728.
H. NIEHR
HUBAL 9235
I. As used in Deuteronomistic polemics,
Hebrew 927, vocalized hebel, has been
interpreted as a divine name. Identified as a
putative Canaanite fertility god *Hubal, he
has been equated with the pre-Islamic cen-
tral-Arabian deity Hubal (BARSTAD 1978).
Il. Hubal was a central-Arabian deity.
His cult has endured until today. A statue of
Hubal is still standing near the Ka‘ba in
Mecca. He has been related to divination.
An arrow oracle of Hubal has been famous
(Faun 1958:54-79; HürNER, WbMyth 1/1
447-448). In a Nabataean inscription a deity
hblw occurs between Dusares and Manat
(CIS II 198; CaNTINEAU 1932:25-27). This
deity could be identical with Hubal.
III. Hebel occurs frequently in OT re-
ligious polemics (Deut 32:21; 1 Kgs 16:13.
26; 2 Kgs 17:15; 8 times in Jer; Zech 10:2;
cf. Ps 31:7 and Jona 2:9; —Vanities). The
word is construed as a deprecating reference
to foreign deities. Barstad argues that hebel
is not simply a derogatory term, but the
distorted name of the presumed Canaanite
fertility-god Hubal. Jer 8:9; 10:3.8.15; 14:22
and Zech 10:2 suggest (so Barstad) that
*Hubal was associated with rain and ex-
pected to bring prosperity upon the fields
and the country.
This proposed identification is open to
serious objections: 1) A Canaanite deity
*Hubal is not known from the sources. 2)
The plural of hebel (hdbalim) occurs several
times, which is uncommon for the proper
name of a god. The comparison with C222
is not convincing because 222 (Baal) can
also function as a generic term. 3) The inter-
pretation of Jer 10:3 “*Hubal is really only
a piece of wood" seems to prove the exist-
ence of the name, but is based on a gram-
HUBUR
matically unsound understanding of the text.
The words NT 227 are part of the main
nominal clause: "The institutions of the na-
tions are empty/false/idle" (BECKING 1993).
Connections with the pre-Islamic deity
Hubal are uncertain. There is too great a dis-
tance in time. The gap of nearly a millen-
nium cannot be filled with the single refe-
rence to a deity Ablw in a Nabatacan
inscription from the first century CE and the
unproven theory of a Moabite origin (BAR-
STAD 1978).
IV. Bibliography
H. M. BARSTAD, HBL als Bezeichnung der
fremden Götter im Alten Testament und der
Gott Hubal, ST 32 (1978) 57-65; B.
BECKING, Does Jeremiah X 3 refer to a
Canaanite Deity called Hubal?, VT 43
(1993) 555-557; J. CANTINEAU, Le Nabat-
éen II (Paris 1932); T. FAHD, Une pratique
cléromantique à la Ka'ba préislamique, Sem
8 (1958) 54-79.
B. BECKING
HUBUR
I. According to Mesopotamian tradition
the border of the netherworld was marked
by a river called Hubur in Akkadian and i7-
kur-ra "river of the netherworld", i7-lu;-
ku;-ku, "man-devouring river" or i7-lu;-ru-
gu, “river that runs against man" in
Sumcrian. Hubur, according to the diction-
arics (AHW 352 and CAD H 219) a Sum-
erian loan-word, also occurs as a synonym
for the whole of the netherworld (W. G.
LAMBERT, AfO 17 [1954-56] 312:9; BWL
58:7) and as the name of the place of the
river-ordeal (CAD H 219 [a]). It has been
equated with the river Hábór in the OT (e.g.
2 Kgs 17:6).
II. In Mesopotamia there was no homo-
geneous tradition about the river Hubur, as
in general there were several views about
the netherworld. The Hubur was believed to
be located—cither far to the west, or in the
mountains of the east—in front of the gates
of the netherworld. It had to be crossed by
the dead before they reached their final
destination. In the Babylonian theodicy we
430
HUMBABA
can read: rra-a[d]-nu-ina ab-bu-nu il-la-ku ü-
ru-uh. mu-iü-t[u] na-a-ri hu-bur. ib-bi-ri qa-
bu-ií ul-tu ul-la "Our fathers in fact give up
and go the way of death; it is an old saying
that they cross the river Hubur" (BWL 70:
16-17). This transition from life to death by
crossing a river is also illustrated by the fact
that several boat models from bitumen were
found in the royal graves of Ur (C. L.
WooLLeEY et al., Ur Excavations lli: The
Royal Cemetery [London 1934] pl. 20a,
86b).
The Sumerian epic “Enlil and Ninlil”
relates how Enlil, the supreme god of the
Sumerian pantheon, once was banished to
the netherworld and how Ninlil, his wife,
followed him there. The epic also mentions
the river i7-luy-ku-ku and a boatman con-
nected with it (H. BEHRENS, Enlil und Ninlil
(StPsm 8; Rome 1978] 192-195, 199). In the
Gilgamesh epic (Gilg. X iii and iv) the
ferryman is called Urshanabi and according
to the Neo-Assyrian “Vision of the Nether-
world" (W. voN SoDEN, ZA 43 [1936]. 1-
39: rev.5) the demon Humut-tabal, a four-
handed creature with a face like the
stormbird, took the dead to the other side of
the river, where the city of the dead was
located. Several Akkadian incantations were
meant to chase demons to the netherworld,
where they were held back by the river
Hubur (for references see AHW 352 and
CAD 219). In these incantation rituals boat
models were used too.
The deified river “Hubur is mentioned in
the brick inscription of Ilum-ishar of Mari
(F. THUREAU-DANGIN, RA 33 [1936] 178).
who set up a statue for him. In the great
god-list An: Anum (CT 24, 36: 61) dugal-
hu-bur “king Hubur” is one of the names of
->Nergal and in the Enuma Elish (i 133, ii
19. iii 23, 81) —Tiamat is called "mother
Hubur, who creates everything". Hubur is
also attested in an Old Assyrian personal
name ($u-Hubur; H. Hirscu. AfO Beiheft
13/14 [Graz 1961] 33), and the Assyrian
calender used before the time of Tiglath-
pileser I (1114-1076), contained a month-
name Hibur/Hubur, probably for the 10th
month (H. Hirscu, AfO Beiheft 13/14 [Graz
1961] 54 and fn. 280; W. RóLLIG, RLA 4
[1972-76] 469, 3).
There seems to be no connection between
dHubur and the divine couple 9Habür and
d#abiirtu mentioned in the Assyrian “Gotter-
adressbuch” (Takultu 124). They were prob-
ably associated either with the river Habur
in Upper Mesopotamia, the place Habura
(K. Nasner, RGTC 4 [1991] 44) or the
town Haburatum east of the -*Tigris (B.
GRONEBERG, RGTC 3 [1980] 284) just like
the goddess dHaburitum mentioned in Ur III
texts from Puzrish-Dagan (D. O. EDZARD &
G. FangBER, RGTC 2 [1974] 266). The
Habur-river occurs several times in personal
names from the second millennium BCE (K.
NasuEF, RGTC 4 [1991] 144 and RGTC
5[(1982] 299), but is never written with a
divine determinative. There is no evidence
for an identification of the Habur with the
river of the netherworld.
III. In the OT (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11; 1 Chr
5:26) Habér is always used as a geo-
graphical designation—as the name of the
river of Gosan (Akkadian Guzana, modern
Tell Halaf), where Sargon ll deported the
people from the kingdom of Israel (cf.
BECKING 1992:84-89).
IV. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria: An His-
torical and Archeological Study (Leiden
1992); D. O. Epzarp, Habira(tum), Habür,
Habürtum, Haburitüm, RLA 4 (1972-76) 29;
EDZARD, Unterwelt, UnterweltsfluB, WbM yth
I/1 (Stuttgart 1965) 130-132; S. N. KRAMER,
Death and Netherworld according to the
Sumerian Literary Texts, /rag 22 (1960) 59-
68; J. LEwy, The Assyrian Calendar, ArOr
11 (1939) 35-46, esp. 42-43; W. RGLLIG,
Hubur, RLA 4 (1972-76) 468-469 [& lit]; K.
TALLOVIST, Sumerisch-akkadische Namen
der Totenwelt (StOr 5/4; Helsingforsiae
1934) 24, 33-34.
H. D. GALTER
HUMBABA
I. In the Mesopotamian mythological
tradition, Humbaba is the superhuman
guardian of the Cedar forest in the West
431
HUNGER —
(Lebanon). He was killed at the hands of
Gilgamesh and Enkidu (TiGAy 1982:6-7.32-
33.93-94.112-114; and see index s.v.). His
name has been connected with that of
Hobab the Kenite, a relative of Moses (Num
10:29; Judg 4:11).
HI. Humbaba (Old Babylonian Huwawa)
occurs already in the Sumerian Tale known
as Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living,
one of the sources of the integrated Gil-
gamesh Epic that took shape in the Old
Babylonian period (TiGAY 1982:32-33).
Though the descriptions of his physiognomy
vary, Humbaba is consistently cast in the
role of guardian of the cedar forest whom
Gilgamesh and Enkidu have to beat in order
to fetch cedars for a palace in Uruk. In the
Babylonian Epic, the severed head of Hum-
baba is fastened to the cedar door offered as
a present to Enlil (WIGGERMANN 1992:146).
The scene seems to be an aetiology of the
apotropaic use of Humbaba faces. Such
Humbaba faces are frequently seen on Old
Babylonian clay plaques and seals, usually
set high in the background as though they
were hung on the wall. An actual example
of a Humbaba face, carved in stone, has
been found at the entrance of the temple of
Tell al-Rimah (BLack & GREEN 1992).
The figure of Humbaba is often believed
to go back to the Elamite god Humban (for
whom see H. Kocn, Die religidsen Verhdlt-
nisse der Dareioszeit (Wiesbaden 1977]
101-105). A Neo-Assyrian text portrays this
god, together with the Elamite deities Yabnu
and Naprushu, as guardian of the corpse of
Sennacherib (SAA 3 no. 32 r. 25), which
tallies with the role of Humbaba as protect-
ive spirit. In later tradition, Humbaba sur-
vives in the figure of Kombabos, a legend-
ary hero whose exploits have been described
by Lucian (?) in De Dea Syria.
III. The suggestion that Hobab the Kenite
bears the name of Humbaba, and should
perhaps be identified with him (JEAN 1931),
lacks all ground. Apart from the fact that
there is no functional analogy whatsoever
between the two figures, and that they are
also geographically worlds apart, the pro-
posal fails to explain the loss of the -m-
HUMBAN
(apparently a stable element in the name, as
witnessed by Gk KopBafoc). Such ob-
jections cannot be countered by the equation
of Humbaba with the Anatolian goddess
Kubaba (-*Cybcele) proposed by Lewy
(1934). For the etymology of the Hebrew
name, a derivation from yBB (denoting cun-
ning) or HBB (denoting kindness) is far more
attractive (cf. HALAT 273).
IV. Bibliography
J. BLACK & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and
Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London
1992) 106; N. FonsvrH, Huwawa and His
Trees: A Narrative and Cultural Analysis,
ASJ 3 (1981) 13-27; C.-F. JEAN, La religion
sumérienne (Paris 1931) 124 n. 8; J. LEwv,
Les textes paléo-assyriens et l'Ancien Testa-
ment, RHR 110 (1934) 47-48 n. 44; J. H.
TiGav, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic
(Philadelphia 1982); F. A. M. WIGGER-
MANN, Babylonian Protective Spirits (Gro-
ningen 1992) 146, 150; C. Witcke, Huwa-
wa/Humbaba, RLA 4 (1972-75) 530-535.
K. VAN DER TOORN
HUNGER -> MERIRI
HUMBAN
I. The Elamite god Humban (Humban,
var. Umban) was the head of the pantheon
of the Awan dynasty (ca. 2200 BCE). In the
subsequent period his political importance
diminished as a result of the rise of other
deities, but he remained an important deity
into the Achaemenid period. JENSEN
1892:58 urged that the name Haman (Est
3:1), the son of Hammedatha (—Haoma)
and adversary of Esther and Mordechai
(-*Marduk), goes back to the theonym
Humban. This theory is to be rejected on
phonological grounds.
II. Humban is an Elamite deity whose
cult is documented for over two millennia.
According to W. Hinz, his name is related
to the verb huba- ‘to order’ (1972-75:491);
this interpretation, however, has apparently
been abandoned in W. Hinz & H. KocH
1987. The god's character is indicated by
the ancient identification of Humban with
432
HUMBAN
Mesopotamian Enlil, the head of the Sume-
rian pantheon (E. REINER, Surpu: A Collec-
tion of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations
[AfO Beih 11: Graz 1958] 51 Commentary
C: 53). He is the consort of the mother god-
dess Pininkir. The earliest reference to
Pininkir and Humban is found in the trcaty
of Naram-Sin of Akkad with the King of
Awan, where they head the enumeration
of the deities of Awan (W. HiNz, Elams
Vertrag. mit. Naram-Sin von Akkade, ZA
58 [1967] 91 i 2 and i 4). The theonym
Humban does not occur frequently in Elami-
te royal inscriptions. According to HINZ his
name was taboo and therefore the name
Napirisa (also written ideographically DIN-
GIR.GAL), 'great god', was used as a substi-
tute for Humban in royal inscriptions (1965;
1972-75: 491). This theory has been refuted
by pE MiROSCHED/JI 1980. who demonstra-
tes that Humban and Napirisa are separate
deities. In this he has been followed by
GRiLLOT 1986. Humban and Napiri$a are
described with identical epithets, but are of
a different geographical background:
Humban occupies a central position in the
pantheon of the dynasty of Awan, whosc
location is probably to be found in the plains
to the north of Susa (DE MiROSCHEDII 1980:
133).
During the second millennium BCE Napi-
riša, his consort —Kiririsa, the divine couple
of Anàan, and InSuSinak, the god of the city
of Susa, ousted Humban and Pininkir as
heads of the royal pantheon. NapiriSa and
KiririSa originate from ancient AnSan, iden-
tified with modem Tall-i Malyan in the
southern part of the Zagros. With the rise of
the dynasty of AnSan, NapiriSa and KiririSa
became, together with InSuSinak, the heads
of the official panthcon of the Elamite state.
During the second and first millennia BCE
Humban continues to appear as onomastic
element, also in royal names (M. W. STOL-
PER. Texts from Tall-i Malyan [Philadelphia
1984] 195a: R. Zanox, The Elamite Ono-
masticon [Napels 1984] 11-13 s.v. 48. Hum-
pan; Hinz & KocH 1987), and receives
worship. but never attained political predo-
minance. In the inscription of Hanni from
Malamir (-*Vashti) Humban is called the ri-
$4-ir Sna-ap-pfr-ra, ‘greatest of the gods’, (F.
W. K6nic, Die elamischen Kénigsinschrif-
ten [AfO Bcih. 16; Graz 1965] no. 75 8 6),
although he does not belong to the major
deities in the theology of this inscription
(M. W. SroLPER, Malamir B. Philologisch,
RLA 7? [1987-90] 277a). In the Achaemenid
period the cult of Humban continued. Admi-
nistrative tablets from Persepolis mention
quantities of barley and wine destined as
offerings for Humban in different localities.
They clearly demonstrate the vitality of the
cult of Humban during the reign of Darius
(KocH 1977).
The rock relief of Kurangun, identified by
HINZ as representing the deity Humban
(1972-75: 492), has been identified as a
representation of InSuSinak (P. pE MiRO-
SCHEDJI, Le dieu élamite au serpent et aux
eaux jaillissantes, /rAnt 16 [1981] 1-25 and
pls. 1-XI1).
Humban also appears in texts from Meso-
potamia. Together with other Elamite deities
he appears in the incantation series Surpu
(Surpu I 163). In a Late Assyrian literary
work Humban is mentioned, alongside other
Elamite deities, as protecting the king and
his army (SAA 3 no. 32 rev. 25). Humban is
sometimes believed to be the origin of
->Humbaba, the mythological guardian of
the Cedar Forest in the Sumerian and Akka-
dian compositions about Gilgamesh, but it
seems wise to follow C. WILCKE, (Huwawa,
RLA 4 [1972-75] 531b) who argues that the
etymology of the name Humbaba is un-
known.
HI. In an early study of Elamite proper
names, JENSEN suggested that Haman, the
well-known villain from the Book of Esther,
bears the name of the Elamite deity
Humban: "Ich glaube mit einiger Sicherheit
sagen zu kónnen. dass der Name j/33 des
Buches Esther auf den clamitischen Hum-
man (Hamman) zurückgeht” (1892:58).
STIEHL agrees with the identification propo-
sed by Jensen (1956: 11). ZADOK opposes
the identification of Haman with Humban
(1984:19), but accepts a link with Humpan
> Human, arguing that “the divine name
433
HYACINTHUS
Humpan was also used as an anthroponym”
(ZADOK 1984:21). Humpan, however, is the
same as Humban, the Elamite language
making no differentiation between voiced
and voiceless labials (E. REINER, The Ela-
mite Language [HdO I/I/1-2/2; Leiden
1969] 72-73). Moreover, the evolution of
Humban to *(H)umman is not attested in
Elamite texts. The proposed Persian etymo-
logy of the personal name Haman, connec-
ting it with Hamanā and Hamayun, seems
preferable (L. B. PATON, A critical and exe-
getical commentary on the Book of Esther
[ICC; Edinburgh 1908] 69; G. GERLEMAN,
Esther [BKAT 21; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973]
90-91).
IV. Bibliography
F. GRiLLor, Kiririia, Fragmenta Historiae
Aelamicae (Mél. M.-J. Steve; ed. L. De
Meyer, H. Gasche & F. Vallat; Paris 1986)
175-180; W. HiNz, Thc Elamite god d.GAL,
JNES 24 (1965) 351-54; HiNz, Humban,
RLA, 4 (1972-75) 491-92; W. HiNz & H.
Koc, Elamisches Wörterbuch (Berlin
1987) I 677 s.v. d.hu-ba-an, with further
references; P. JENSEN, Elamitische Eigenna-
men, WZKM 6 (1892) 47-70; H. Kocn, Die
religiösen | Verhültnisse der Dareioszeit
(Wiesbaden 1977) 101-105; P. DE Miro-
SCHEDJI, Le dieu élamite Napirisha, RA 74
(1980) 129-43; R. SMEHL, Das Buch Esther,
WZKM 52 (1956) 4-22; R. ZADOK, On the
Historical Background of the Book of Est-
her, BN 24 (1984) 18-23.
F. VAN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
HYACINTHUS
Il. 'Y/oáxiw90g is the name of a pre-
Greek and Greek masculine deity or hero
and of a species of flower, by extension also
of things having the colour of this flower,
such as a specific gem-stone, and apparently
in the LXX a fabric and a Kind of leather.
. The deity is not referred to in the Bible, the
flower possibly but not necessarily in Sir
40:4 (no Hebrew text) "who wears step-
hanos (garland?) and hyacinth", the gem-
stone at Rev 21:20, the fabric and leather
mainly in the descriptions or inventories of
Tabernacle and Temple (Exod 25-39; 2 Chr
2-3; Ezek 16:10). The derived adjective
vaxiv@ivos, whether indicating material or
colour, occurs likewise mainly in these
descriptions (Exod 25-39; Num 4:1-25),
and in Rev 9:17. The name has been attes-
ted since Euripides (Helena 1469), the flo-
wer since Homer (/liad 14, 348).
Il. According to the most elaborate ver-
sion of his myth Hyacinthus was a beautiful
youth, loved by both -*^Apollo and Zephyrus
or Boreas (-*Wind-Gods). When he and
Apollo were engaged in a match of discus-
throwing, near the river Eurotas at Amyclae
the jealous wind-god blew Apollo’s discus
against the youth’s head which caused his
instant death. From the blood that trickled
into the earth there sprang a flower, on
whose petals Apollo put the marks AI AI, as
a token of mourning: aiadi! In ancient
mythography only Nonnus has Apollo resus-
citate Hyacinthus (Dion. 19, 104). Various
pairs are stated to have been his parents: a)
king Amyclas (personifying Amyclae 5 km
south of Sparta) and Diomede (Apollodorus
3, 10, 3-4, elder son Cynortas; Pausanias
3,1,3, elder son Argalos); b) Pieros (personi-
fying Pieria north of Mt Olympus) and the
Muse Clio (Apollodorus 1,3.1-2); c) Ocbalus
king of Sparta (Lucian, Dialogue of the
Gods, 16 (14), 239; Hyginus 271). A sister
Polyboea is mentioned by Pausanias (3, 19,
4). Curiously, there is also a story about
daughters of Hyacinthus, the "Hyakinthi-
des". In their war with Minos the Athenians,
in order to relieve the famine and pestilence
that plagued them, had to sacrifice according
to an ancient oracle the four daughters of
Hyacinthus “who had come from Lacedae-
mon", namely Antheis, Aegleis, Lytaea and
Orthaea. When this was of no avail, the
Athenians had to give in to Minos and send
seven boys and seven girls to Crete for the
Minotaur (Apollodorus 3, 15, 8; Diodorus
Sic. 17, 15, 2; Hyginus 238). In a parallel
story, king Erechtheus had to sacrifice his
daughters during the war between Athens
and Eleusis (Apollodorus 3, 15, 4). Phano-
demus of Athens (c. 335 BCE) is reported to
have stated in his Atthis bk 8 that it was
434
HYACINTHUS
these daughters of Erechtheus that were cal-
led the "Hyakinthides", because the sacrifice
took place on a mountain (xáyog) called
“Hyakinthos, beyond the Sphendonia"
(Sudas s.v. Ilap8évo: 2 FGH 325.4). The
minstrel Thamyris is also said to have been
in love with Hyacinthus, but further details
are unknown (Apollodorus 1,3,3). The
epithet “Hyakinthotréphos” of Artemis in
Dorian Cnidus (SGDI nr 265; cf. the "Hyak-
inthotróphia" at lonian Miletus) probably
meant "raising beautiful boys". The goddess
was supposed to preside over baby-food and
baby-care and had as such also the epithet
of "Kourotróphos" (Diod. Sic. 5,73, 5).
Pausanias is the only ancient author to
describe a sanctuary where Hyacinthus was
venerated, "the Amyklaion" at Amyclac. Hc
gives an exhaustive list of the various reliefs
on the combined throne and altar in this
temple (3,18.6 - 3,19.6), where both Hya-
cinthus and Apollo (3,19,3; cf Thuc. 5,23)
were venerated, the latter appearing in Pau-
sanias’ account as "the Amyclacan" (3,18,9;
3.19, 6; cf. 3,16,2). The throne had several
seats separated by empty spaces. The very
middle one, however, carried an archaic sta-
tue of Apollo, an aniconic bronze pillar thir-
ty cubits high with a helmeted head, hands
holding spear and bow, and fect (3,19,1-2).
Its pedestal was fashioned in the shape of an
altar with a bronze door to the left, which
was also the tomb of Hyacinthus. Through
this door one devoted offerings (£vayiGov-
ov) to the hero on the feast of the Hyacint-
hia, before the sacrifice (@vcia) to Apollo
(3.19.3). On the altar beneath the throne
several apparently unrelated scenes were
depicted, such as. -*Poseidon and Amphitri-
te, Zeus and Hermes, etc., but also the
company of -*Aphrodite, -*Athena and
-*Artemis carrying Hyacinthus and his dece-
ased maiden sister Polyboca to heaven
(3,19,4). (Some translators include in this
scene the previously mentioned —Demeter,
Kore, Pluto, and others, but this is gramma-
tically not compelling, and -*Hades going
to heaven sounds odd, unless "heaven" is
here equivalent to —"Olympus"). As a spe-
cially striking detail it is stated that this
relief showed the hero "already bearded", in
contradistinction to a painting by Nicias c.
320 scr. About the festival of the Hyacint-
hia it is mainly Athenacus who offers details
(4, 138c-140b). It lasted three days and star-
ted with a period of mouming for the death
of Hyacinthus, during which one did not
wear crowns or garlands, did not sing the
paean and ate no wheat-bread or other
cakes. On the second day there was a radical
change: now ivy garlands were worn
(Macrobius, Sar 1,18,2), many sacrifices
were offered to Apollo, and there were
copious meals for the citizens, their slaves
and their guests, called xoniées, which did
now indeed comprise wheat-bread and spe-
cial cakes. Boys (nxatéec) in high-girt chi-
tons sang in honour of the god and accom-
panied themselves on the lyre or the flute.
Young men (veavioxot) paraded on ador-
ned horses or sang in choirs mixed with
dancers. Girls (map@€vo1) rode in wicker-
carts. (Kàv(v)a0pa) or contested in two-
horse-chariots. Possibly all this continued
during the following night (Euripides' Hele-
na 1465-1475) and on the third day. It was
certainly the most important festival of the
Spartans: "No one misses the sacrifice, but
it so happens that the town (Sparta) empties
itself for the spectacle (at Amyclac)."
There are some indications that the parti-
cipants made their way in procession from
Sparta to Amyclae along the road named
"Hyakinthis" (Ath. 4,173f). The boys clot-
hed in chiton probably carried with them the
chiton which the women in Sparta wove
each year for Apollo Amyclacus (Paus.
3,16,2). Possibly these were the twelve year
olds who wore their chitons for the very last
time before becoming members of the next
age class, that of the pwBida1, who were
each assigned to an €paotis and no longer
wore the chiton but the himation. As a rite
of passage they dedicated then their former
clothing to Apollo of Amyclae as the patron
of army organization. The “young men” on
horse-back were probably the twenty year
olds who went over to the status of eipéves,
who were no longer Epapevot, as Hyacint-
hus had been, but now became £paotai
435
HYACINTHUS
themselves, like Apollo. They received a red
cloak and a bronze shield. The depiction on
the altar of Hyacinthus as bearded may mark
the transition as such, whereas the bronze
breast-plate of Timomenos the Theban,
which was put on display during the festi-
val, may parallel the equipment with the
shield. According to a fragment of Aristot-
le's Constitution of the Laconians (frg. 532
Rose) this man had instructed the Spartans
in the art of war-fare and had helped them at
the head of his own clan, the Aigeidai, in
the war against the Amyclacans. Similarly,
the girls, who came to Amyclae in the wic-
ker-carts provided by the city, even the
kings’ daughters (Xenophon, Agesilaus
8,7), may have partaken in a parallel rite
which marked their transition to the marria-
geable age. The scenes on the altar of Pluto,
Demeter and Kore, and that of Polyboia,
who was identified with Kore (so Hesychius
s.v.) may point in this direction (her alterna-
tive identity with Anemis is at odds with
this scene). Other Spartan festivals such as
the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia may have
comprised further initiatory elements.
Whether they constituted together a coherent
sequence is difficult to judge duc to our
almost total ignorance of the Spartan calen-
dar (A. E. SAMUEL, Greek and Roman
Chronology [Munich 1972] 93). Amyclae
was the only outside community which had
been conquered (c. 750 BCE) and added to
that of the four villages forming the polis of
Sparta . The reason may well have been the
very presence of the Hyacinthus-cult in the
Amyklaion, a sanctuary which had existed
there since the end of the 13th century BCE
(PETTERSSON 1992:1062; cf 92a; 93b; 98a),
and had made Amyclae the most important
site of Laconia at the time (PETTERSSON
1992:100a-b). The Theban Aigeidai had
come to help the Dorians in obedience to a
Delphian oracle (Pindar, /sthm. 7,13-15),
hence the new cult of Apollo at Amyclae
and the statue of Apollo Pythaeus at Sparta
(Pausanias 3,11,9), and one at Laconian
Thornax, which latter was completely identi-
cal to that of Apollo Amyclaeus (Pausanias
3,10,8). The actual victory over the Amycla-
eans “and other Achaeans” was, however,
attributed to the intervention of "Zeus Tro-
paeus" or "Turn-Battle", who had tipped the
scales in favour of them and had a sanctuary
in Sparta itself (Pausanias 3,2,6; 3,12,9).
That Apollo had completely superseded
Hyacinthus is clear from the position of his
statue on the tomb of the other, and may
have come close to identity of the two. At
Tarentum, a Laconian colony (Pausanias
10,10,6-8), there was a tomb of “Apollo
Hyacinthus” (Polybius 8,28,1), and much
later Nonnus knew of an “Apollo Hyacinthi-
us” (Dion. 11, 328-330). The figure of Hya-
cinthus was much older than the “Dorian
invasion" and Amyclae's fall, and had been,
to judge from the -intho- part of his name
and the taboo of wheat-bread on the first
day of the Hyacinthia, a pre-Greck vegcta-
tion-god, probably a corn-god. Apollo's dis-
cus may have been the sun(-disk) whose
heat had ripened the com. The “hyacinth”
would have to be then a plant which blosso-
med after one of the two wheat-harvests and
whose flowers were reddish in accordance
with Hyacinthus' blood. Thus the myth and
the relief of Hyacinthus-Polyboea symboli-
zed or commemorated in combination the
dying wheat, the defeat of Amyclae, the
supersession of the Hyacinthus-cult, and the
end of Spartan boyhood and maidenhood.
III. The identity of the flower has always
been a problem, for already in Antiquity
Theophrastus distinguished two species, the
"wild" one (n dypia) and the “cultivated”
one (ù orap) (both in Hist. Plant. 6,8,2).
These (or still others?) are described as
similar to “woolly (curling) hair” (Od.
6,230-1), as “purple” (nopòvpén) (Meleager,
Anth. Pal. 5,147), as "dark (uéAav) and
marked (ypantá)" (Theocritus 10, 28). As
some of the proposed identifications, like
Bluebell, Larkspur, or Iris are mostly rather
bluish than red, the identity of the gem-
stone varies accordingly: a faint amethyst
(Pliny, NH 37.125) or the bluc sapphire?
The Hebrew words underlying the LXX
hyacinth are NYST (= Akk rakiltu) and On,
which are respectively explained as “violet
purple" and “leather of the porpoise”. Again
436
HYLE — HYMENAIOS
the same variation, for the porpoise is a kind
of dolphin and the back of all such animals
is dark blue.
IV. S. Emrem, RE IX (1914) 7-16; F.
Hauser, Philologus 52 (1893) 209-218; M.
MELLINK, Hyakinthos (Utrecht 1943); M.
PETTERSSON, Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The
Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Kar-
neia (Stockholm 1992). H.W. ROSCHER,
ALGRM 1 (1894) 2759-2765; H. SicurER-
MANN, Jdl 71 (1956) 97-123; L. « F. Vir-
LARD, LIMC 5 (1991) 546-550.
G. MussiES
HYLE “YAn
I. The word WAn is relatively rare in the
Greek Bible. When uscd, it is always in the
neutral meaning of ‘material, matter, wood’
(e.g. Jas 3:5). In philosophical and religious
literature of the early Roman Empire, how-
ever, one sees Àn, ‘matter’, evolve into a
kind of demonic power.
II. Due to an increasingly negative
assessment of the material world in later
Platonic philosophy, one finds in the writ-
ings of some philosophical circles of the
early Christian centuries a correspondingly
negative usc of the word dAn. Philo, the
Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, already
exhibits this tendency to a certain extent, but
it is only in some Gnostic writings (e.g.
NHC V1 3, 27, 28 and NHC VI 4, 47, 7; see
further F. SiEcERT, Nag-Hanimadi-Register
(Tübingen 1982] 316) and especially in the
late second century Oracula Chaldaica that
the demonisation of Hyle becomes full-
fledged (LEwv 1978:304-309, 375-394). As
Lewy rightly remarks: “The Chaldaean
views on matter conform to those of the
later Platonists, but they are bound up with
demonological and magical beliefs which
changed the spirit of the Platonic doctrine”
(304). These Oracles designate Matter as
“the worker of evil” and the -demons as
"offspnngs of evil Matter". The ‘hylic
demons’ (vAtKkoi Saipoves) have the whole
of matter as their sphere of activity. This
virtual identity of the material and the
demonic transformed Hyle into the diabolic
principle par excellence, which was seen as
an aggressive and destructive power
(Masercik 1989:175-6). The Chaldaean
—Hades-Hyle connection underscores this
change of Hyle from a cosmological prin-
ciple to a personal demonic potency. In-
fluence of this view may be discerned not
only in later pagan Platonists but also in a
Christian Platonist like Synesius of Cyrene,
who speaks in his Egyptian Myth about
Matter’s sending her demonic offspring
down to the earth (Lewy 1978:306).
III. Bibliography
H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy,
nouvelle édition par M. Tardieu (Paris
1978); R. MAJERCIK, The Chaldean Oracles.
Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden
1989); E. pes PLaces, Oracles Chaldaiques
(Paris 1971), index s.v. (p. 238).
P. W. VAN DER HORST
HYMENAIOS Yyévatog
I. Hymenaios is the name of the Greek
god of the wedding. The name is derived
from the Greek word for wedding song,
hymenaios, which in tum derives from a
ritual cry during the wedding procession,
hymen o hymenai’ o. lts etymology is ob-
scure (CHANTRAINE 1980). As a theophoric
name, it occurs twice in the NT (1 Tim
1:20; 2 Tim 2:17).
II. Hymenaios is a relatively late cre-
ation. As a personification of the wedding
song he occurs first in Pindar (fr. 128c
Maehler) and Euripides (Troades 310, 314
etc.; see also J. DiGGLeE on Euripides,
Phaeton 233-234); in the innovative fourth-
century choral lyric he seems to have been a
favourite subject (HENRICHS 1984:56).
However, in the available sources he is not
invoked as the god of the legitimate wed-
ding before the Roman poets Catullus (61)
and Seneca (Medea 67). In analogy with
Muses, satyrs and other divine groups, a
graffito in Dura-Europos even mentions
Hymenaioi (SEG 17.772).
The background of the wedding song is
clear in the various genealogies proposed by
various late sources. Most popularly,
437
HYPNOS
Hymenaios is represented as the son of a
Muse, but, altematively, he can also be the
son of the musicians -*Apollo or Magnes
(sources: LiNANT DE BELLEFONDS 1988:
583; add HENRICHS 1984:55). Interestingly,
he is sometimes said to be the son of -*Dio-
nysos (Seneca, Medea 110; Servius on
Virgil, Aeneid 4.127), the god who also in
the Anthologia Palatina ( 9.524.21) receives
the epithet Aymeneios, indeed, in various
Jate representations the god is pictured with
Dionysiac colours (LINANT DE BELLEFONDS
1991). Apparently, the joyful sphere of the
Dionysiac world provides the background to
this genealogy.
We nowhere hear about a cult for
Hymenaios, and his mythology is limited to
only a few details. Servius (Aeneid 4.99)
mentions the following adventure. One day
an Athenian, Hymenaios, and a group of
girls, who were travelling to Eleusis, were
captured by pirates and taken aboard.
Hymenaios, whose beauty had made him
hardly distinguishable from a girl, killed the
pirates and married the girl with whom he
had fallen in love. Since this adventure the
Athenians invoke the name of Hymenaios
during their weddings. The defeating of the
pirates and the girlish appearance of the god
strongly suggest an influence of the Homeric
Hymn to Dionysos: an additional testimony
of the connection between Hymenaios and
Dionysos in later antiquity.
The first-century author Comelius Balbus
(quoted by Servius, Aeneid 4.127) relates
that Hymenaios died during the wedding of
Dionysos and Althaea, where he was sing-
ing: apparently, the god of the wedding
should not be older himself than the bridal
couple. The myth of the god’s death goes
back at least to Hellenistic times because
Apollodorus (FGH 244 F 139) mentions that
according to the Orphics Hymenaios was
resurrected by Asclepius (O. KERN, Orphic-
orum fragmenta [Berlin 1922] fragment 40).
IIl. Hymenaios occurs twice in the NT
(1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17) wherc he is men-
tioned by Paul (?) among those who claimed
that the resurrection already had taken place.
It fits in with the late appearance of
Hymenaios as a god that the theophoric
name Hymenaios is also relatively late
(SOLIN 1982:1.522-523, III.1369).
IV. Bibliography
P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique
de la langue grecque (Paris 1968-80); A.
HENRICHs, Ein neues Likymniosfragment
bei Philodem, ZPE 57 (1984) 53-57; P.
LINANT DE BELLEFONDS, MHymenaios,
LIMC IV.1 (1988) 583-585; LINANT DE
BELLEFONDS, Hyménaios: une iconographie
contestée, Mélanges de l'École française à
Rome 103 (1991) 197-212: H. Soutn, Die
griechischen Personennamen in Rom I-MI
(Berlin & New York 1982).
J. N. BREMMER
HYPNOS "Ynvos
I. Hypnos (‘sleep’) is the god of sleep
in Greek mythology. He is the son of Nyx
(— Night) and the twin brother of Thanatos
(Death). In the Greek Bible hypnos does not
occur as a deity but only in the sense of
literal sleep (e.g. Gen 28:16; Matt 1:24). as
a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Sap
4:6), or as a metaphor for spiritual torpidity
(Rom 13:11) and death (Joh 11:11).
II. In the Homeric epos the god Hypnos,
called Thanatos’ twin (Ziad 14:231; on their
likeness Odyssee 13:80; cf. Virgil, Aeneid
6:278), lives on the island of Lemnos, where
-*Hera promises to give him as his wife one
of the Charites, Pasithea (//. 14:276). He is
pictured as an overpowering god (navéap-
atwp, Il. 24:4-5, Od. 9:373), the ‘lord of all
gods and all men’ (//. 14:233): nobody can
resist Sleep, not even ->Zeus (/l. 14:252).
Hesiod, however, locates Hypnos in the
underworld, makes him the child of Nyx
and portrays him and his twin brother Tha-
natos as ‘fearsome gods’, even though, in
contrast to his brother, Hypnos is ‘gentle
and mild towards men’ (Theog. 756-766, cf.
211-212; W6HRLE 1995:21-22). In Sopho-
cles’ Philoctetes (827-832), the choir prays
to Hypnos that he should come to soothe the
pain of the heavily wounded protagonist. As
far as we know, however, there never was a
cult of Hypnos, in spite of the isolated
438
HYPSISTOS
remark by Pausanias (Descriptio Graeciae Il
31, 3) on sacrifices to the Muses and to
Hypnos in Troizen (the Orphic Hymn 85 on
Hypnos is no proof to the contrary; note that
Hymn 86 is on Oneiros, *drcam'). He remai-
ned by and large a literary figure (‘eine poe-
tische Fiktion’, WOÓHRLE 1995:15, well illu-
strated by Ovid, Metamorphoses
11:592-648), unlike his gruesome brother,
although some votive inscriptions from
Epidaurus (/G 1V_ 1335-1336) would seem
to indicate a certain veneration of Hypnos
on the part of some incubants in the Ascle-
picion. On Hypnos’ close relationship with
the other zavéapyatwp, -*Eros, see EGER
1966 and W6uRLE 1995:35-41. In figurative
art, Hypnos is mostly represented as a win-
ged youth or a bird (SCHRADER 1926;
LocuiN 1990).
HI. In the Greek Bible we find no traces
of a personification, let alone a deification,
of sleep. In biblical and postbiblical Jewish
and Christian literature 'slecp' increasingly
comes to be used as a metaphor of physical
death—a metaphor as old as Homer (OGLE
1933; Batz 1969:551; many instances in
Patristic Greek Lexicon s.v.), and of spiritu-
al death or ignorance, the latter especially in
Gnostic texts (G. MCRAE, Sleep and Awa-
kening in Gnostic Texts, Le origine dello
gnosticismo, ed. U. Bianchi [Leiden 1967],
496-510), but already to be found in Philo
(BALZ 1969: 552).
IV. Bibliography
H. Barz, uxvog TWNT VII] (Stuttgart
1969) 545-556; J.-C. EGER, Le sommeil et
la mort dans la Gréce (Paris 1966); H. voN
GrisAU, Hypnos, KP 2 (Stuttgart 1967)
1279-1280; C. LocuiN, Somnus, L/MC V
(Zürich-München 1990) vol.1:591-609, vol.
2:403-418; M. B. Oce, The Sleep of
Death, Memoirs of the American Academy
in Rome 11 (1933) 81-117; B. Sauer, Hyp-
nos, ALGRM | 2 (Leipzig 1890) 2846-2851;
H. SCHRADER, Hypnos (Berlin 1926); *G.
WónnLE, Hypnos der Allbezwinger. Eine
Studie zum literarischen Bild des Schlafes in
der griechischen Antike (Stuttgart 1995).
P. W. VAN DER Horst
HYPSISTOS 0 byiotos
I. "Ywiotog is a superlative form from
the adverb üyı (there is no positive adj.)
“most high, highest”, With the article ò it
serves as a noun, having the sense “the most
high” or “the highest’. In the Greek trans-
lations of the Hebrew Bible Tos (--Elyon)
is always translated by (ò) Uyrotos. In these
instances, as in the Greek literature of
Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in
the literature of primitive Christianity, the
expression ó Uyiotog refers to the God of
-—Abraham, [saac and -*Jacob. In non-
Jewish or non-Christian texts written in
Greek, the expression occurs as a divine
name for Zeus, the supreme god.
II. The Greeks proclaimed Zeus as God
of the mountain tops and worshipped him as
"Zeus of the Mountain" or "of the Peak",
"of the Point", "of/on the Summit", "of the
Head". When called "the High" or "the
Most High", these epithets originally had a
literal rather than a metaphorical sense (cf.
Cook 1925:876). Later however, these epi-
thets designated Zeus as the highest God of
the Greek. Olympus. In Hellenistic times
the expression was used as a divine name
for various local mountain gods, e.g. Zeus
Bennos in Phrygia or -Baal in Syria. In-
scriptions and archaeological data from a
wide area demonstrate that Zeus Hypsistos,
Theos Hypsistos, or Hypsistos was revered
from Athens, through Asia Minor, Syria and
in Egypt (cf. Cumont 1914; Coox 1925:
876-890). Due to the influence of the LXX
and because the Jews believed their God to
be supreme, Jews in the Diaspora used (ò)
Uvyiotog as a divine name for the God of
their fathers. This can be seen from the liter-
ary and widespread epigraphical evidence.
HI. In the Greek translations of the
Hebrew Bible ó Uyiorog translates 'Elyón
(Ps 49[50]:14) and sometimes marém (eg.
Job 25:2: Ps 148:1). Almost constantly the
article is used to determine bytotog, be it in
the absolute form 6 byrotocg, even if the
Hebrew has merely jT 72. (cf. Deut 32:8; 2
Kgs 22:14; Tob 1:13; 4:11) or 6 @edg 6
bytotos (e.g. Ps 56[57]:3; 77[78]:35, 56; cf.
var. lect. Dan 5:1) or xÜptiog ó Oyiotog (e.g.
439
HYPSISTOS
Ps 7:18; 12[13]:6; Dan 2:18-19). Except in
the vocative or in genitive constructions
(e.g. Lam 3:35.38), the undetermined form
byiotos is rare and ó Oyictog cóc xopiog
is unusual. This tendency to determine the
superlative is common in the literary and
non-literary texts attributed to Diaspora
Judaism and might provide reason to suspect
a monotheistic sense, although the expres-
sion 6 bwratos itself does not exclude poly-
theism.
In Gen 14:18-20 122 7W is translated
by ò @eòç 6 tytotos. In v 22 EN mT
1722) the Tetragrammaton (-Yahweh) is
not translated, although some versions later
added xvptov (—Kyrios) to :óv 0góv tòv
Üytotov, 6g EXTLOEV tóv obpavóv xai vv
ynv. According to the Greek translation of
Gen 14:18-20, -God, "the Most High"—in
the Greek tradition a divine name for
Zeus—is none but Yahweh, the God of
Abraham, the Creator of heaven and carth.
May He be blessed (v 20: evAoyntos 6 Beds
6 Oyictos). This text from the Greek trans-
lation of the Torah clearly influenced the
post-biblical use of Aypsistos amongst Jews
of the Second Temple Period.
The expression ó Uyiotog does not ex-
clude polytheism. The translator of Hebrew
Ps 83:19 thus read lébaddekà as part of v
19b and translated (cf. Ps 82(83):19b)
almost monotheistically oU (sc. xKUptos)
uóvog byiotos Eni nGoav thy yiv. Poly-
theistic characteristics are not generally
barred from the translations. Following the
Hebrew, Ps 96(97):9 states that "the Lorp
(Heb iv", Gk xvoptog) is the Most High
over the whole earth, he is very highly
exalted above all Gods". The -*God of
Heaven (cf. Ezra 1:2 and 2 Esdr 1:2; Dan
2:18) is identified as "the most high Lord"
in the interpretation of the Hebrew or Aram-
aic in 1 Esdr 2:2 and 0' Dan 2:18. Hypsistos
is thus used with a spatial connotation. The
Most High is Lord over the Kingdom of
man (8° Dan 4:14); he lives forever in the
heights (Isa 57:15; cf. 14:13-14).
In Ps 17(18):14-15 (cf. the parallel 2 Kgs
22:14-15) the Lonp, the Most High, is de-
picted in language reminiscent of Zeus.
They both thunder (Bpovtav) from heaven
and scatter their arrows (BeA5). As great
king over all the earth, the Lorp most high
is Israel'S Helper and Redeemer (e.g. Ps
56[57]:3; cf. 77[(78]:35). In Greek tradition
Zeus is helper of the weak, the -*Saviour
(cf. SCHWABL 1978:1026-1025, 1055-1057).
In the Psalms there are epithets which are
unfamiliar in connection with Zeus Hypsis-
tos. In the Psalms the Most High is Israel's
Refuge and Power; the tabernacle in the city
of the Most High shall not be removed (Ps
45[46]:2,4-5). These functions of the Most
High are taken up from the Greek transla-
tions by Jews in the Diaspora, as can be
seen from epigraphical evidence (RECAM II
no. 141; cf. Jos. As. 8:9; 11:9 ).
Ben Sira used (6) byiotos as the transla-
tion for Elyón (Sir 41:4,8; 42:2,18; 44:20;
50:16) and —EI (e.g. 7:15; 12:6). The Greek
Hypsistos, which Ben Sira often uses like a
proper name, replaces the abbreviation of
the Tetragrammaton (e.g. 12:2: The Hebrew
text reads MTN, the LXX translates napa
vyiotov. Cf. 43:2; 48:5). Hellenistic termin-
ology is transferred to the Most High. "The
Most High” is often combined with navto-
xpátop (e.g. Sir 50:14.17; -*Almighty), he
is the King of everything (napPaoiAevs, Sir
50:15). The most high God is LoRD, the
God who created heaven and earth (Jdt
13:18). 1 Esdr 2:2-3 relates polemically that
Cyrus, the king of the Persians, grasped the
truth: The Lord of Israel, the most high
LORD, appointed him as king of the whole
world. In the Greek paraphrase of Neh 8:6
in ] Esdr 9:46, the LorD is not only great
(cf. the translation in 2 Esdr 18:6), he is the
highest God, the God of Hosts. the Panto-
krator (-* Almighty; although this term is a
common name for God in the LXX, xay-
xpatüg is a common epithet for Zeus, cf.
Cook 1925:15, 1940:931; ScuwanL 1972:
346; SEG 18 no. 153; 22 no. 274 ). He lives
in the highest places (Pss. Sol. 18:10).
As can be expected, the documents from
the LXX originally written in Greck also
identify the Most High with the Lorp, the
God of Israel. The expressions Kyrios and
Hypsistos are thus used in parallel con-
440
HYPSISTOS
structions referring to the same divine being
(Wis 5:15; 6:3). In 3 Macc 6:2 Eliazar
addresses God as BaciAeb peyadoxpatwp,
vYylote, mavtokpatwp Gee. The Most High
is “the Ruler of all power” (3 Macc 7:9).
The apocrypha thus document the tendency
to use different names for the God of Israel.
The focus seems to be on the Most High as
the Almighty, Creator and Ruler over every-
thing.
In the NT the absolute use of ó Uytotog
is confined to Acts 7:48. In contrast to
Jewish belief, the author of Luke-Acts does
not subscribe to the view that the Most High
has his temple in -*Zion. According to the
Lukan version of Q 6:35/5:45, those who
love their enemies will be “Sons of the Most
High" (the translator of Ps 81(82]:6 trans-
lated Y 22. "33. with vioi tot vyiatov and
in Add Esth 8:12-13 the Jews are called the
"sons of the most high, greatest living
God"). For Luke, Jesus is the Son of the
Most High, because the power of the Most
High overshadowed —*Mary (Luke 1:32,35).
Heb 7:1 follows LXX Gen 14:18: -*Melchi-
zedek is the priest of the most high God.
Luke 1:76 calls John the Baptist a prophet
of the Most High and Paul and his compan-
ions are called 5o0Àot tob O0&00 100^
vyiotov by the girl possessed by a spirit of
divination (Acts 16:17). Similarly super-
natural spirits recognise Jesus as vidg tov
vyiotov (Mark 5:7). [For other NT data see
also -*Elyon, end]
IV. In. the Jewish literature from the
Second Temple Period written or trans-
mitted in Greek, that was not included in the
versions of the LXX, the expression ò
Üyıotoç (cf. Sib. Or. 3:519, 574) refers to
the God, who has his >throne in heaven (cf.
T. Abr. A 9:1-3). The Most High is the Cre-
ator, the Life-giver of ta mavta (Gk Enoch
9:5; Sib. Or. 3:704-709; Jos. As. 8:9). He is
the Creator (heaven and the —sea with all
its moving water are works of the Most
High [Gk Enoch 101:1.6]). Enoch calls
the Most High xvptog tav Kupiwv xai Beds
töv Bev kalı paociAeUg tàv aióvov and
states that the throne of his glory stands
unto all the generations of the ages. His
name is holy, great and blessed unto all the
ages (Gk Enoch 9:4). The “Most High“ is ó
äyıoç ò péyaş (Gk Enoch 10:1 in Georgius
Syncellus), the most high Leader (axtwp
vytotos), who created Jerusalem as highly
blessed seat of the great whole (Philo the
epic poet 24:1 in Euseb., Praep. Ev. IX
24,1). In the tradition of Ps 45 (46):2.5.8.12
Jos. As. calls "the Most High" the
"Mighty One of Jacob". He is the God of
heaven, the most high God of life (21:15).
Abraham and Jacob arc each called "friend
of the most high God" (T. Abr. A 16:9; Jos.
As. 23:10). Levi is a prophet of the Most
High (22:13). -*Joseph is called “begotten
-son of God", but Aseneth is to become
"daughter of the Most High" (cf. 21:4).
Terminology used for Zeus and in Hel-
lenistic times for political leaders is trans-
ferred to the Most High and combined with
divine attributes. Abraham addresses the
Most High as kúpe ravtoxpátrop (T. Abr.
A 15:12). He is not only 6 Seoxdtme (T.
Abr. A 16:2. NB õeonómg is also used for
Zeus (SCHWABL 1972:297) tig KticEws ò
a@avatos (since Homer [/liad 2:741] in
connection with Zeus) BaouAeve, but also ò
adpatos natip, ó adpatos Beds (T. Abr. A
16:2-3). Greek Enoch uses the expression
"the highest" mainly in contexts, where the
Most High acts as judge (93-94; 99:3). Till
the day of judgement every unjust deed is
recorded in the presence of the Most High
(98:7). Sib. Or. calls the great eternal God
(3:698). the Creator, the dSixaioxpitms te
puóvapxog, the a8dvatoc, àyiog (Gytog is
also an epithet for Zeus, (cf. Cook 1925:
879; ScHwasL 1972:225-226), the great
eternal king, ó Uyiotog 0£ógc (cf. 3:704, 709,
717, 719). The law of the Most High is
mentioned, stressing that he is most right-
eous of all throughout the world (cf. 3:
720,580. Sixaidovvos is also an epithet for
Zeus—cf. COOK 1925:1092; 1940:951).
Philo uses the expression o 6£€05 0
vytotog when citing LXX Gen 14:22 and ó
UOwyicotog when citing LXX Deut 32:8 or
Num 24:16. In thc other instances, the
expression is used in the set form o Oytotog
Geds and refers specifically to the God of
HYPSISTOS
the sacred temple in Jerusalem (Leg. Gai.
278; Flacc. 46), to whom even Caesar has
ordered offerings to be made (Leg. Gai.
157,317). Philo leaves no door open to inter-
pret the expression in a polytheistic manner.
After citing LXX Gen 14:18 (where Melchi-
zedek is called “priest of the Most High”),
Philo excludes the possibility that there is
any other Most High, 6 yap 80s Eig ov
(Leg. All. 3:82). An anonymous Samaritan
author from the 2nd century BCE translated
*ApyapiCiv with dpog vwictov (Eusebius,
Praep. Ev. IX 17,5).
In dealing with non-literary evidence, it is
extremely difficult to decide whether an
inscription mentioning the most high God
refers to the God of Israel. The mere occur-
rence of the expression Uyiotog does not
guarantee its Jewish origin (Cos, ZPE 21
[1976] 187 2 TREBILCO 1991:134; Acmonia,
SEG 26 nos. 1355-1356; cf. NewDocs | no.
5). In a late imperial inscription from Dierna
in Dacia the plural Geol Owy(iotoi) is used
(cf. NewDocs 2 no. 12). A Lydian inscrip-
tion' is dedicated to 0e£Q úyiom (cf. Cook
1925:881).
Sometimes the influence of the LXX on
the expression or phrases in an inscription
(Delos = CIJ 1? no. 725a+b; Acmonia, CIJ
2 no. 769), or added epithets like navto-
Kpatwp and evaAoyntds (CIJ 1? 6903 [ -
SEG 32 no. 790]; similarly CIJ 1? no. 690;
CIJ 1 no. 78*) or perhaps an effort in Thes-
salonica to transliterate the Tetragrammaton
(CIJ 1? no. 693d), might give some degree
of certainty. Inscriptions that refer to or
were found near a building that might be
identified as a nrpocevxn, might be Jewish
(Alexandria, C/J 2 no. 1433 [ = CPJ 3, pp.
134-5]; Athribis, C/J 2 no. 1443 [ = CPJ 3,
p. 142]; Leontopolis, SEG 33 no. 1326). Ina
building: Delos, C/J 12 nos. 727-730).
Using this scant evidence some outlines
of a picture might be drawn. For inhabitants
of Delos ó Bed¢ 6 Dyrotos is the Lord of
the spirits and of all flesh. He oversees
everything (CIJ 12 725a+b; cf. DEISSMANN,
Licht vom Osten [Tübingen 1908] 305-316).
Using metaphoric language of LXX Zech
5:1-5, Acmonian Jews attributed the func-
tion of judgement to the Most High (C/J 2
no. 769). Along the Bosporus, the God most
high is the blessed Almighty (Gea vwiotan
Ravtoxpatop: evaAoyntm: CJ 12 6908
{Gorgippa = SEG 32 no. 790}, similarly C/J
1? no. 690, CIJ | no. 78*). Although nay-
xpatri; is a common epithet for Zeus (cf.
PW s.v.; SEG 18 no. 153; 22 no. 274), ev-
Àoyntóg most likely indicates that these
inscriptions werc erected by Jews (cf. LXX
Gen 14:20-22; Jdt 13:18) in the first century
CE and that they used both epithets, byiatos
and mavtoxpatwp, together. In Sibidunda in
Pisidia the God most high is called “holy
Refuge” (ayia xatadvyn - SEG 19 no. 852
= TREBILCO 1991:136). Although áyioz is a
common epithet for Zeus in Syria and Pales-
tine, this does not apply to katagvyn. In the
LXX this term is often used for God. It is
not an epithet for Zeus or another deity. In
the 3rd century CE he is called “the great
God. the Most High, the Heavenly" by Jews
near Ankara (RECAM 2 no. 209B). This last
epithet (éxoupávioc) is, like uéyiotog and
Dyiotos, often used for Zeus (cf. SCHwABL
1972:308, 335). Such names were used
when dedicating a marble column to the
Most High and his npooxuvnty mpocevzn.
Amongst carly Christian writers, Clement
of Rome illustrates the Christian dependence
on the Jewish use of 0 tytatog (J Clem
29:2 citing Deut 32:8-9; 7 Clem 45:7 as
reception of Dan 3:19-25) and addresses
Him, whose name is the beginning of all
creation, as “the only Highest in the
Highest, the Holy One, resting amongst the
holy” (7 Clem 59:3). Ignatius of Antioch
combines Jewish and Christian tradition and
speaks in the salutation of his letter to the
Romans of “the most high -*Father" (for the
Apologists cf. BERTRAM 1969:619).
V. Bibliography
*G. BERTRAM, vyos. TWNT 8 (1969) 613-
619; C. CoLpe, Hypsistos, KP 2 (1975)
1291-1292; *A. B. Cook. Zeus. A Study in
Ancient Religion 11/2. lll (London 1925,
1940); F. CuvoNT. Yyiotocg, PW 9 (1914)
444-450; *A. D. Nock, C. Roperts & T.
C. SKEar, The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos, HTR
29 (1936) 39-88 (reprinted, omitting Intro-
442
HYPSISTOS
duction, Greek text. detailed commentary
and plate in A. D. Nock, Essays on Religion
and the Ancient World I [Oxford 1972])
414-443; Greek text in NewDocs 1 no. 5);
H. ScHwas_, Zeus I, PW 19 (1972) 253-
376: H. ScuwaBL, Zeus ll. PWSup 15
(1978) 994-1481; M. Simon, Theos Hypsis-
tos, Le Christianisme antique et son con-
texte religieux. Scripta Varia. Volume Il
(WUNT 23.2; Tübingen 1981) 495-508; *P.
TnEBILCO. Jewish Coimmunities in Asia
Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge 1991) 127-
144.
C. BREYTENBACH
443
IBIS "Ifig
I. The Ibis was considered to be the
visible manifestation of the Egyptian god of
-"wisdom -*Thoth. The ibis occurs in the
Bible in the LXX versions of Deut 14:16
and Isa 34:11 as rendering of MT "yy,
vocalised yanSfip, presumably a kind of
long-eared owl (?). Whenever the opportun-
ity presented itself, the LXX translators pol-
emised against Egyptian cults (compare
their polemics against the cult of —Apis in
Jer 46:15). Here they equated the ibis with
the owl which in Deut 14:16 and Lev 11:17
appears in lists of unclean birds (BECHER
1967:379-380; MORENZ 1964:253-254; GÓRG
1978:177-178).
The Egyptian name of the ibis is thn or,
since the New Kingdom, hb (ZiviE 1980:
116). The Gk iftg, instead of the expected
iBic, has been understood as a case of
psilosis, characteristic of the Ionian dialect
(MussiEs 1978:831).
II. The Ibis religiosa (threskiornis aethi-
opica) is a white shining bird except for the
black head and tail-feathers. He was wor-
shipped in the shape of a statue having a
bronze head, tail and fect and a gilded or
white painted body (SMELIK 1979:230, with
n.21). The Ibis-worship has been attested
since the second half of the New Kingdom
(KÁkosv 1981:43; SMELIK 1979:227, n.8). It
was not limited to a particular cult-place, as
with most other sacred animals (for instance
Apis) but since the New Kingdom the num-
ber of cult-places spread rapidly throughout
Egypt to reach its greatest profusion during
the Late Period (from 700 BCE; SMELIK
1979:228-229 provides a comprehensive list
of the cult-places).
The close relation between Thoth and the
Ibis is apparent from the fact that Thoth is
called the Ibis, the venerable Ibis or the Ibis-
great-in-magic (BOYLAN 1922:191). Accord-
ing to Egyptian conceptions, the Ibis reveals
the hidden nature of Thoth on earth (Ray
1976:137). The Egyptians associated Thoth,
the oracle god “who hears”, to his earthly
counterpart the Ibis, who is called “The
Face has spoken” (QUAEGEBEUR 1975).
Thoth was the Lord of Laws and the foun-
der of social order (BOYLAN 1922:88-89).
Thus Thoth and the Ibis are invoked to de-
liver those who are in distress (SMELIK
1979:237-238). The Ibis also seems to have
served in a private cult (KAkosv 1981:44,
with n.36).
The Ibis revealed the lunar science of
arithmetics (Zivig 1977:23-24). His snake-
killing activities (KAKosv 1981:43) reflected
Thoth's nature as a destroyer of enemies.
Like Thoth the Ibis was a physician, who
was said to have introduced the clyster
(Plutarch, de /side et Osiride 75). As the
emanation of Thoth, the god of wisdom, the
Ibis made up the first letter of the Egyptian
alphabet (KAKosy 1981:42, n.7 with refer-
ences). The Ibis was also associated with
Imhotep, the archetypical scientist and phys-
ician (ZiviE 1980:118, with n.46). Thoth
was regarded as the father or tutor of —Isis
(Ray 1976:158-159; KÁKosv 1981:43, with
n.14 and pertinent references) and ibises and
baboons, both embodiments of Thoth, are
depicted in temples of Isis in Italy (SMELIK
1979:241).
The Ibis reveals Thoth's creative powers.
The step of the bird is said to measure one
cubit (Aelian, Nat. anim. 10.29) and the
spreading of the legs formed an cquilateral
triangle (Plutarch, de Isid. et Osirid. 381D,
Quaest. conviv. 670C; compare the white
triangle on Apis’s brow). The cubit was
sacred to Thoth and by means of it the god
measured the cosmos and its counterpart
Egypt, thus establishing the cosmic order
(Eg Maat). Votive cubits, found in tombs,
444
IBIS
are often inscribed with the measurements
and names of Egypt’s provinces (ZIVIE
1977:33-34). Using a theological pun, the
Egyptians associated the name of the Ibis
(Eg hb) with the important role of Thoth as
the heart (Eg ib), i.e. the creative Thought,
of the demiurge, the sun god -*Re (ZiviE
1980:117, with n.36). Sometimes the Ibis is
identified with the palette of Thoth (SCHOTT
1968:55) by means of which the god
designed the world, the pictura mundi
(DERCHAIN-URTEL 1988:1-26). In PGM I.
54, the sun god is said to assume the shape
of the Ibis in the 9th hour.
The Egyptians associated the Ibis (=
—moon) to his solar companion the Hawk
(= sun; >Helios, Shemesh). According to
temple texts, the Ibis and the Hawk lay
down the rules of the world's regiment and
announce to the world the king’s crowning
(SCHOTT 1968). Clement of Alexandria,
Stromat. V.7.43, 1-3 states that the golden
statues of a Hawk and an Ibis are carried
along in Egyptian processions. The cults of
the Ibis and the Hawk are often combined
(SMELIK 1979:240-241). At Saqqara, the
Ibis- and Hawk-galleries are found in the
same area and both cults are administered
together (Ray 1976:137).
Relatively little is known about the Ibis
cult itself. The king granted the temple and
the land to provide the sustenance of the
birds. The temple housed the cult statue
which served in processions. A special
building, called the birth chapel, was in-
tended for the incubation of the eggs (Ray
1976:138).
Ibises were mummified after the example
of -'Osiris (RÁRG 321, with references).
Large quantities of mummified eggs have
also been found (RAv 1976:138). According
to the cosmogony of Hermopolis, the chief
centre of Thoth's cult, the world originated
in a cosmic egg. Aelian, Nat. animal. 2.35,
remarks that the hatching of ibis eggs takes
28 (lunar) days. The mummified ibises were
provisionally stored away in the so-called
houses of rest. The mass interment coupled
with a procession was performed once year-
ly (RAv 1976:140).
III. In Deut 14:16 the yaniüp, ‘long
eared owl (?)’, is mentioned in a list of
unclean animals. This list has a duplicate in
the P source (Lev 11:17). In an oracle
against Edom (Isa 34) the forthcoming
devastation of this country is depicted e.g.
with the imagery that the country will be the
abode of owls and —ravens (Isa 34:11; B.
Dicou, BN 58 [1991] 30-45). In the MT the
bird is not deified. In LXX Deut 14:16 and
Isa 34:11 yansáüp is rendered with iP(e)ts. It
is not clear whether the translators had a
polemic against Egyptian cults in mind
(MonENz 1964) or were just identifying the
bird referred to.
With P. DHORME (Le livre de Job [Etu-
des bibliques; Paris 1926] 541) the noun
tuhót in Job 38:36 is generally construed as
a refcrence to a bird, especially the ibis (e.g.
O. KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob [Gót-
tingen 1978] 60; A. DE WILDE, Das Buch
Hiob [OTS 22; Leiden 1981] 369), though
not deified.
IV. Bibliography .
I. BECHER, Der heilige Ibisvogel der Agyp-
ter in der Antike, Acta Hungarica 15 (1967)
377-385; H. BONNET, Ibis, RARG 320-321;
P. BovraN, Thoth. The Hermes of Egypt
(Oxford 1922); M.-T. DERCHAIN-URTEL,
Thot à travers ses épithètes dans les scènes
d'offrandes des temples d'Epoque gréco-
romaine (Bruxelles 1981); M. GÖRG. Ptole-
miüische Theologie in der Septuaginta, Das
Piolemüische Ägypten (Akten des internatio-
nalen Symposions 27.-29. September 1976
in Berlin; Mainz 1978) 177-185; L.
KAxkosy, Problems of the Thot-cult in
Roman Egypt, Selected Papers (1956-73)
(StAeg 7; Budapest 1981) 41-46; S.
Morenz, Ägyptische Spuren in den Septua-
ginta, JAC Ergänzungsband 1 (1964) 250-
258; G. MussiES, Some Notes on the Name
of Sarapis, Hommages à Maarten J. Verma-
seren (eds. M. den Bocr et al.; EPRO 68/11;
Leiden 1978) 821-832; J. QUAEGEBEUR,
Teéphibis, dieu oraculaire?, Enchoria 5
(1975) 19-24; J. Ray, The Archive of Hor
(London 1976); S. Scuorr, Falke, Geier und
Ibis als Krónungsboten, ZÁS 95 (1968) 54-
65; K. A. D. SMELIK, The cult of the Ibis in
445
ID — IDOLS
the Graeco-Roman Period, Studies in Hel-
lenistic Religion (ed. M. J. Vermaseren;
EPRO 78; Leiden 1979) 225-243; A. P.
ZivIE, L'ibis, Thot et la coudée, BSFE 79
(1977) 22-41; ZiviE, Ibis, LdA 3 (1980) 115-
121.
R. L. Vos
ID TN
I. According to Gen 2:6, the primordial
world was watered by a ‘flood’ (’éd) that
arose from the earth prior to the advent of
rainfall. It is probable that Hebr "ed was bor-
rowed from Akk íd, 'Id', which occurs in
cuneiform sources (usually written ¢fp) as a
name for the -*river as a deity, especially in
connection with the river ordeal, a juridical
process: by which an accused person was
tried by being thrown into the river (CAD
UJ [1960] 8; AHW 364). Akkadian id was
derived from the Sumerian name for the
river god, who was believed to officiate over
the ordeal. The common Akkadian noun
corresponding to Sum id is nàrum, 'river',
which, though ordinarily feminine, occurs in
Old Babylonian personal names as a mascu-
line divine name, dNàrum, so that it is not
always clear whether to read ‘fp as id or
nadrum (LAMBERT 1985). Nevertheless it is
certain from occasional syllabic spellings,
such as d/-id (c.g; R. M. WurriNG, Old
Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar [Chica-
£o 1987], no. 21:5), that the river god was
commonly called Id in Akkadian.
An alternative proposal (SPEISER 1955) is
that ’éd was borrowed from Akkadian edi,
‘onnush of water, high water’ (CAD E 35-
36; AHW 187). It has been further suggested
that: Hebrew "éd, a noun meaning ‘distress’
or ‘calamity’ and customarily associated
with an unattested Heb verb *fd (cf. Arabic
dda [<awada}, ‘bend, burden, oppress’) also
derives from td (McCarter 1973).
II. The Mesopotamian god Id, the divine
river, was a leading deity at Mari and else-
where in the Old Babylonian period
(ALBRIGHT 1967; LAMBERT 1985). He was
associated with the dispensation of justice
and in particular with the river ordeal, a pro-
cedure in which the guilt or innocence of
the accused was determined by casting him
into the waters. If the river god held him. he
was belicved to be guilty; if he escaped, he
was deemed to be innocent. No comparable
ordeal is known in the jurisprudence of
Syria-Palestine, though Ugaritic tpt ahr,
'Judge River, an epithet of Yamm, the
-*sea god, is suggestive (River). Even in the
absence of an actual legal procedurc in the
Northwest Semitic region, it is nevertheless
possible that a notion of judgement by
ordeal in the cosmic waters at the entrance
to the underworld existed as a religious con-
cept expressed in a corresponding literary
motif.
IHH. Whatever the background and deri-
vation of the term, the ‘flood’ or primeval
river of Gen 2:6 is not represented as a deity
or a divine river. Nor does the noun "éd, in
those biblical passages where it might mean
‘(river) ordeal’ (Deut 32:35; 2 Sam 22:19
[=Ps 18:19]; Job 21:17.30; 31:23), refer
directly or indirectly to a river god. Though
the ordeal sometimes seems to take place in
the cosmic waters at the entrance to the
underworld (2 Sam 22:17 [=Ps 18:17]; cf.
Jonah 2:4.6-7), it is depicted as an affliction
or tribulation under Yahweh's control: and
thus an instrument of his justice rather than
an independent power with its own judicial
authority (2 Sam 22:17-21 [zPs 18:17-21];
cf. Ps 124:2-5).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan (Garden City, N.Y. 1968) 92, n. 99;
E. DuorMe, L'arbre de vérité et l'arbre de
vie, RB 4 (1907) 274; W. G. LAMBERT, The
Pantheon of Mari, MARI 4 (1985) 525-539,
esp. 535-536; P. K. McCanrzn, The River
Ordeal in Israelite Literature, HTR 66 (1973)
403-412; M. S;.eBo, Die hebr. Nomina ‘ed
und ‘éd, ST 24 (1970) 130-141; E. A. Srri-
SER, ’ed in the Story of Creation, BASOR
140 (1955) 9-11.
P. K. McCarter
IDOLS ~ AZABBIM; GILLULIM
446
ILIB
ILIB
I. The term ilib is found in Ugaritic
texts both cultic and literary. In the former
the ilib receives offerings and in the latter it
is mentioned incidentally as the object of a
particular family cult. There is very slight
evidence for the ilib otherwise in Israclite
literary and epigraphic sources.
There are various explanations of the
form, the most obvious and widely accepted
being that it is a modification of "i/ + ’ab,
‘god’ + ‘father’. Iib would, on this argu-
ment, be the ‘divine ancestor’ par excel-
lence. Others, however, have sought expla-
nations in Hittite a-a-bi (also the deity
dA-a-bi), referring to a sacrificial/necro-
mantic pit, thus linking the word with
Hebrew ’6b, ‘ghost, necromancer, etc.” (cf.
Lev 20:27; Isa 29:4 -*Soothsaying Spirit)
(see especially HOFFNER 1970-1973) or in
the Arabic root /a’aba, ‘set up’, a derivation
which might imply ‘stele, standing stone’.
II. The Ugaritic term appears only a few
times in the texts but in quite unexpected
contexts and in ways which are not easy to
reconcile. On the one hand ilib appears at
the head of god-lists. Indeed, in the ‘pan-
theon' list ilib appears in the first place.
above >El and —>Baʻal (KTU 1.47:2; 1.118:
1). ilib also has a prominent role in rituals,
often in receipt of offerings (KTU 1.41:35;
46:17[rest.]; 56:3, 5; 87:38; 91:5; 109:12,
15, 19, 35; 148:10, 23). On the other hand,
in KTU 1.17 i 26 (and parallels 17 i 44; ii
16) ilib appears to refer to the dead ances-
tors, to whom, in fulfilment of a family
duty, a stele or stelae are to be erected.
(There are disagreements about details,
though not really affecting the question of
the meaning of ilib). From the context it
appears that the cult of the ilib was a duty
incumbent upon the eldest son in the family.
If the person responsible is indisposed, his
son must carry out this duty for him. It is
noteworthy that the ilib can be referred to
with pronoun suffixes as 'my/his ilib', as if
ilib were a common noun. It is closely
parallel to ‘m, ‘clan, kinsman, ancestor’.
We thus appear at first to have two differ-
ent significances for the term and some have
in consequence sought to separate them
completely from cach other, seeking to iden-
tify ilib with a specific deity. The only plaus-
ible direct identification with another deity,
taking ilib to be a specific divine name, is
suggested by Lampert (1981), who has
drawn attention to a Mesopotamian parallel,
Ilaba, attested from the period of the dyna-
sty of Akkad and down to ca 1600 BCE. This
ilib would be quite distinct from the ilib of
KTU 1.17. The separation of the two mani-
festations of ilib is not, however, necessary.
Our best clue to ilib is provided by the
so-called Ugaritic *pantheon' list. While the
accuracy of the equations implied in this
series of texts cannot be relied upon without
reserve, the parallel versions in Akkadian
(syllabic cuneiform DINGIR a-bi = ilabi) and
the Hurrian equivalent (in atn: KTU 1.42:1)
argue strongly for understanding the form to
be a combination of il and ab, rather than
based on any other roots. The slightly
strange vocalisation (a > i) is not a serious
obstacle, being paralleled by other such
shifts (cf. Ugaritic ih for ah: KTU 2.41:18).
Vowel harmonisation may be at work. Pre-
cise interpretation, however, still remains
difficult.
The vocalisation of the syllabic version
suggests the meaning 'El/God of the
father(s)' or possibly 'El is my father’. The
former would evoke echoes of the patri-
archal *God of the Fathers'. The syllabic
spelling may, however, be an approximation
rather than an exact rendering and the Hur-
rian suggests something more like 'divine
father'. This meaning or 'divine (divinised)
ancestor' is the most commonly adopted
translation. The term might be a general one
for such deified persons (SPRoNK 1986).
Such an interpretation, combined with the
high position assigned to this figure in the
lists and his general importance in the cult,
suggests that he is an ancestral deity of the
royal family and was highly revered. That
such a royal ancestor cult was important in
ancient Ugarit (and elsewhere in ancient
Syria) is clear from abundant evidence,
especially the evidence of the rpum (-Re-
phaim), and it is not surprising to find ilib in
447
IMAGE
this sense at the head of pantheon lists,
though this should not be taken to imply a
deity more important than El, Dagan and
Ba*al.
This interpretation is also compatible with
the other group of texts (e.g. KTU 1.17 i:26)
in which Dan'il's ancestor-cult has to be
carried on, since ilib would in both groups
of texts be a common noun, which could
apply to the domestic context of family
shrines or to the national royal cult. In this
context it may be noted that SPRoNK (1986)
would identify the ilib cult and the rpum
cult, which is better known. Indeed it is not
impossible that ilib is in fact a plural, ‘the
divine ancestors’, and it is so interpreted by
several scholars.
III. The evidence for ancestor cult in
ancient Israel is widespread, but the Israelite
epigraphic evidence for ilib is limited to a
single seal bearing the Hebrew personal
name ‘bd’l’b (cf. G. A. COOKE, Textbook of
North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford 1903],
no. 150:6, pl. xi, 6: the reading is not entire-
ly certain). This implies that a divine "lb
was known in later times. This evidence is
extremely slender.
One allusion to ilib has been detected in
Hebrew literature—by ALBRIGHT in relation
to Isa 14:19, where he would emend yorédé
'el ’abné bér, “you who go down to the
stones of the Pit", to yürédá "el'ébe bór, "let
them be brought down (to Sheol), O ghosts
of the Nether World”. In view of the acute
difficulties in this verse it seems unwise to
invent a hapax legomenon to solve them!
We may note also the personal name Eliab
(28°78) in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 16:6,
etc.), though it is doubtful that this is
relevant.
Finally and for completeness mention
should be made again of Hebrew "ob,
‘necromancer’ (e.g. Lev 19:31), ‘ghost’ (e.g.
Isa 29:4) and, according to HOFFNER,
*necromantic pit' (1 Sam 28:8), the origin of
which has been explained in a variety of
ways, though HorrNER (1970-73) would
relate it to ilib.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan (London 1968) 122-124; A. COOPER,
Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic
Texts, RSP III (ed. S. Rummel; Rome 1981)
342-343; J.-M. DE TARRAGON, Le culte à
Ugarit (Paris 1980) 151-156; M. DIETRICH,
O. Loretz & J. SANMARTÍN, Ugaritisch ilib
und Hebräisch "?(w)b “Totengeist’, UF 6
(1974) 450-451; J. F. HEALEY, The Pietas
of an Ideal Son in Ugarit, UF 11 (1979)
353-356; HEALEY, The Akkadian ‘Pan-
theon' List from Ugarit, SEL 2 (1985) 115-
125; H. A. HorFner, 2i8 TWAT 1, (1970-
73) 141-145 (TDOT I, 130-134); W. G.
LAMBERT, Old Akkadian Ilaba = Ugaritic
ilib?, UF 13 (1981) 299-301; K. SPRONK,
Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the
Ancient Near East (AOAT 218; Kevelaer/
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986) 146-149.
J. F. HEALEY
IMAGE 08
I. The Babylonian word salmu is used
as the equivalent of Sum alam, dül and nu.
It refers both to statues and other symbols of
gods and humans. Though occasionally pre-
ceded by the divine determinative (dingir),
the image (salmu) was not viewed as a god
itself. A cult of a deity ‘Image’ (*Sulmu),
however, is attested for the city of Taima in
north-west Arabia. The closest analogy in
the Hebrew Bible is the cult of crected
stones (massébót), whose anointment with
oil reflects a kind of worship.
II. Images played an important role in
Babylonian religion. Both images in the
sense of statues in the round and a variety of
different types of symbol could represent
deities. Objects or symbols pertaining to a
particular deity could be used in swearing
oaths. While a deity was normally regarded
as being present in his statue or symbol, he
could withdraw of his own free will, or be
forced to withdraw, for example by des-
ecration of the physical object. In this case
complicated rituals were required to bring
the material artefact back into religious life
(such as pit pi and mis pi rituals, literally
*opening-of-the-mouth' and ‘washing-of-the-
mouth'). A worshipper could sometimes be
448
IMAGE
regarded as represented by a votive statuette
placed in a temple. The worshipper would
normally avoid referring to the statue as
such, but simply make reference to the deity
by name.
However, there is direct evidence in the
tākultu texts involving use of the word
lamassu. “the pictorial representations of
cities, the statues of fallen gods" (Takultu, 5
i 30). Moreover ASSurnasirpal II (883-859
BCE) refers to a lamassu (‘representation’) of
'(Ninurta's) great godhead' (E. A. W.
BupGE & L. W. KING, The Annals of the
Kings of Assyria [London 1902] 210, 19;
345, ii 133). This contrasts with lamassatu
in reference to — Ishtar (BUDGE & KING,
The Annals of the Kings of Assyria, 164,
25). The arguments of SpycKET (1968),
questioning actual representation of deities
for the third millennium BCE, are mainly
arguments from silence. While it is often
uncertain whether a statue or symbol is
involved, there are of course references from
the later period (second millennium BCE and
later) which point unambiguously to an
anthropomorphic representation. An example
is an omen text based on the appearance of
-*Marduk as he leaves his temple Esagil in
Babylon for the New Year's festival. This
includes direct references to his eyes, mouth
and facial expression (SBTU 2 no. 35).
Mesopotamian salmu could refer not only
to statues or symbols (such as Surinnu), but
also to stelae with representations in relicf,
what is meant usually being apparent from
the context. A Neo-Assyrian letter illustrates
the closeness of symbol and deity: "The
Kizertu is set up in the temple; they say
about it 'It is —Nabü'" (LAS 318: 6-7). In
the Mesopotamian cultural context caution
should be exercised with regard to the
Babylonian word salu, ‘statue’, ‘image’, or
‘likeness’. This is a functioning word within
the language and its particular nuance
depends on the specific context. Thus. even
if the word is equipped with the divine
determinative, it need not refer to the same
thing or deity in different contexts. In the
hyperbole of Neo-Assyrian letters the king
can be said to be the image of Šamaš, as
well as of other deities. This is best seen as
belonging to the imagery of mytho-poetic
diction.
There existed in Taima in north-west
Arabia a cult or cults of şim known from
several Imperial Aramaic (ca. 400 BCE) in-
scriptions. The god slm, known in Latin
inscriptions as Sulimus, Gk LoApos, was the
chief deity of Taima. Since he had the
winged sun-disk as his symbol (DALLEY
1986), it is possible that the god Sulmu
(assuming that such was the pronunciation)
is originally the hypostatized image of the
sun god (cf. J. C. L. GiBsoN, 7SSI, Vol. 2
[1975] 150 ad line 2). Its closest parallels
are the gods -*Bcethel and Sikkanu (attested,
c.g. in the name Sanchuniathon - j/1279),
both deified cult -*stones (VAN DER TOORN
1997). The cult of Sulmu in Taima may
have been brought there by people from
Hamath, whose presence at Taima is attested
by the cult of Ashima (B. AGGOouULA, Stu-
dia aramaica II. Syria 62 [1985] 61-76, esp.
70-71). Interpretational difficulties within
the Arabian material preclude at present
making any connection with Mesopotamian
rcligion.
III. Etymologically corresponding to Akk
salmu is Heb selem. Like its Akkadian (and
Aramaic) counterpart, it can be used to
designate the image of a deity. Thus Num
33:52 demands the destruction of all salmé
massékót, cast (i.e. metal) images (of idols).
Such images were to be found in temples
like the Baal temple in Jerusalem (2 Kgs
11:18//2 Chr 23:17). Also Judaeans were
known to worship such idols (Ezek 7:20;
16:17). According to the difficult text of
Amos 5:26, the Israelites engaged in the
worship of —Kaiwan their ‘image’ (Kiyytin
salmékem). lt is generally believed that the
polemics against the worship of ‘images’ is
exilic or post-exilic. The term selem is not
the technical term for the representation of
an idol; pesel and masséká are more fre-
quent (F. J. SrENDEBACH, CYS, TWAT 6
[1989] 1046-1055, esp. 1051). ‘Image’
(selem) as an hypostatized or even deified
object is not attested in the Hebrew Bible;
what comes closest to the worship of a god
449
INANNA —
Sulmu among the early Israelites is the
anointment of erected stones (e.g. Gen
28:18). The terms ’eben and massébd used
in this connection indicate that the parallel,
if parallel there be, is not etymological but
material (for further discussion Bethel).
IV. Bibliography
K. Beyer & A. LIVINGSTONE, Die neuesten
aramäischen Inschriften aus Taima, ZDMG
137 (1987) 285-296; BEvER & LiviNG-
STONE, Eine neue reichsaramiüische Inschrift
aus Taima, ZDMG 140 (1990) 1-2; S. Dar-
LEY, The God Salmu and the Winged Disk,
Iraq 48 (1986) 85-101; K. VAN DER TOORN,
Worshipping Stones: On the Deification of
Cult Symbols, JNSL 23 (1997) 1-14; A. L.
OPPENHEIM, The Golden Garments of the
Gods, JNES 8 (1949) 172-193; J. RENGER
& U. Sgipr, Kultbild. RLA 6 (1980-83)
307-318; A. SpvckET, Les statues de culte
dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines
à la Ire dynastie de Babylone (Paris 1968);
C. B. F. WALKER, Material for a Recon-
struction of the mis pi Ritual (Thesis,
B.Phil.; Oxford 1966).
A. LIVINGSTONE
INANNA -* ISHTAR
ISHHARA
I. The personal name "ai/iár, Ashhur (1
Chron 2:24; 4:5)—traditionally construed as
a derivation from the root SHR, ‘to be black’
(HALAT 91)—has bcen interpreted by Cas-
suTo (1947:472) as “belonging to /Shara’’.
IShara is known as a Babylonian goddess.
Hi. Ihara, d/i-ha-ra, also written Af-/ia-
ra and Ei-ha-ra, is one of the names for
Inanna/-*Ishtar. In Atr I 301-304 and Gilg.
Il ii 35-50 mention is made of a ‘bed laid
for IShara’. From this it can be inferred that
Ishtar was called [Shara during the marriage
rites. Therefore, she can be depicted as a
goddess of love and/or a mother goddess
(D. O. EpzARD, WbMyth 1, 90; LAMBERT
1976-80:176-177). Her astrological constel-
lation was the scorpion (DouGLAS VAN
Buren 1937-39). In the Hurrian pantheon a
goddess with the same name appears. The
ISHMAEL
South-Anatolian deity, however, is related
with the underworld (FRANTZ-SzABÓ 1976-
80). The goddess is also found in texts from
Ugarit (e.g. KTU 1.119:13-14).
III. The traditional etymology of the
name AShur is to be preferred to the fanciful
interpretation offered by Cassuto. Derived
from the root SHR, ‘to be black’ with a pre-
formative 'aleph, the name probably refers
to the colour of the skin. In two genealogi-
cal lists in Chronicles, AShur is presented as
the father of Tekoa (1 Chron 2:24; 4:5). The
Old Greek version, however, sees him as the
father of Caleb (Lo 1992). From the Iron
Age, the name is attested epigraphically in
the seal inscription ?$hr b[n] ‘Syhw, ‘AShur
the so[n] of Asajah' (G. I. DaviES, Ancient
Hebrew Inscriptions [Cambridge 1991] no.
100.532) and in an ostracon from Samaria
(Shr, 13:3-4; LEMairRE 1977:31.49-50). Al-
ternatively, the name can also be construed
as containing the theophoric clement
Horus (e.g. LEMAIRE 1977:49-50; J. H.
Ticav. You Shall Have No Other Gods
[HSS 31; Atlanta 1986] 66).
IV. Bibliography
U. Cassuro, Le tre alef dell'alfabeto ugarit-
ico. Or 16 (1947) 466-476; E. DOUGLAS
VAN BUREN, The Scorpion in Mesopotamian
Art and Religion, AfO 12 (1937-39) 1-28;
G. FRANTZ-SZABÓ, Ishara, RLA 5 (1976-80)
177-178; W. G. LAMBERT, Is$hara, RLA 5
(1976-80) 176-177; A. LEMAIRE, Inscrip-
tions Hébraïques 1 (LAPO 9; Paris 1977);
H. C. Lo, Ashhur, ABD 1 (1992) 487; D.
PRECHEL, Die Géttin IShara: Ein Beitrag
zur altorientalischen — Religionsgeschichte
(ALASP 11; Münster 1995).
B. BECKING
ISHMAEL “noad
I. Ishmael is the eponym of the
Ishmaelite tribes who traced their ancestry
back to -*Abraham/Abram and visited his
tomb at Hebron (Machpelah, Gen 25:9). The
name as such is common Semitic and is
attested from the earliest times onward
(KNAUF 1985:38 n.170;: Ancur 1988:51).
His name is explained in Gen 16:11 (J) and
450
ISHMAEL
21:17 (E) as a wish for answer, an explana-
tion which tallies with the traditional under-
standing of this name (NorH, /PN, 198).
The name is not only found in early Mes-
opotamia (3rd millennium). but also in
Middle Bronze Hazor /§-me-il(DINGIR)
(Horowitz & SHAFFER 1992) and perhaps
Late Bronze Sinai (CPS/ no. 34). From Old
Babylonian Larsa a toponym /5-me-il(DINGIR)
is known (YOS 8 no. 173:11, cf. RGTC 3,
119) and from Mari a tribe /š-nu-lu-um
(ARM V, 33:6). Toponyms and tribal names
are sometimes derived from clans and their
locally revered ancestors (MEYER 1906:297).
Il. According to biblical genealogy Ish-
mael is the son of Abraham and -*Sarah's
slave-girl Hagar, given in marriage to the
patriarch in order to achieve a natural heir
and to create a heir by adoption for Sarah
(Gen 16:2; 30:3). In this way Israelite tra-
dition acknowledges the ‘Abrahamite’ origin
of the Ishmaelite confederation (Gen 17:20;
25:12-18). The name Ishmael is also known
as a divine name: 9/§-me-la-(a)/ SSa!-me-la-
a (Tàkultu, 94:92; WriPPERT, RLA 5 [1976-
80] 251). one of the ten divine Judges of the
temple of Assur in Nineveh. In the form d/4-
me-ltim this god is already known in an Old
Assyrian inscription of Erishum I (ARJ 1,
12). In Sabaean sources a similar divine
name Sama‘ appears, probably an epithet of
the Moongod (HOFNER, WbMyth 1/1,
467.528: RAAM 247-248). Other divine
names of this type are attested in Mari and
elsewhere, like, for instance 4Yakrub-El/
Jkrub-El (Epzarp, RLA 5, 254). An ori-
ginal connection between this god and the
Ishmaelite eponym is, however, unprovable.
Most probably they were not related, be-
cause the Ishmaelites appear as the Sumuil
in the Assyrian sources (KNAUF 1985). This
identification with the Sumuwil has been
challenged (Ertrat 1982), but the equation
is linguistically possible when it may be
assumed that the Assyrian name is a stan-
dardized corruption of the early Western
South-Semitic name (cf. also KrSir-i-la-a-a
= Israel; 4/f-me-la-a - 9Sa-me-la-a, etc.).
From an historical and geographical point of
view the identification is very plausible. It is
uncertain whether the Ishmaelites originated
from North-Sinai in the second millennium
BCE (Gen 16 [J] and 21 [E]. MEvER 1906:
322-328: differently KNAUF 1985, Nach-
wort), but early in the first millennium BCE
they become historically manifest as a tribal
confederation opposite the Palestinian
monarchies in an area stretching “from
Havilah to Shur near the border of Egypt”
(Gen 25:18). i.e. from the isthmus of Suez
to Duma (Dimat al-Jandal) and Nefid in the
Arabian desert. Since the 8th century BCE
the members of the confederation of Sum il
= Ishmael headed by the Qedar-tribe, are
known as Aribi, Arabu, Arabaia in the As-
syrian sources. In contemporary biblical
texts ‘rb(y) 'Arab(i) also started to replace
‘Ishmaelite’ (Isa 13:20; 21:13; Ezek 27:21
etc.).
An original ethnic connection between
“the mother of Ishmael”, Hagar and the
biblical hagr?im (1 Chron 5:10.18-22 ) is
not likely (MEYER 1906; NorH 1948;
KNAUF 1985), though | Chron 5:19-20 (also
Ps 83:7) suggests an alliance between
Hagarites and Ishmaelites. This however,
reflects a much later historical state of
affairs (perhaps Persian times, KNAUF 1985:
52).
III. There is a possibility that d/sme-ilu
was an early Semitic deified ancestor-King
or tribal saint of the kind listed among the
ten ancestor-kings in the Assyrian Kinglist
(ANET?, 564) and also the first ten deified
kings of Ebla (ArcH! 1986: on deified
ancestors see also M. Stor, Old Babylon
Personal Names, SEL 8 [1991] 191-212,
esp. 203-205). Personalities with a similar
kind of name were venerated like deities in
Ugarit (cf. ydbil and yarsil in KTU 1.106:3-
4). However, it is impossible to prove that
this ancestral divinity was identical to the
eponym of Ishmael = Sumuil. Biblical tra-
ditions about Ishmael’s burial, the where-
abouts of his tomb and indications of his
veneration are unknown. Only his death is
mentioned by P (Gen 25:17). Scholars sup-
posed a central Ishmaelite sanctuary at Beer
->-Lahai-roi (Gen 16:14) in the Negev or
North-Sinai (MEYER 1906; NorH 1948), but
451
ISHTAR
in this case one has to assume that Isaac's
connection to this place is secondary (Gen
24:62; 25:11). There is no way to check the
reliability of this tradition; nor is the place
of Beer Lahai-roi established geographical-
ly. It is only Muslim tradition which tells us
more about Ishmael's life and death, in par-
ticular how he and his mother settled near
the well Zamzam between the hills al-Safa
and al-Marwa in the neighbourhood of
Mekka and how they were adopted by the
Jurhum tribe. Quran and Hadith provide a
complete hieros logos for the Abrahamite
origin of the Holy House in Mekka, and be-
sides that, also traditions about the tombs of
Ishmacl and his mother Hagar, which are
exhibited in the Aigr of the Haram of the
Ka‘aba at Mekka (PARET 1972).
IV. Bibliography
A. ARCHI, Die ersten zehn Kónige von Ebla,
ZA 76 (1986) 213-217; G. I. Davies, Hagar,
El-Hegra and the Location of Mount Sinai,
VT 22 (1972) 152-163; I. EPRPAL, The
Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of
the fertile Crescent 9th-Sth Centuries BC
(Jerusalem/Leiden 1982); R. FRANKENA,
Tākultu. De sacrale maaltijd in het As-
syrische ritueel met een overzicht over de in
Assur vereerde goden (Leiden 1954), W.
Horowrnz & A. SHAFFER, An Adminis-
trative Tablet from Hazor. A preliminary
Edition, /EJ 42 (1992) 17-33; E. A. KNAUF,
Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
Palästinas und Nordarabiens im lJahr-
tausend. v. Chr (ADPV; Wiesbaden 1985;
1989 2^d enlarged ed.); E. MEYER, Die /sra-
eliten und | ihre Nachbarstümme (Halle
1906); M. Nori, Überlieferungsgeschichte
der Pentateuch (Stuttgart 1948); R. PARET,
Isma‘il, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol 2
(Leiden 1972) 184-185.
M. DUKSTRA
ISHTAR
I. The major Mesopotamian goddess of
love, war, and the planet Venus is known
primarily by the Sumenan name Inanna and
the Akkadian name Ishtar. Although the
name Inanna is usually translated as ‘Lady
of Heaven’ (nin.an.ak), the alternative
translation ‘Lady of the date clusters’
(nin.ana.ak), suggested by JACOBSEN (1976:
36). seems preferable. The name Ishtar is
Semitic and earlier was pronounced Eshtar,
Ishtar is not simply a Semitic name brought
in and applied without further change to a
pre-existing Sumerian goddess, but rather
represents an independent Semitic deity who
helped shape the personality of the Meso-
potamian goddess. Ishtar derives from com-
mon Semitic ‘Sattar. (A masculine god with
this name appears in Southern Arabia and
Ugarit ['attar], though a feminine form
[^Astarte] is also attested in Canaanite lit-
erature and in the Bible.) In the course of
time, Ishtar became the generic name for
goddess and istarátu, a plural form of her
name, the term for goddesses. Sometimes
the name is superimposed upon other god-
desses without, however, necessarily chang-
ing the separate identity of the underlying
god (e.g. the use of the name Ishtar for the
mother-goddess in the Epic of Gilgamesh,
Tablet XI).
There are a few oblique references to Ish-
tar in the Bible.
IIl. Though she has other filiations, Inan-
na is best known as the daughter of the
moon god Nanna/Sin and his wife Ningal
and as the sister of Utu/Shamash, the sun
god. In the Sumerian literary traditions
reflecting fertility rituals, especially those
rooted in Uruk, the goddess is depicted as
the wife of various Dumuzi/-Tammuz
figures, fertility gods who are the power for
new life and growth. She is also the wife of
An, the god of the sky. This latter asso-
ciation may be a late development. but it
seems more likely that here is preserved an
older tradition in which Inanna/Ishtar repre-
sents a variant of the earth: Ki (‘earth’), the
wife of An, or Ereshkigal (‘mistress of the
great earth’), the goddess of the netherworld
who was the wife of An in his bull form,
Gugalanna.
The goddess Inanna/Ishtar seems to ex-
hibit a greater variety of (perhaps inconsis-
tent) traits and qualities than most other dei-
ties and plays a wide variety of roles. She is
452
ISHTAR
a goddess of sexual love and possesses
strong powers of sexual attraction. In the
fertility cult, she receives foodstuffs and
appears to be the numen of the communal
storehouse. In addition, Inanna/Ishtar is a
rain-goddess who, like other storm gods, is
also a war goddess and personifies the
battle-line. She is also the patroness of pros-
titutes and other independent women as well
as the goddess of the morning and evening
star (Venus). The character of the goddess is
arresting: “love and sensuality alongside
battle and victory. On the one hand, there-
fore, I$tar was depicted as hierodule (naked
goddess) and on the other as heroine and
queen" (RÓMER 1969:132).
The goddess is the spouse and lover of
the king with whom she participates in the
ritual of the sacred marriage. She provides
the king with economic blessings as well as
power and victory in war. Inanna/Ishtar is
associated with the cults of many cities; she
is particularly prominent in Uruk, Akkad,
Kish, Nineveh, and Arbela. In Uruk, but
particularly in Akkad and Assyria, she is a
goddess of war and victory.
In Mesopotamian literary texts, Inanna/
Ishtar has a coherent and believable, if com-
plex, personality. Inanna/Ishtar is a young,
independent, and wilful woman of the upper
class. She is a product of an urban world
and is closely associated with cities more
than with cosmic functions. She seems to be
constantly on the move, perhaps because of
her association with heavenly bodies and
unencumbered women; in any case, her
movement expresses and enhances a quality
of discontent and restlessness that character-
izes her. Inanna/Ishtar often appears as a
sexually attractive being, but she remains
unsatisfied and is constantly 'injured', striv-
ing, and contentious. She tends toward anger
and rage and ‘troubles heaven and earth’.
(One is tempted to talk of early ‘psychic
wounds’) Her roles (as wife, mother, etc.)
are not fully realized; she behaves as if she
were incomplete. Yet there is also some-
times real loss; thus, for example, her hus-
band dies prematurely. But while the death
of Tammuz reflects the cycle of fertility and
is understandably emphasized in her cult
and related myths, this loss remains determi-
native in the formation of her personality
even when her personality and story are
freed from the fertility context. Ishtar
reminds us of Gilgamesh, a powerful indivi-
dual with great energy who always remains
dissatisfied with the allotted role or portion
and is constantly driven to go beyond. They
seem to be male and female counterparts.
The figure who appears under the name
of Inanna or Ishtar possesses a number of
sharply delineated characteristics. The god-
dess seems even to exhibit contradictory or
conflicting traits. She seems to encompass
polar opposites: she is death and life, male
and female, she is a female who does not
nurture nor have a permanent partner, a
sexual woman who is warlike and glories in
aggression and destruction, etc. She is
glorified but frightening, exalted but also
intimidating. Moreover, a number of poss-
ibly separate goddesses appear under the
name Ishtar of a particular place (e.g. Ishtar
of Nineveh). In view of her diversity, sever-
al questions about the goddess should be
asked. In simplified form, these questions
are: 1) Is the Inanna/Ishtar of Mesopotamia
a single goddess, a conflation of several
goddesses, or separate goddesses under a
single name? 2) As a single goddess or a
conflation of several, did she possess a
coherent personality? Recent attempts to
understand the nature of Inanna/Ishtar have
emphasized either the continued existence of
separate goddesses of love and of war, or
the existence of a single goddess whose
nature is in fact expressed by or related to
the very quality of variety or even contra-
diction.
1) It is likely that Inanna-Ishtar is an
amalgam of several different Sumerian, or
southern Mesopotamian, goddesses as well
as a fusion of this amalgam with a Semitic
goddess, Ishtar. Inanna and Ishtar seem al-
ready to be identified early in Mesopotamian
history. But although the goddess has
evolved from different figures, she neverthe-
less seems to possess a believable, even
coherent personality. While it is tempting to
453
ISHTAR
believe that this persona constituted a new
entity, formed by the merger of separate
goddesses, it is equally possible, perhaps
more reasonable, to suppose that it was the
similarities between goddesses that led to
the original merger. While different traits or
configurations of traits may originally have
been associated, respectively, with the Sem-
itic and the Sumerian goddesses, it is likely
that the two were identified because they, in
fact, resembled each other and contained
features associated both with sexual love as
well as with military (Semitic) or social
(Sumerian) conflict.
2) Various explanations for the occur-
rence in one persona of the aforementioned
contradictory traits have been offered. Thus,
for example, it has been suggested that the
goddess is the embodiment of qualities or
lifestyles that seem contradictory and para-
doxical and call into question the categories
or values of the society and thus confirm
their existence; an embodiment, that is, of
figures who are marginal (e.g. a prostitute),
bi-sexual, or anomalous (e.g. a woman of
the respectable upper class who, however, is
powerful, free and undomesticated). Alter-
natively, it has been suggested that she is
the embodiment of strife.
Without wishing to suggest that these
issues are anything but complex, I shall
offer a somewhat subjective and simplifying
hypothetical construction. 1 would suggest
that under the figure of the goddess
Inanna/Ishtar there originally existed a uni-
tary power that encompassed an extensive
range of continuous, if diversc, qualitics and
activities, and that later the goddess drew to
herself different characteristics and roles
that were then perceived as conflicting.
This origina] power was, in effect, an
earth goddess who partook of and generated
both death and life. To use an cvocative, if
hackneyed phrase, the goddess was both
womb and tomb. Her nature and behaviour
are characteristic of a type of carly earth
goddess who was both the source of fertility
and life as well as the cause of death. She is
the receiver of the dead and the mother of
the living. Ishtar gives and takes life-force
and power. She embodies the female prin-
ciple. But as with other primitive earth or
mother goddesses, she did not need a male
and contained within herself all forms and
stages of life and death. She projects or
personifies both the fear of death and sexual
interest and arousal.
For our purposes here, it suffices simply
to note several indications of Inanna/Ishtar’s
association with death/life and the chthonic
realm in the myth(s) known as The Descent
of Inanna/Ishtar. They are: her very descent
to the netherworld; her threat to bring up the
dead to eat the living; her own death there;
with her death, the absence of human and
animal fertility as a consequence of the loss
of sexual attraction, drive, and activity; even
as the dead goddess is brought back to life,
it is at the price of another’s death as her
substitute. Inanna/Ishtar is thus also the
cause of death to others as well as the one
who brings back fertility and sexual interest
when she returns to this world.
The figure of Ereshkigal, the mistress of
the netherworld and Inanna's elder sister, is
informative here, for Ereshkigal represents
death, but yet gives birth to young who dic
before their time; she is a mother, but also a
virgin. (It is only the later mythological tra-
dition that cannot understand the virgin
mother and thus represents her as a girl
who, before the appearance of Nergal, had
yet to enjoy a male and needs onc.) Similar-
ly, Ishtar spends most of her life without a
husband or children, for her husbands
change their naturc almost immediately after
consummation or dic before their time.
Everything is premature, aborted, embryonic.
Inanna/Ishtar is a goddess of life and
death; but unlike Ereshkigal, she is not
rooted in a single realm or cut off from the
living world. She is peripheral and moves
between the dead and the living. She is con-
currently central and marginal to the living
community. Moreover, she is not static; in
fact, she is the principle of movement and
dynamism that is used to explain the inter-
change of death and life. Where Ereshkigal
is static, Inanna/Ishtar is the dynamic prin-
ciple of change. She is movement and
454
ISHTAR
change, hence also insatiability and dis-
content. Most of all, she represents transfor-
mation and unpredictability. Hence, also, her
power of attraction and repulsion, even
aggression.
Her underlying power acts in the life-
death and dynamic fashion descibed above
in many of the natural and social forms
associated with the goddess. This is espe-
cially true of the numen of the underground
storehouse, for in it is found food that has
been buried in the earth and that could
either spoil or provide life-giving susten-
ance. (The underground house is similar to,
or perhaps identical with, a place of burial.)
In fact, the location of this storehouse (and
of burials) further contributes to the forma-
tion of the character of Inanna/Ishtar, for as
an underground place of death and life, it is
central (to the community), yet set apart (from
its living or social space). Like the goddess,
it is both marginal and unpredictable.
In the course of societal development,
perhaps already in the late fourth millen-
nium, the type of earth goddess that stood
behind the historical Inanna/Ishtar became
less understandable and acceptable. Qual-
ities that were a natural part of onc unified
power began to fragment, for they seemed
disparate, even mutually exclusive. The god-
dess was seen to possess unrelated features,
for how could one goddess be a power for
both life and death? When it was felt that
one character could no longer contain all
these features, a re-conceptualization of the
older form occurred; the goddess was now
re-defined in terms of sets of characteristics
that were seen as culturally connected, if
opposite, to each other and could therefore
be imposed on the older form. Thus, on the
original death-life continuum were imposed
new polar opposites: love/death; sex/war;
male/female; upper class establishmenU
social fringe, opponent of convention. The
new sets of opposing characteristics were
now united in a newly-formed character
whose opposing sides were construed as a
meaningful construction of opposites. Ac-
cordingly, the fragmentation of the original
goddess led to the attraction of qualities of a
bi-polar nature and the creation of what
seems to be a conflicted personality, a per-
sonality of contraries. As part of this process
of re-constitution, other gods were intro-
duced and identified with the original god-
dess. Hence, Inanna/Ishtar grows out of an
earlier goddess and is formed by a con-
comitant re-definition of that goddess and
syncretism with various other Sumerian
goddesses and a Semitic god of war and of
the planet Venus.
III. As a deity, Ishtar is not mentioned in
the Bible. Commonly, the name ’estér,
Esther, has been interpreted as derived from
Ishtar (NoTH, /PN 11; HALAT 73), although
other interpretations have been proposed: J.
SHEFTELOWITZ (Arisches im Alten Testa-
ment (1901] 39) suggested a derivation from
Old Indian stri, ‘young woman’, the Rabbis
connected the name with the Persian noun
stareh, ‘star’ (HALAT 73), while A. S.
YAHUDA (JRAS 8 [1946] 174-178) proposed
a relation with an alleged Old Median noun
*astra, ‘mirtle-tree’.
M. DELcoR (Allusions à la déesse Istar
en Nahum 2,8?, Bib 58 [1977] 73-83) vocal-
ized the enigmatic Ausab in Nah 2:8 as
hassébi, ‘ornament; glory’ interpreting the
noun as an epithet for Ishtar.
It is possible that the -*Queen of Heaven
mentioned in Jer 7:18 and 44:17-19.25
refers to Ishtar.
IV. Bibliography
T. ABUsCH, Ishtar's Proposal and Gilga-
mesh's Refusal: An Interpretation of The
Gilgamesh Epic, Tablet 6, Lines 1-79, HR
26 (1986) 143-187; T. FRYMER-KENSKY, /n
the Wake of the Goddesses (New York
1992) 25-31, 45-69, 222; B. GRONEBERG,
Die sumerisch-akkadische Inanna/Istar: Her-
maphroditos?. WO 17 (1986) 25-46; R.
Harris, Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a
Coincidence of Opposites, HR 31 (1991)
261-278; W. HEMPEL, A Catalog of Near
Eastern Venus Deities, SMS 4 (1982) 59-72;
T. JACOBSEN, The Treasures of Darkness
(New Haven & London 1976) 25-73, 135-
143; JACOBSEN, Mesopotamian Religions,
ER 9 (New York 1987) 458-461; W. G.
LAMBERT, The Cult of [Star of Babylon, Le
455
ISIS
Temple et le Culte (CRRA 20; Istanbul
1975) 104-106; J. J. M. Roserts, The
Earliest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore &
London 1972) 37-40; W. H. P. RÓMER,
Religion of Ancient Mesopotamia, Historia
Religionum: Handbook for the History of
Religion, vol. 1 (ed. C. J. Bleeker & G.
Widengren; Leiden 1969) 115-194, esp.
132-133; H. L. J. VaNsriPHOUT, Inanna/
Ishtar as a Figure of Controversy, Struggles
of Gods (ed. H. G. Kippenberg ct al., Relig-
ion and Reason 31; Berlin 1984) 225-238;
C. WiLckE, Inanna/Iitar, RLA 5 (1976) 74-
87.
T. ABUSCH
ISIS
I. Isis Qst, Gk Eiog, "loig, Copt ëse,
isi), perhaps a theophoric element in the per-
sonal name ‘TapBpec, Jambres (2 Tim 3:8-9,
var. Mambres); the identification seems very
doubtful. Like -*Osiris, Isis does not belong
to the early attested deities but makes her
first appearance only in the Pyramid texts
where she plays, however, a very prominent
role (end of the 5th dynasty, over 70 occur-
rences). The etymology of her name is not
clear. Her symbol which she often wears as
a headdress is the seat or throne s.t which
also serves in writing her name, but this wri-
ting has to be regarded as defective because
her name must be transcribed as zst. (OSING,
MDAIK 30 [1974] 94-102).
II. Until the Late Period, the nature of
Isis remains purely ‘constellative’, i.e. show-
ing no autonomous identity outside her roles
in the Osiris-Isis-Horus myth. Within this
cycle, however, she shows an unusual var-
iety of aspects. The myth or cycle of myths
can be arranged in five major episodes:
1. the murder of Osiris by Seth and the
quest of Isis for the scattered limbs of the
corpse; 2. the ritual lamentations and glori-
fications (or 'transfigurations', Eg s;hw) of
the dead Osiris by Isis and Nephthys, the
temporary reanimation of the dead body and
the conception of -*Horus by Isis; 3. the
bringing up of Horus by Isis in the Delta
swamps and his protection against all kinds
of dangers and persccution; 4. the combat of
Horus and Seth; 5. the triumph of Horus and
his initiation, by Isis, into his kingdom.
Isis appears not only as a protagonist in
almost all of these episodes but she plays
very different roles in them. In ] and 2 she
appears as the ideal sister-wife and widow,
in 3 and 5 as the ideal mother. In 4 she
experiences a loyalty crisis, because she
cannot completely forget that Seth is her
brother. In 5 she appears as the mother of
the reigning king. Moreover, the different
episodes of the myth form the basis of dif-
ferent discourses: | and 2 are treated in
funerary texts, 3 in medico-magical texts, 4
in funerary, magical and literary texts and 5
in royal inscriptions. Only Plutarch and
Diodorus give a coherent narration of the
whole cycle. This multiplicity of mythical
roles and aspects may to a certain extent
explain the enormous and ever increasing
importance of Isis in Egyptian society. 1 and
2 connect her with the realm of the dead and
the funerary rites, 3 with the sphere of medi-
cine and domestic magic, 3, 4 and 5 with
royal ideology (MONSTER 1968).
The only cult of Isis outside the Osirian
context is Koptos where Isis is worshipped
as both wife and mother of -Min. Min, the
ancient god of Koptos, has been identified
with Horus and enters with Isis into a
'Kamutef'-constellation. (The Egyptian ex-
pression means “bull of his mother” and
denotes a god who by marrying his mother
as father begets himself in his son-form. It is
the usual epithet of Min.)
In the New Kingdom the nature of Isis
extends even beyond the different spheres
that find expression in the mythical cycle of
Osiris. The reason of this expansion lies in
her identification with other goddesses and
above all with -*Hathor. Originally, Isis and
Hathor denote a contrast within the over-
arching concept of femininity. Isis is the
goddess of family and motherhood, Hathor
the goddess of love and beauty. Hathor has
strong cosmic associations: she is the god-
dess of heaven and, like Nut, the heavenly
cow. By identification with Tefnut, the
lioness and daughter of the sun god >Re
456
ISIS
and "solar eye" whom he placed at his front
as Uraeus serpent and symbol of rulership,
Hathor-Tefnut is the companion of the sun
god and the personification of the celestial
light, both in its life-giving and aggressive
aspects. [sis owes her cosmic aspect to her
early identification with Sothis (= Sirius),
the star announcing the annual inundation.
She is thus associated with the year and the
—Nile, Isis-Hathor becomes an all-including
deity: the mistress of heaven, the solar eye;
the lady of the year and the inundation; the
mistress of erotic love and of husbandry,
motherhood and female fertility; the per-
sonification of pharaonic kingship who
elects and initiates the legitimate heir; the
chief magician who overcomes all dangers
that menace the solar course, the life of the
patient (especially the child), and even the
fatal blows of death. A further step in this
process of expansion is reached in the Late
Period, when Isis and -*Neith merge. Isis
then transcends even the border of sex and
assumes the character of a male-female pri-
maeval deity beyond creation and differen-
tiation. Until then, the cosmogonic di-
mension was missing in her theology. In her
newly acquired identity of Neith, she in-
herits the characteristics of the “cosmic god”
of Ramesside theology: a god who is One
and All, hidden and manifest, transcendent
and immanent, who created the world by
transforming him/herself into the world and
who preserves the world and each individual
being by his/her will, planning and order.
Another decisive factor in the singular
career of Isis was “the victory of Osiris”
which characterised late Egyptian religiosity.
The festivals of Osiris: the Khoiak rites con-
sisting both in public processions by land
and by water and in mysteries performed in
secluded parts of the temple such as the
fabrication of a com mummy, the perfor-
mance of the "hourly vigil" (Stunden-
wachen), the lamentations by Isis and
Nephthys etc. were celebrated in all the re-
ligious centres of Egypt. Osiris and Isis
became the quintessential representatives of
Egyptian religion (cf. Plutarch, De Iside).
Egyptian texts in Graeco-Roman temples
identify Isis with all Egyptian goddesses
(see, e.g.,. Daumas, Les dieux de l'Égypte
[Paris 1965] 98). Greek texts extend these
identifications beyond the borders of Egypt
and include all known goddesses from
Greece to Anatolia, Babylonia and Abes-
sinia (POxy 1380, see B. P. GRENFELL &
A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Xt
{London 1915] 196-202 Nr. 1380; B. A.
VAN GRONINGEN, De papyro Oxyrhynchita
1380 [Groningen 1921]; hymns of Isidorus
at Medinet Madi, see M. Torri, Ausge-
wühlte Texte der Isis-Serapis-Religion [Sub-
sidia Epigrapha XII; Hildesheim 1985] 76-
82 [& lit.]; Apuleius, Met. XI, see J. G.
GriFFITHs, Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis-
Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI) [EPRO 39;
Leiden 1975] 70-71, 114-123) She is
praised as *polymorphos' and 'polyonyma'
or ‘myrionyma’, the One and All, wna qui es
omnia (L. VIDMAN, Sylloge inscriptionum
religionis Isiacae et Sarapidae [Berlin 1969]
Nr. 502.), mouné su ei hapasai (Medinet
Madi, F. DUNAND, Le syncrétisme isiaque à
la fin de l'époque hellénistique, Les syncré-
tismes dans les religions grecque et
romaine, Colloque de Strasbourg, Biblio-
thèque des Centres d'Etudes supérieures
spécialisés [eds. F. Dunand, P. Levéque;
Paris 1973] 79-93).
Her main cult centre was Philae at the
first cataract, a temple founded only in the
Late Period and rebuilt and enlarged in
magnificent fashion by Ptolemaic rulers and
Roman emperors. In antiquity it became a
famous centre for pilgrimage from all parts
of the world. It was the last Egyptian temple
to be closed in Byzantine times and was
active until 537 ce. Cult centres and com-
munities of Isis spread all over the Mediter-
ranean world in the Hellenistic and Roman
eras. These cults seem to be rather different
from Egyptian religion and to belong rather
to Hellenistic mystery cults (but sce JUNGE
1979 [& lit]). The syncretistic Graeco-Egypt-
ian Isis-religion finds its literary expression
in ‘aretalogics’, hymns in the Ist ps.sg. in
Greek language but following Egyptian
modes of thought and expression (D. MUL-
LER, Ägypten und die griechischen Isis-
457
ISIS
Aretalogien [Berlin 1961]; J. BERGMAN, Ich
bin Isis. Studien zum ägyptischen Hinter-
grund der griechischen Isis-Aretalogien
(Uppsala 1968]; LdÀ 1:425-434 [& lit].)
III. The name of the Ammonite King
Baalis (ba'dlís; Jer 40:14) has been inter-
preted as a misspelling of an original name
Ba‘al-Isis (F. ZaYADINE, Die Zeit der
K6nigreiche Edom, Moab and Ammon, Der
Kónigsweg. 9000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur in
Jordanien und Palestina [Köln 1987] 120).
In view of the recently found Ammonite
seal-inscription Imlkn’r ‘bd b‘lys "to
Milkom-Or, the servant of Baalisha’ (ed. L.
G. Herr, BA 48 [1985] 169-172) the name of
the Ammonite king should be construed as a
derivation from ba'dlisà' 'My lord helps;
My lord is noble" (B. BEckiNG, JSS 38
[1993] 15-26), however.
The question of whether or not the el-
ement -es in the name Jambres (one of the
two Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres
who opposed -Mosces according to 2 Tim
3:8) derives from the name Isis is hard to
decide, although nowadays a derivation
from the Hebrew root MRH (to be rebellious,
contentious) is most often assumed. On the
various Jewish, Christian, and Pagan tradi-
tions concerning these two persons and the
origin of their names, sec A. PIETERSMA,
The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the
Magicians (Leiden 1994).
IV. Bibliography
E. A. ARSLAN (ed.). Iside. Il mito, il miste-
ro, la magia (Milano 1997); J. BERGMAN,
Isis, LdA 111:186-203 [& lit}; F. DuNAND,
Le culte d'Isis dans le bassin oriental de la
Méditerranée, 3 vols. (EPRO 26; Leiden
1973); F. JUNGE, Isis und die ägyptischen
Mysterien, Aspekte der spätägyptischen
Religion (ed. W. Westendorf; Göttingen
1979) 93-115; M. MUNSTER, Untersuchun-
gen zur Göttin Isis vom Alten Reich bis zum
Ende des Neuen Reichs (MÄS 11; Berlin
1968); TRAN TAM TinH, LIMC V.1 (1990)
761-796.
J. ASSMANN
458
JACKALS C"
I. The noun "iyyím, the plural of 1 ^N*,
is attested in Isa 13:22; 34:14 (1QIsa ?yy?-
mym [?]) and Jer 50:39. It is generally de-
rived either from Eg Jw or jwjw 'dog' (cf.
Arab. ibn ?àwà 'jackal') or from III ^N* (<
UN*) '(ghosty) islander, beach demon,
goblin’ (HALAT 37; Ges.'8 44). The ancient
versions (LXX óvoxévraupot, Vg sirenes,
onocentauri, fauni) imagine a tailless ape, or
in a derived sense an impure demon. Even
if the meaning of the word "iyyím is contro-
versial, nothing speaks against the assump-
tion that a zoologically definable species can
also be meant by it.
Il. If the derivation from Eg jw or jwjw
is correct, then the "iyyím would belong to
the family of (wild) canines, and their name
could perhaps be explained onomatopocic-
ally (‘howler’). The distinction to the ‘jackal’
(Heb tan, Canis aurea) cannot be exactly
determined. The tannim (jackals, wolves?)
possibly represent a subspecies distinct from
the 7iyyimn.
HI. It is possible that the 7iyyii (‘jackals’)
of Isa 13:22; 34:14 and Jer 50:39 are zoolog-
ically definable animals, i.e. nocturnal con-
sumers of carrion, who appear in pairs or in
packs. However, this cannot be conclusively
proven. The uncertainty of the identification
is made clear by the following consider-
ations.
In Isa 13:22 the "iyyfm stand in parallel to
the fannim (jackals, wolves?); therefore
these ’iyyîim could be referring to animals.
Both of these species ‘hide themselves’ or
‘howl’ in their chosen abodes. In Isa 34:14
the *siyyint (‘wild beasts’) meet with the
*iyyvim; the *§€irim (->‘satyrs’) also join
them. Consequently the context is demonic.
Jer 50:39 reports a similarly uncanny assem-
bly: devastated Babylon is populated by
siyytm, "iyyim, and bénét ya‘and (ostriches).
It therefore appears that the ambivalence of
zoologically definable species and demonic
beings is intentional even in the case of the
*iyyim. Their association with theriomorphic
demons such as the siyyim, the $@ trim, and
the demon —Lilith, is intended to place the
aspect of the counter-human world in the
foreground (cf. e.g. the topic of ‘Sodom and
Gomorrah’ in Jer 49:18).
IV. Bibliography
F. S. BODENHEIMER, Animal and Man in
Bible Lands (Leiden 1960) Index s.v. canis
aurea; E. FIRMAGE, Zoology. ABD 6 (1992)
1109-1167, esp. 1151-1159; H. G. FISCHER,
Hunde, LdA 3 (1980) 77-81; C. FREVEL,
*im, TWAT 8 (1995) 701-709: M. Gora,
‘Dämonen’ statt ‘Eulen’ in Jes 13,21. BN 62
(1992) 16-17; O. KEEL, M. KÜCHLER & C.
UEHLINGER, Orte und Landschaften der
Bibel 1: Geographisch-geschichtliche Lan-
deskinde (Ziirich/Einsiedeln/K6ln/Gottingen
1984) 147; P. MAIBERGER, Hyine, NBL 7
(1992) 206; G. WANKE, Dümonen II, TRE 8
(1981) 275-277 [& lit.].
B. JANOWSKI
JACOB z()pr
I. Jacob son of Isaac is the eponym of
the. béné ya'ügób (Gen 34:7.13; 35:5; Ps
77:16). more frequently called bét ya'áqób.
He became the most colourful and revered
ancestor of the early Israclite confederation.
The name Jacob is most probably a hypo-
coristicon of Jacob-El frequently found in
Mesopotamia from the carly second millen-
nium BCE onwards (FREEDMAN 1963:125-
126; De Vaux 1971:192-193) and also car-
ried by a l6th dynasty Hyksos-ruler (DE
Vaux 1971:193 and n. 85, see however on
the theophoric element -ir, not to be
equated with i/, Warp 1976). In the New
Kingdom topographical lists, a locality situ-
459
JACOB
ated in Palestine called Ya‘qub’ilu is men-
tioned (Anurruv 1984:200). The name ap-
pears also in other hypocoristic forms in
Hebrew (1 Chron 4:36), in Ugarit and
elsewhere. The clement *Yaqubu could even
become a divine epithet in the Ugaritic PN
Abdi(lR)-ya-qub-bu (for similar Amorite
names, compare Z/abdi-Tarim ARM XVI/1,
267; A-hi-i-ku-ba and — Si-me-ta-gu-ub
KIENAST 1978).
In the astro-mythological interpretation
popular by the end of the 19th century,
Jacob is said to represent the nocturnal sky,
catching the heel (*agéb) of his predecessor,
the Sun. In his capacity as the nightly sky,
Jacob has to engage in a vigorous fight
against Esau, the Red and Laban, the
White. They are manifestations of the Sun
in the moming and in the evening (GoLD-
ZIHER 1876). MEYER thought that these
sagas of rivalry between twin brothers
reflected ancient mythology, adducing the
myth of Samémroumos (Hypsouranios) and
Ousóos in support of this view (1906:278;
ATTRIDGE & ODEN 1981:43). Israclite tradi-
tion however transformed the mythological
figures into gencalogical heroes. In his opin-
ion this hero (or deity) Jacob would have
been at home in Transjordan; he was pre-
sumably the local numen worshipped in
Jacob-El (MEYER 1906:281).
II. Genealogical tradition concerning
Jacob is extremely complicated, especially
because of his identification with the other
ancestor Israel (Gen 32:28; 2 Kgs 17:34).
The connection between both ancestral per-
sonalities is still a much debated and un-
solved problem. Israel is not a topographical
name originally, but an ancient tribal
designation, which as early as the song of
Deborah (11th century BCE) is attested as the
name of a confederation of tribes. Outside
biblical sources it is not only a common
Semitic personal name from the earliest
times onwards (Ebla /§-ra-il(pINGIR) = Ug
ySrif, but in Merenptah’s stela of the Sth
year (ca. 1208 BCE) it is also a demographic
entity in Middle Canaan of unfortunately
unclarified ramifications. As a topographical
name it does not seem to be attested before
the Divided Monarchy and then only re-
stricted to the Kingdom of Israel (also in the
Mesha-stela and the stela of Tel Dan, ca.
850 BCE).
The historical existence of a tribal fore-
father (and a tribe) called Israel originally
distinct from Jacob can be neither excluded
nor confirmed. Judging from his name and
saga Jacob was neither a personified mythic
concept nor a deity. Jacob was, even more
than the elusive ancestor Israel, a genuine
tribal ancestor, presumably of Amorite
(Proto-Aramean?, Deut 26:5) or Transjor-
danian provenance. Later tradition con-
nected him closely with Bethel, perhaps
because of his identification with the Cisjor-
danian ancestor [sracl. In any case, in early
prophecy Jacob son of Isaac is firmly rooted
in northern Israelite tradition (Amos 3:13:
6:8; 7:2; 8:7; Hos 10:11; 12:3-6).
III. In Gen 50:12-13 (P) Jacob's burial
and tomb in Hebron (Machpelah, Harim al-
Khalil; JEREMIAS 1958:90-94) arc reported,
but critical scholarship supposed that an
early Israelite tradition of Jacob's own
sepulchre in an otherwise unknown Goren
Ha'atad ('the threshing floor of Atad') in
Transjordan (Gen 47:29-30; 50:1-11) was
converted into this Judean Hebron tradition
(MEYER 1906:280-281; NorH 1948:97;
slightly differently WESTERMANN 1982:227-
228). It is impossible to say whether this
original place of Jacob’s tomb was in tum
identical to Jacob-el. If so, this early lo-
cation was forgotten in the course of tra-
dition. Other tribal and topographical names
of the same type -'Ishmael, Jerahmcel.
Iphtah-el, Jabneel, Jekabzeel, Yibleam and
perhaps also Asriel = Israc] (LEMAIRE 1973)
testify to the fact that ancestors of quite a
number of clans lived on in places called
after them, most probably because their
veneration played a role in the community’s
tradition.
The Samaritan tradition presents no real
alternative to Jacob’s tomb at Hebron, which
seems to imply that it simply no longer ex-
isted in post-exilic times, when the original-
ly Judean cult of the saints at Hebron was
shared by Jews and Idumeans alike, to be
eventually crowned with the magnificant
mausoleum ascribed to Herod (JEREMIAS
460
JAEL — JAGHUT
1958:90-94). The Samaritan tomb of the
sons of Jacob at Shechem (Nablus) is not so
much an echo of Jacob = Israel's original
home, but rather an extension of the Joseph
connection (Acts 7:15-16; Jerome, Ep. 108:
13; JEREMIAS 1958:36-38). Early Jewish,
Samaritan and Christian literature reveals
extensive knowledge of the cult of the bibli-
cal saints, in particular the intercession of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the Machpelah
Cave in Hebron (Mark 12:27; ° JEREMIAS
1958:133-138).
IV. Bibliography
S. Aultuv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient
Egyptian Documents (Jerusalem 1984); D.
N. FREEDMAN, The Original Name of Jacob,
IEJ 13 (1963) 125-126; I. GOLDZIHER, Der
Mythos bei den Hebrüern und seine
geschichtliche Entwicklung (Leipzig 1876;
reprint 1987); J. JEREMIAS, Heiligengrüber
in Jesu Umwelt (Gottingen 1958); B.
Kienast, Die altbabylonische Briefe und
Urkunden aus Kisurra (Wiesbaden 1978);
A. Lemaire, Asriel, Srl, Israël et l'origine
de la confédération israélite, VT 23 (1973)
239-243; E. MEYER, Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstámme (Halle 1906); M. NOTH,
Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs
(Stuttgart 1948); R. DE Vaux, Histoire
ancienne d’Israél (Paris 1971); W. A.
Warp, Some Personal Names of the Hyksos
Period Rulers and Notes on the Epigraphy
of their Scarabs, UF 8 (1976) 358-359; C.
WESTERMANN, Genesis 37-50 (BKAT 1⁄3;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982).
M. DIJKSTRA
JAEL “D
l. Jael at whose hands -*Sisera met his
death (Judg 4-5) has been interpreted as a
demythologized incarnation of the goddess
-Amaltheia (GARBINI 1978).
II. The principal motive for speculations
about the mythological background of Jael
is the conjectural connection between the
name Sisera (N7S°C) and the name (j)a-sas-
sa-ra in a votive text written in Minoan
‘Linear A’. The latter corresponds with Gk
XAIZAPA and belongs to Zeus
Krétogenés, the god bom on the isle of
Crete (G. PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, LAIZAPA,
La parola del passato 31 [1976] 123-128).
GARBINI argues that if the figure of Sisera
goes back to Zeus, then Jael must go back
to a figure of mythology as well. Since Jael
means ‘ibex’ or ‘wild goat’ (HALAT 402),
GARBINI believes that the biblical heroine is
a reflection of Amaltheia who is said to
have had the shape of a goat. Jael’s offering
of milk to the thirsty Sisera would be pat-
terned. upon Amaltheia's feeding of the
infant Zeus (1978:27-28).
This fanciful interpretation has failed to
camy conviction. Though Sisera's name is
often said not to be Semitic (cf. HALAT
710), the possibility of a Semitic etymology
should not be ruled out (cf. T. SCHNEIDER,
Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen
Quellen des Neuen Reiches [OBO 114; Frei-
burg/Góttingen 1992] 192, 260). A meaning
*Sun beams' (see H. BAUER, Die Gottheiten
von Ras Schamra, ZAW 51 [1933] 81-101,
esp. 83-84 n. 4, on the basis of Ar Sariya,
*to be resplendent, to shine") is conceivable.
Jacl, at any rate, is a perfectly Hebrew
name. It was not uncommon for Israelite
women to receive animal names (compare
e.g. Rachel, Deborah; J. J. Stamm, Hebrii-
sche Frauennamen, Beitrüge zur hebrdi-
schen und altorientalischen Namenkunde
(OBO 30; Freiburg/Géttingen 1980} 125-
126). Speculations about the mythological
prototype of Jac] rest entirely upon the
hypothetical identification of Sisera with
Zeus. As the latter identification is doubtful
at best, and since the biblical story makes
good sense without assuming Greek deities
in the background, Jael is most plausibly
regarded as the human character which the
biblical records convey she was.
III. Bibliography
G. GARBINI, Il cantico di Debora, La Paro-
la del passato 33 (1978) 5-31.
K. vAN DER TOORN
JAGHUT
I. The Edomite personal name Yé‘ts
(Gen 36:5.14.18; 1 Chr 1:35; 7:10; 8:39;
23:10.11; 2 Chr 11:19) has been interpreted
as a theophoric name comparable with the
461
JALAM — JAPHETH
Arabian lion god Yagit,‘the protector’, and
the Nabataean deity y‘wr (ROBERTSON
SMITH 1912). à
II. Islamic traditions refer to the worship
of a deity called Yagut among the pre-1slam-
ic tribe of the Madhig and in the area of
Gura& in Yemen. Qur'an Sura 71:20-25 and
Ibn al-Kalbi’s Book of Idols (ed. KLINKE-
ROSENBERGER 1942:34-35) interpret this
deity as one of the idols of the contempor-
aries of Noah. The meaning of the name
of this deity ‘he helps’ can be an indication
that Yagüt was a nick-name (WbMyth V1,
478).
In Nabataean personal names, a deity y^wt
occurs as a theophoric element. From Tha-
mudic personal names the deity is known as
ywi. He is especially present in Southern
Thamudic inscriptions from the area around
Ğuraš.
HII. In the Old Testament, Jeush is con-
sidered only as a human being (BARTLETT
1989:196). The name is borne by four per-
sons, only one of them of explicit Edomite
lineage. Besides, a y'$ occurs in Samaria
Ostracon 48:3. The name can be interpreted
as a hypocoristicon for '(God) helps' (NorH
IPN, 196) or for ‘(God) does’ (LEMAIRE
1977:53). An identification with Yagur is
improbable. :
IV. Bibliography
J. R. BARTLETT, Edom and the Edomites
(JSOTSup 77; Sheffield 1989); R. KLINKE-
ROSENBERGER, Das Götzenbuch (Winterthur
1942); A. LemMayRe, Inscriptions Hébra-
tques. I Les ostraca (LAPO 9; Paris 1977);
W. ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures and Essays
(London 1912).
B. BECKING
JALAM 00
I. The Edomite personal name Jalam/
Ya‘lam (Gen 36:5.14.18; 1 Chr 1:35) has
been considered a theophoric containing the
presumed Arabic animal-deity Jalam
‘Ibex’. (ROBERTSON SMITH 1912).
If. Unlike the other animal-deities pro-
posed by Robertson Smith (—>Jaghut;
— Ya'àq), Yalam is not attested in pre-Islam-
ic Arabic sources.
462
—
II. In the light of the evidence available,
it is impossible to decide whether the name
Jalam is theophoric or not. The name can be
interpreted alternatively as a hypocoristic
sentence name: ‘He is hidden’ (from ‘im 1)
or ‘He is dark’ (from ‘lm Il; cf. HALAT
402). In the Old Testament, Jalam occurs
only as a human being. The general theory
behind the proposal—names of animals used
in anthroponyms are reminiscent of animal
worship or totemism—has encountered
serious criticism. Jalam does not refer to an
Edomite or Arabian deity (BARTLETT 1989:
196).
IV. Bibliography
W. ROBERTSON SMITh, Lectures and Essays
(London 1912); *J. R. BARTLETT, Edom and
the Edomites (JSOT Suppl 77; Sheffield
1989).
B. BEckinc
JAPHETH nz
Il. The personal name Yepet/Yapheth
(Gen 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18-27; 10:1.2.21; 1
Chron 1:4.5; Jdt 2:25 refers to a place name
Japheth), does not have a clear Semitic ety-
mology, except for the popular interpretation
found in Gen 9:27: yapt ?élóhíim l&yepet,
“May God enlarge Japheth", suggesting a
connection between the name and I PTH ‘to
enlarge’ (HALAT 405-406; Layron 1990:
90). A relation with II PTH ‘to be youthful’
or with vPH, 'to be beautiful’, is also poss-
ible, though (Isaac 1992:641). Japheth has
been compared with the Greek Titan Jape-
tos.
II. In Greek literature “lanetdcg is known
as the Titan (Titans) father of Prometheus.
and the progenitor of humanity (Homer,
Ilias 8:479; Hesiod, Theogony 134. 507-525;
Apollodorus, Library, 1 2:3; NEiMAN 1986:
126; Hess 1993). Wrsr (1966:202-203):
lists four similarities between Japheth and:
Japetos: (1) The name itself. Jn the LXX:
Japheth is rendered as Tanetd¢ {this 1S:
however, incorrect]; (2) Japetos’ brother
castrates his father. West interprets Gen;
9:21-22 as Japheth's brother Ham doing th:
same to —Noah. This text, however, ofily
relates that Ham saw his father’s nakedness
JASON
(3) both characters are indirectly related to a
deluge: Japheth through Noah, Japetos
through his grandson Deucalion; (4) both
are related genealogically to Asia Minor.
There exist two different views to explain
the relation between Japhet and Japetos. On
the one hand, it has been suggested that
Japetos is a Greek interpretation of a
Hebrew Japheth (West 1966:203; HESS
1993). Alternatively, NEIMAN (1986) pro-
posed that in the lith century BCE the Sea
Peoples acted as intermediary between Hel-
lenes and Israelites. Through them the Israel-
ites knew the figure of Japetos, whom they
construed to be the ancestor of Hellenic and
Anatolian peoples. In view of historical
probability, the first interpretation mentioned
should be preferred.
III. In the Bible Japheth is not cast in a
heroic role. He is the youngest of the three
sons of Noah (Gen 5:32; 6:10). Together
with his brothers -^"Shem and Ham and their
respective wives he entered the ark and was
saved from the flood. In genealogical lists it
is recorded that Japheth had seven sons:
Gomer, -Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal,
Meshech and Tirash (Gen 10:2-5; 1 Chron
1:5-7). Japheth is thus depicted as the ances-
tor of peoples and tribes inhabiting lands
north of Canaan (Isaac 1992). This obser-
vation is underscored by the topographical
remarks in Jdt 2:25 and Jub 8:29; 9:7-13. In
Jewish traditions, Japheth occurs only in
genealogical contexts (e.g. 2 Enoch 73:5;
Apoc Adam 4:1; T. Sim 6:5; PsPhilo, LAB
1:22; 4:1-5).
IV. Bibliography
R. S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names
of Genesis 1-11 (AOAT 234; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1993) 31-32; E. Isaac, Japheth, ABD
3 (1992) 641-642; S. C. Layton, Archaic
Features of Canaanite Personal Names in
the Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta 1990);
D. NEIMAN, The Date and Circumstances of
the Cursing of Canaan, Biblical Motifs.
Origins and Transformations (A. Altman
ed.; Cambridge 1966) 113-134; M. L.
West, Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford 1966).
B. BECKING
JASON 'lácov
I. The name of Jason, the hero who led
the Argonauts in their quest for the Golden
Fleece, is borne by several persons in 2
Macc and in the NT.
II. The name ‘Iason’ appears to refer to
‘healing’ (tdopat), something for which one
might naturally turn in cult to a hero. Corre-
spondingly, Pindar referred to a myth that
the centaur Cheiron taught Jason medicine
(Pyrh. 4:119 and scholiast). Yet one cannot
help suspecting that this is folk-etymology,
given his father ‘Aison’ and a possible tribal
name and eponym ‘Iasos’ (speculatively,
DowpEN 1989:122). He reccives cult at
Abdera, Cyzicus, Colchis and inland in Asia
Minor, presumably in the wake of Argo
(FARNELL 1921:336).
Jason comes from Iolkos and presumably
belongs to an lolkan tradition of epic poetry
(WEsr 1985:137). The story of Jason, and
of the Argonauts, supports the view that
Iolkan poetry had been to our eyes the
closest to folk-tale (WEsr 1985:138). In the
6th century BCE (WEST 1985:164), Ps.-
Hesiod's Catalogue of Women (fr. 40) pre-
sents Jason as the son of Aison and has him
educated (like Achilles) by the centaur
Cheiron on Mt Pelion. He comes in from the
wild into the city of Iolkos, but is signalled
by his single sandal (in fact an actiology of
a custom found also amongst Aitolian war-
riors, Aristotle fr. 74) as a threat to King
Pelias. Pelias sends him, like -*Perseus or
—Herakles, on a dangerous mission—the
voyage of Argo (often seen as the first ship)
to recover the Golden Fleece. The story was
well known at an early date, for instance by
Homer, and in surviving literature is told by
Pindar (elliptically, Pythian 4) and notably
by Apollonios of Rhodes in Greek and Va-
lerius Flaccus in Latin. The sense of
achievement is rather undermined by the
figure of Medea, daughter of Aietes King of
Colchis. A barbarian who helps Jason by
betraying her home and family, who
butchers her brother and causes the
daughters of Pelias to mince their father, she
is eventually abandoned by Jason at Corinth
in preference for a Greek wife. This is the
scene for Euripides’ Medea, where she even
463
JASON
kills her (Jason's) children, though in local
cult the Corinthians annually atoned for
their own murder of the children. In any
case, Jason has no offspring and exists for
his achievements, not his genealogy. His
tale "highlights the crises of transition from
one stage of life to another" (SEGAL 1986:
56. based on insights of ViDAL-NAQUET),
bringing together kingship, sexuality, family
relationships, mastery of earth-born warriors
and leadership of seafaring heroes, as well
as religion and magic. In interpretation his
story has rewarded those interested in folk-
tale, shamanism, psychoanalysis, initiation
(and other) rituals, and historical colonis-
ation.
HI. Greeks chose names because of their
associations. This resonance in turn might
result from the meaning of the constituent
elements of the name (e.g. Kleo-menes,
‘Fame-might') or from previous bearers of
the name. The name might echo one’s
father’s, be the same as one’s grandfather's,
or even be that of a hero from the legendary
past. Heroic names, unusual before the mid-
Sth century BCE (FICK-BECHTEL 1894:314),
became commoner in the Hellenistic age as
the classical authors and culture became
canonical in response to a world grown
larger, more varied and more multi-cultural.
This process reached a peak in the second
century CE (Bowie 1974:199-200).
For the Hellenising Jews at the time of
the Maccabacan revolt, the adoption of res-
onant Greek names was a way of expressing
adhesion to Hellenic culture—as much as
building a gymnasium (1 Macc 1:14) at the
foot of a Temple Mount now perceived as
an acropolis. Thus the Jason who had sup-
planted his brother Onias in the high priest-
hood in 175 Bce (2 Macc 4:7-10) had,
according to Josephus (Ant. 12:239), as-
sumed this name in place of his own name
Jesus (Joshua) (cf. HENGEL 1974: I 64).
This is the man who “made his fellow-Jews
conform to the Greek way of life” (2 Macc
4:10). Plainly the phonetic shape of the
name Jason assisted its adoption in a Sem-
itic culture and this may explain its special
frequency. Elsewhere in the Bible we find:
(a) Jason of Cyrene, the author of the (pre-
sumably Greek) 5-book predecessor of 2
Macc (2:22) and maybe a contemporary of
the events; (b) Jason son of Eleazar, emis-
sary sent to Rome by Judas Maccabacus (1
Macc 8:17, also Jos., Ant. 12:415, 419, 13:
169); (c) a ‘kinsman’ of Paul sending greet-
ings through him at Rom 16:21, presumably
the same as the Christian sympathiser at
Thessalonica, the host of Paul and Silas
(Acts 17:5-9).
The name is extremely common in the
Eastern Mediterranean and its associations
may be correspondingly vague. FRASER-
MATTHEWS (1987) list 183 occurrences, a
great many dating from the last centuries
BCE and the first century CE—and many of
these in Cyrenaica where there was a sub-
stantial Jewish population.
IV. Bibliography
E. BowrE, Greeks and their Past in the
Second Sophistic, Studies in Ancient Society
(ed. M. I. Finley; London 1974) 166-209; B.
K. BRASWELL, A Commentary on the
Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin 1988)
esp. 6-23 [& Lit]; K. DowpEN, Death and
the Maiden (London 1989); L. R. FARNELL,
Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality
(Oxford 1921); A. Fick & F. BECHTEL, Die
griechischen Personennamen nach ihrer Bil-
dung erklärt und systematisch geordnet (2nd
ed.; Göttingen 1894); E. FRAENKEL,
Namenwesen, PW 16 (1935) 1611-70; P. M.
FRASER & E. MATTHEWS (eds.), A Lexicon
of Greek Personal Names, vol. I: The
Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica (Oxford
1987); M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellen-
ism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine
during the Early Hellenistic period, Eng. tr.
(London 1974); K. MEuLI, Odyssee und
Argonautika (Berlin 1921); C. SEGAL, Pin-
dar's Mythmaking: The Fourth Pythian Ode
(Princeton 1986); P. VIDAL-NAQUET, Le
chasseur noir (Pans 1981); M. L. West,
The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (Oxford
1985).
K. DowDEN
464
JEPHTHAH’S DAUGHTER
JEPHTHAH’S DAUGHTER
I. The story of the unnamed daughter
of Jephthah is told in Judges 11. Jephthah
vows that, if ^ Yahweh will give him vic-
tory over the Ammonites, he will offer up to
Yahweh the one who first comes out to meet
him when he returns home (v 31). This turns
out to be his unnamed daughter. Jephthah's
daughter accepts the consequences of her
father's vow, but asks that she and her fe-
male companions be permitted to go into the
mountains so that they can lament. Her
father grants this request and, at the end of
two months, she returns home and her father
offers her up as a holocaust sacrifice (‘6/a)
to Yahweh. Thereafter, for four days every
year, it became customary for “the daughters
of Israel” to commemorate her (v 40).
Because the story of the sacrifice of Jeph-
thah’s daughter explicitly functions as the
foundation legend for the annual four-day
nte, it can be argued that Jephthah’s
daughter has attained the more-than-mere-
mortal status of a culture heroine.
~. Because she is referred to in the biblical
text simply as "Jephthah's daughter", it is
not possible to discuss the etymology or the
meaning of her name. It can be noted, how-
éver, that in Christian and Jewish tradition
she has been given various meaningful
iames (see, for instance, Pséudo-Philo’s
mag 40).
SI. The precise story of Jephthah’s
dunghisi does not appear outside the
Hebrew Bible in the literature of any con-
temporary culture. However, numerous
scholars have observed similarities between
Jephthah’s daughter and various Greek
anythological heroines, most frequently Iphi-
‘geneia and Kore/Persephone. Day (1989)
fers the most sustained discussion in
vour of seeing meaningful parallels among
€ stories of Jephthah's daughter, Iphi-
geneia and Kore. The viability of the paral-
S; she suggests is dependent on her inter-
‘Pletation of the nature of the annual rite
dfüentioned in the biblical text (see below).
Marcus (1986) presents the most sustained
aigument against seeing meaningful paral-
ais among the stories. A few scholars have
proposed connecting Jephthah's daughter's
lamenting in the mountains with mourning
the death of male deities, for example
Baal (Gray 1957:53), ^Adonis (ROBERT-
SON 1982:339-340) and —Eshmun (Prck-
HAM 1987:84). Given that the biblical text
states that the lament is related to the fact
that Jephthah's daughter is a bétülá (see
below) and not to the death of a god, the
proposals connecting the lament with
mourning the death of a male deity are
unsubstantiated and hence unconvincing.
TH. It is clear from the biblical text that
the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s
daughter functioned as the foundation
legend for an annual women’s rite. Hence
an understanding of the role that Jephthah’s
daughter played in Israelite tradition is con-
tingent upon determining the nature of the
commemorative rite. BosrRÓM (1935:115-
20) interpreted this rite as a survival in
Israelite tradition of a religious practice
commonly referred to in the scholarly litera-
ture as ‘sacred prostitution’ or ‘cultic sex’.
More recently, however, serious doubts have
been raised about whether sacred prosti-
tution ever existed in the ancient Near East
(ODEN 1987:131-153; BIRD 1989:75-94),
and the burden of proof has shifted onto
those who would continue to argue for its
existence. To date, no convincing arguments
have been forthcoming, hence, Bostróm's
interpretation must be discarded. The only
other sustained hypothesis is that put for-
ward by BAL (1988:46-52.65-68) and Day
(1989), who independently argue that the
story recounts the alleged origin of a rite
that marked a transition from one stage to
another in the life-cycle of Israelite females.
Both base their arguments on understanding
the term bétülfm (vv 37 and 38) as referring
to an age group/social status rather than
meaning 'virginity', as it is typically trans-
Jated in English Bibles. Also, both assume
that the activities comprising the rite bear
some direct relationship to the activities
described in the story. So if the story is
about a life-cycle lament, then the rite
centres on this same activity. Following this
interpretation, Jephthah’s daughter can be
465
JEREMIEL
understood as a culture heroine. Her story is
the foundation legend for an annual rite in
ancient Israel that socially acknowledged a
young woman's nubility and hence her
marriageability.
IV. Bibliography
M. BAL, Death and Dissymmetry: The Poli-
tics of Coherence in the Book of Judges
(Chicago 1988); BAL, Anti-Covenant; Coun-
ter-Reading Women's Lives in the Hebrew
Bible (Sheffield 1989); P. Birp, ‘To Play
the Harlot’: An Inquiry into an Old Testa-
ment Metaphor, Gender and Difference in
Ancient Israel (ed. P. L. Day; Minneapolis
1989) 75-94; G. BosTRÓM, Proverbiastudien
(Lund 1935); A. BRELICH, Symbol of a
Symbol, Myths and Symbols (ed. J. M. Kita-
gawa & C. H. Long; Chicago 1969) 195-
207; C. A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent:
First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical
Women (Louisville 1992); P. L. Dav, From
the Child Is Born the Woman: The Story of
Jephthah’s Daughter [& lit], Gender and
Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. P. L. Day;
Minneapolis 1989) 58-74; J. C. Exum, Mur-
der They Wrote: Ideology and the Manipu-
lation of Female Presence in Biblical Narra-
tive, USQR 43 (1989) 19-39 {reprinted in
The Pleasure of Her Text (ed. A. Bach;
Philadelphia. .1990). 45-67]; Exum, The
Tragic Vision and Biblical Narrative: The
Case of Jephthah, Signs and Wonders (ed. J.
C. Exum; Atlanta 1989) 59-84; E. FUCHS,
Marginalization, Ambiguity, Stlencing: The
Story of Jephthah’s Daughter, Journal of
Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (1989) 35-45;
T. H. GASTER, Myth, Legend and Custom in
the Old Testament (New York 1969); J.
Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (Leiden
1957); A. HENRICHS, Human Sacrifice in
Greek Religion: Three Case Studies, Le
sacrifice dans antiquité. Entretiens sur
l'antiquité classique, vol. 27 (Geneva 1980)
195-242; K. KEUXENS, Richter 11, 37-38:
Rite de Passage und Ubersetzungsprobleme,
BN 19 (1982) 41-42; D. MARCUS, Jephthah
and His Vow (Lubbock, TX. 1986); R. A.
ODEN Jr., Religious Identity and the Sacred
Prostitution Accusation, The Bible without
Theology (San Francisco 1987) 131-153; B.
PsCKHAM, Phoenicia and the Religion of
Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence, Ancien;
Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank
Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller et al; Phila-
delphia 1987) 79-99; N. ROBERTSON, The
Ritual Background of the Dying God in
Cyprus and Syro-Palestine, HTR 75 (1985)
313-359; W. RUDOLPH, Práparierte Jung-
frauen? ZAW 34 (1963) 65-73; W. O.
SYPHERD, Jephthah and His Daughter: A
Study in Comparative Literature (Newark,
Del. 1948); P. Triste, Texts of Terror
(Philadelphia 1984) 93-116; G. J. WENHAM,
bétüláh 'A Girl of Marriageable Age', VT
22 (1972) 326-348.
P. L. Day
JEREMIEL WOT
I. An angel bearing this name is at-
tested in this form only in 4 Ezra (4:36), i.e.
in a work that belongs only to a part of the
Vg-tradition. The name probably derives
from the Hebrew root rim, ‘to be high,
exalted’. Since the ‘-el’ ending already in-
cludes the theophoric element, one should
see in the beginning ‘ye-’ part of the conju-
gation of a Hebrew verb in the Hifil-clause.
The meaning, then, would be ‘God will/may
exalt me’.
In 4 Ezra the angel is mentioned as the
one who answers the questions of the dead
concerning their future, i.e. the day of the
last judgment and their final exaltation; thus
Jeremiel expresses by his very name the
hope for the future exaltation of the dead
righteous ones.
II. The Syriac version reads at this point
‘Ramae!’ instead of Jeremiel. In that form
the (Syriac!) 2 Bar knows Ramael as the
angel appointed over true visions (55:3; 63:6
cp. 56:1; that might be the same angel as the
one in 3 Bar 11:7), which shows that the
name of this ange! has considerably changed
in the course of the translations. This may
explain the fact that Ramiel, Remiel,
Rumiel, and Eremiel, are often variants of
one and the same angel (cf. MicHL 1962:n0.
179, 182, 187). The Apoc. Zeph. describes
Eremie] as the angel presiding over Hades
466
JESUS
er M a MÀ —————
(6:11-15, OTP 1 497-515; cf. Rev. 1:13-15;
Dan 10:5-6). An angel Ramie! is one of the
four archangels in a group of manuscripts in
Sib. Or. 2:215-217, there again connected
with the last judgment. In this military con-
text Ramael is identified as the anonymous
angel mentioned in 2 Kgs 19:35 and Isa
37:36.
Though the different names seem to point
to the same angel, it is not necessary to
identify him with Jerachmecl as variously
suggested. On the other hand, the quite simi-
lar names of the fallen angels according to /
Enoch 6:7 (Ram'el); 69:2 (Rumiel) and the
archangel (one out of seven) according to /
Enoch 20:8 (Remiel, only in the Greek)
wam not to take all these names as one. The
different names are attested in later litera-
ture, so in the Coptic magical papyri
(Jeremicl: KnorP 1930/1931:XLVII 2, 12;
cf. Rumiel: MÜLLER 1959:230, 303, 315), in
the Sefer Ha-Razim (MARGALIOTH 1966:I,
211), a Jewish amulet (NAVEH & SHAKED
1985 4,3) and in the hekhaloth texts
(SCHAFER 1981:§§ 212. 230. 233 and more
often); for astrological parallels cf. PETER-
SON 1926:no. 91.
III. Bibliography
A. M. Knorr, Ausgewählte koptische
Zaubertexte 1-3 (Bruxelles 1930/1931); J.
MicHL, Engel V (Katalog der Engelnamen)
RAC 5 (1962) 200-239; C. D. G. MÜLLER,
Die Engellehre der koptischen Kirche
(Wiesbaden 1959); J. NAVEH & S. SHAKED,
Amulets and Magic Bowls. Aramaic Incan-
tations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem/Leiden
1985); E. PETERSON, Engel- und Dámonen-
namen. Nomina barbara, RhMus 75 (1926),
392-421, no. 51 and 91; P. SCHAFER, Synop-
se zur Hekhalot-Literatur in Zusammen-
arbeit mit M. Schlüter und H. G. von Mutius
hrsg. (Tübingen 1981); M. MARGALIOTH,
Sepher Ha-Razim. A Newly Recovered
Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period.
Collected from Genizah Fragments and
other Sources (Jerusalem 1966) [Heb].
M. Macu
JESUS ‘Incovs
I. lésous is the Greek form of the
Hebrew personal name yéhdSii‘a stamped
after its postexilic variant ye3á'a. The votive
name means "Yahweh is help (salvation)" as
rightly interpreted by Philo, Mur. 121. 1t is
derived from the root vS*, frequent in other
Hebrew and Semitic personal names, too
(TWAT 3 1037-1038). In its postexilic form
the theophoric element is no longer clearly
recognizable. The etymologies in Sir 46:1]
and Matt 1:21 only perccive the verb ys* “to
save”. In the OT the most famous and most
often mentioned bearer of the name is the
successor of Moses, Joshua, the son of Nun.
Extrabiblical documents (Ep.Arist., Jos.,
ossuaries, papyri) attest its popularity until
the beginning of the 2nd century ck in both
its Aramaic and Greck form.
The NT has /ésous twice for the OT hero,
3 or 4 times for other persons, and 913
times for "Jesus of Nazareth". This distinc-
tive apposition occurs 19 times in the Gos-
pels and Acts; it was necessary because of
the frequency of the name and was perhaps
already used in Jesus' lifetime. Anarthrous
lésous (with or without the article) prevails
in the Gospels and in Rev (574 out of 600
examples), while in the NT letters the name
usually is combined with titles like ->Chris-
tos, -*Kyrios (EWNT 2 444). The fact indi-
cates that the name in itself designates the
historical man; it became a divine name
only in the development of post-Easter faith.
II. It is notoriously difficult to recon-
struct a coherent view of Jesus’ rather short
activity, because in the Gospels we have
only heterogeneous fragments of tradition
transmitted in different layers and often
formed and supplemented by the post-Easter
experience. Nevertheless, we shall make
such an attempt. Generally, it is agreed that
Jesus’ fundamental prophetic mission was to
announce that the Reign of God was draw-
ing close. Its explicit formulation is only
preserved in a redactional summary (Mark
1:15) and echoed in the commission of
Jesus’ messengers (Matt 10:7b//Luke 10:9b),
but it constitutes the background of Jesus’
promises—notably the original beatitudes
467
JESUS
Luke 6:20-2]—and of his parabolic warn-
ings to exploit the last opportunity (e.g.
Luke 16:1-7). "This implies that God's
Reign, when overtaking the unprepared, will
turn into judgement. Here, Jesus is at one
with John the Baptist, only he does not offer
a sacramental rite to avoid the doom, but
proclaims a general amnesty for every mem-
ber of Israel, the outcast included. This is
reflected in the parables dealing with God’s
mercy on the lost (e.g. Luke 15). Whether
Jesus himself forgave sins individually—in
the name of God or even with the same au-
thority as God (Mark 2:5b; cf. Luke 7:48
probably dependent on this passage)—can-
not be established with certainty. God's ini-
tiative of forgiveness is supposed to be fol-
lowed on the side of man by repentance
(Mark 1:15; Matt 11:21-22/Luke 10:13-14;
Matt 12:41/fLuke 11:32; Luke 13:1-5). In
this respect too, Jesus resumes the appeal of
the Baptist. Exhortations such as contained
in the Sermon on the Mount illustrate the
change of mind Jesus wished to see come
about. Such ethical teaching is sapiential in
style and motivation. Thus, it does not point
to the imminent Reign of God as, for
example, the so-called "entrance-logia" (e.g.
Mark 10:25). Yet the presupposed eschato-
logical frame adds urgency to the moral
demands. More radical still—and sometimes
opposed to the legal custom (cf. Matt 8:21-
22//Luke 9:59-60)—are the conditions for
those who want to follow Jesus directly. The
disciples form a kind of eschatological sign
(esp. the Twelve) foreshadowing the people
of God under His rule. Another prophetic
action was Jesus’ participation in banquets
with public sinners. Demonstrating God’s
joyful acceptance of the Jost, he in some
way acts on behalf of the loving Father. But
in doing so he does not yet realize the King-
dom of God. This happens only in his mira-
culous healings which demonstrate God’s
salvation and his victory over the demons
(cf. Mark 3:23-27 and the prophetic vision
Luke 10:18). In a probably secondary ar-
gument Jesus’ exorcisms are interpreted as
the arrival of the Reign of God (Matt
12:28//Luke 11:20). In this sense the escha-
468
tological fulfilment can already be verified
in Jesus’ words and deeds (Matt 13:16-
l7/LLuke 10:23-24; cf. Luke 16:16 and
Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist Matt 11:2.
6//Luke 7:18-23, which, however, seems a
later scriptural elaboration). To bring God's
saving power to everybody, Jesus sometimes
disregarded the rules of purity and the
Sabbath. But his position on the Law
remains ambiguous. On the one hand he sets
aside ceremonial law (Mark .7:15), on the
other he sharpens the Halakah; note the
strict prohibition of divorce (Luke 16:18) or
the primary antttheses (Matt 5:21.22; 5:27-
28). The will of God is concentrated and
intensified to facilitate and direct the new
life requested in view of the coming King-
dom. The action in the temple court in his
last days aims at a renovation of the cult in
this eschatological moment. This, as well as
an oracle of doom against the existing
temple, may have motivated the clergy to
react against Jesus so as to put him to death,
Most of these actions and utterances can
be subsumed under prophetic categories,
though Jesus does not legitimize himself
with the messenger-formula. But he also
integrates in his discourse popular wisdom
and rabbinical disputation. Yet, unlike the
rabbis, he does not appeal to tradition .in
explaining God's will. He rather sometimes
puts his authority in opposition to the
Mosaic law. He appears to speak out of a
certain intimacy with God paralleled by few
contemporary Jewish charismatics (VERMES
1973). This specia! relationship may be indi-
cated by the address "abba, though it is
better attested as an acclamation of Christian
pneumatics and only in an unhistorical con-
text in Jesus’ mouth (Mark 14:36). Jesus
cannot be said to have revealed God as
‘father to his disciples because as Israelites
they were already acquainted with Him and
were used to call him ‘father’ in their
prayers (two examples of "abf as divine
address recently came to light in Qumran).
But he certainly actualized this tradition.
drawing on his personal relationship with
God. His words and acts betray a unity with.
God transcending traditional labels. The.
CA AA LEC it.
JESUS
observation is typical that he puts God in
the centre and not explicitly himself as
—mediator between God and men (Luke
12:8-9 seems to belong to a situation after
Easter). The qualification of his person is
due to the eschatological relevance of his
work and speech. If God’s last envoy is
refused, he does not need a personal vindi-
cation; his vindication is the arrival of God’s
judgement. Possibly he announced it in the
traditional figure of the coming -*Son of
Man without directly identifying himself
with him (cf. Luke 12:39-40; 17:23-24.26-
27).
Can the phenomenon of Jesus be called
‘Messianic’? Teaching and healing are not
specific for the Messiah. Maybe some traits
in the Jewish picture of David and Solomon
could prefigure an exorcising Messiah, but
normally he has other tasks (->Christ). Thus,
a confession like Mark 8:29 betrays anach-
ronisms. Yet, there could arise Messianic
expectations among Jesus' followers and the
people, especially when he moved to Jeru-
salem, the place where the Kingdom of God
was supposed to appear. That the idea of
God's Kingship does not preclude a human
representative is evident from Ps.Sol. 17.
Jesus' spectacular entrance in Jerusalem
may have aroused the hope of the restora-
tion of David's Kingdom in some pilgrims
and the fear of political disorder in the
Jewish dignitaries. They delivered Jesus to
the Romans as a pretender to kingship as it
is formulated in the inscription on the cross.
This can hardly be explained as a theologi-
cal construction. Such suspicion is more
appropriate in the case of Jesus’ self-
definition in front of the Sanhedrin (Mark
14:61-62), because the claim to be the
Messiah could not provoke a Jewish sen-
tence of death.
One of the last words of Jesus generally
accepted as authentic is Mark 14:25. Here
he envisages his death, but in the same time
he is confident about his eating and drinking
in the Reign of God. In this perspective
Jesus’ message was not invalidated by the
demise of the messenger. But in fact, his
humiliating execution on the cross caused a
heavy crisis with the disciples. It could (al-
though not necessarily) be interpreted in the
light of Deut 21:23 as God's cursing; any-
way it did not fit in with the picture of a
possible Messiah at all. Nevertheless, only a
few weeks after the crucifixion we find the
Twelve (plus the mother and the brothers of
Jesus) back again in Jerusalem, preaching on
the basis of appearances that God had raised
Jesus from the dead. In this proclamation
lésous means the crucified teacher from
Nazareth (Mark 16:6). One can also con-
jecture that /ésous was the object in an early
resurrection-formula that we can still grasp
in later sources (Rom 8:11; Acts 5:30;
postponed in | Thess 1:10; cf. also /ésous as
subject in | Thess 4:14).
Originally, there may have existed differ-
ent representations of the Easter-event lead-
ing to different christological conceptions.
In ‘Q’ there is only a hint of Jesus’ rejection
in Jerusalem, his disappearing and coming
again as the Son of Man (Matt 23:37-39//
Luke 13:34-35; perhaps Luke 11:29-30). He
is announced as the future judge who will
condemn those not believing in his mission.
The identification of Jesus with the coming
Son of Man must have been made on the
basis of the Easter-event. It serves to re-
evaluate the past, but is oriented primarily to
the future. Another set of traditions concerns
the present state of Jesus. Since resurrection
does not mean return to this life, one con-
cludes that Jesus is in the glory of God,
enthroned at his right hand (cf. Rom 8:34;
Acts 2:33-36). Thus, he is vindicated as
Messiah, as mighty representative of God,
but on a very different level. In heaven he is
installed in power as God’s Son (-»Son of
God) (Rom 1:4) and thus realizes the pro-
mises given by Nathan (2 Sam 7:12-14).
This understanding could throw light back
onto Jesus' passion. He also was the Christ
in his vicarious suffering for our sins (1 Cor
15:3). Here probably the image of the
suffering servant (Isa 52:13-53:12) is fused
with that of the 'Messiah'. The heavenly
enthronement of Jesus also seems to be pre-
supposed when he is invoked “our Lord -
come" (-*Kyrios). This means prayer, recog-
469
JESUS
nition of his sovereignty, but not yet ador-
ation. Through his resurrection and instal-
lation at the side of God, Jesus could conti-
nue to be effective on ceanh: His
missionaries and charismatic miracle-wor-
kers prophesied and exorcised “in his
name”. That does not necessarily mean: by
using the name Jésous as a magic formula,
but in his authority, enlarging in this way
his terrestrial dominion. In the mdrand’-ta’
we hear the voice of the Aramaic first com-
munity. It cannot be proved with certainty
that also the explicit "christology of exalta-
tion" making use of Ps 110:1 and the con-
ception of an atoning death of Christ can be
assigned to this community. Many scholars
relocate this idea to the Jewish Christian
*Hellenists'. But one should not forget that
they originally lived in neighbourhoods
close to the *Hebrews' (HENGEL 1972).
In a Hellenistic environment /ésous did
not suggest a mythical deity, but the con-
creteness of a historical person with a singu-
lar destiny. This Jesus was acclaimed Kyrios
with a formula of the Greek speaking com-
munity. In the name of Jesus the crucified
every knee now has to bow (Phil 2:10). In
the allegedly pre-Pauline hymn Phil 2:5b-11
Christ's preexistence in a godlike fashion
preludes the pattern self-humiliation - exal-
tation. This should help to estimate the
depth of self-abasement described with the
pagan vocabulary of divine metamorphosis.
For the godlike existence a title is lacking,
but one may surmise that Son of God—now
in a new interpretation—would be appro-
priate. At least it is the stereotype in the for-
mula "God sent his Son" common to Paul-
ine and Johannine tradition (Rom 8:3-4; Gal
4:4-5; John 3:17; 1 John 4:9.10.14). This
means that God himself engaged in the work
of salvation, the Son remaining subordinate
to him. In Gal 4:4 it seems plausible that a
heavenly existence preceded his being born
of a woman. Thus, in the Hellenistic com-
munity, the idea of the incarnation of a di-
vine being was added to the exaltation-
model. Besides the hymn of Phil 2 one
might also compare the Johannine prologue
(John 1:1-18). Here one normally sees the
impact of Wisdom-Christology as for
example in 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2c.
3a, too (Christ, the image and radiance of
God). Yet though OT wisdom writings are
familiar with the concepts of a personified
wisdom from before the creation, it is never
said that Wisdom becomes an actual man.
Here one should not overlook the pagan
parallels (ZELLER 1988, MOLLER 1989)
where the motif of a theophany in a human
form is sometimes transferred to ‘divine
men’.
Paul does not add much to the received
christology. He underlines Christ's mediat-
ing function; so the reign of the risen one is
limited and serves the glorification of the
Father (cf. 1 Cor 15:20-28). Though the
final realization of God's Rule coincides
with the parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ,
in the end he will hand over the Kingdom to
God the Father. On the other side, final
judgement is committed to Christ (2 Cor
5:10). Furthermore, Paul explains the incar-
nation as salutary exchange (2 Cor 5:21; 8:
9: Gal 3:13; 4:4-5; Rom 8:3-4) and recalls
that it is the crucified who now, through
God's powerful act, has become the source
of eschatological life. To participate in that
life the apostle has to assimilate himself to
the crucified. It is probably not by chance
that Paul in this context speaks of “Jesus’
death” (2 Cor 4:10) or ‘Jesus’ marks” (Gal
6:17) he is bearing in his body. In a similar
way the Epistle to the Hebrews uses an
anarthrous /ésous in connection with
Christ's suffering (2:9; 10:19; 13:12). But in
other Pauline contexts /ésous seems inter-
changeable with Christ. Together with this
former title it forms a kind of double namc.
The Gospels demonstrate the identity of the
Christ, the Son of God, as the early Church
confessed him to be, with Jesus in his earth-
ly existence. This is already shown by the
superscription of the first representative of
this genre (Mark 1:1). The manifestation of
Jesus’ true dignity marks its beginning (bap-
tism 1:11), middle (Peter's confession 8:29;
Jesus’ transfiguration 9:2-8) and end (Jesus'
self-revelation Mark 14:61-62; the centur-
ion's avowal 15:39). In the first part, Jesus'
470
JESUS
teaching with authority and his miracles
finally lead to Peter’s acknowledgement of
his being the Messiah. Unti] then this was
known to the ~demons (cf. "Son of God"
resp. "Son of the ^most High" Mark 3:11;
5:7), but hidden to the people. In the second
part, the disciples have to learn tbat this
Messiah will be the suffering and risen Son
of Man. In the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke the revelation of Jesus’ divine and
royal majesty is anticipated in the stories of
Jesus’ childhood. There his human name is
foreordained by the ange] (Matt 1:21a; Luke
1:31); Matt 1:21b moreover explains it by
his saving activity (also cited by Justin,
Apol. 1 33:7-8). As in other birth-oracles of
extraordinary men in the Bible and the
Jewish Haggada (but also in the Roman-
Hellenistic world)—the name appears as im-
posed by divine providence. The later Gos-
pels amplify the godlike image of Jesus.
Thus Matthew multiplies the prostrations
‘before Jesus reserved to God according to
Matt 4:10; this could reflect the practice of
‘worship in his Church. In the Fourth Gospel
‘the Logos is said to be God, certainly distin-
guished from “the God”, but in close union
‘with him (John 1:1-2. 18). Traditional mir-
acle stories are interpreted by speeches of
Jesus, so that they become transparent for
shis life-giving mission out of God's eternity.
(God's sending of his Son gets a circular
s tructure, because the Son returns to heaven.
‘John’ joins the christology of exaltation to
‘the christology of mission; but paradoxically
she faithful can already see the exalted one
zon the cross. The narrative culminates in the
nfession of Thomas before the risen one
ny Lord and my God” (20:28). Such an
enhancement of Jesus’ divinity always
Jemains integrated in a conception of divine
Sonship, where the Son does not make him-
‘Self God, as the opponents pretend (John
33), but has the origin of his divinity in
me Father. The first epistle of John already
Struggles against the gnostic dissolution of
Christ into a temporary, human element and
nto a divine one, the latter the sole one to
Jc important. Here Jésous becomes an ident-
a marker. To “confess Jesus” is an ab-
QM
breviation for the belief that “Jesus Christ
came in the flesh" (cf. ] John 4:2-3). In Rev
Christians distinguish themselves from the
hostile synagogues by sticking to the "testi-
mony of Jesus” (5 times). Thus, confron-
tation with adversaries within and outside
the communities constrains the theologians
to maintain in Jesus the starting point of the
Christian religion. On the other hand one
can observe in later writings a certain con-
fusion between Jesus and God, especially in
liturgical language. While in the original
Pauline letters ho theos is never applied to
Jesus Christ (Rom 9:5b refers to the author
of the Jewish salvation history), this hap-
pens in the citation of Ps 47:7 LXX in Heb
1:8-9, in the affirmation 1 John 5:20 and
possibly in some disputed cases where Christ
is subsumed under one article with “God” (2
Thess 1:12; Titus 2:33; 2 Petr 1:1 —God
[1t}). From the beginning there was prayer
to Jesus who together with the Father in the
Pauline writings is supposed to be gracious
and to fulfil the supplications of his be-
lievers. Only, the fragments of hymns dis-
cernible in the letters are not directed to
him, but narrate the great feats of God
achieved with him. Later on, Christians sing
to their Lord (Eph 5:19), and Plinius, Ep.
10,96:7 rightly understands this as worship
to Christ as god. It is significant too, that
doxologies which in Jewish and early Chris-
tian texts are exclusively directed to God are
now addressed to Christ (2 Tim 4:18; 2 Petr
3:18; Rev 1:5-6). But to all appearances
even Jewish-Christans did not feel any
contradiction to their monotheistic faith.
They conceived of Jesus as taking part in
God’s glory; after describing the majesty of
God and the investiture of the Lamb as his
plenipotentiary, the author of Rev 5:13 can
speak of every creature offering praise to
both, the —^One seated on the throne and the
Lamb.
III. The tendency to cal] Jesus simply
God continues in the Church Fathers from
the prescript of Ign., Eph onwards; in 18:2
of the same letter Ignatius can speak of "our
God Jesus, the Christ” who was borne in the
womb of —Mary in conformity with the
4T]
JESUS
economy of God; he does this obviously
without any fear of ditheism. The Acts of
Peter, Paul, John, and Thomas celebrate
Jesus even as “unique God”. Critics from
outside also manifest their impression that
Christians worship Jesus as God besides the
one God (cf. Origen, Cels. 8:12.14.15;
Lucian, Per. 13). /ésous in the magical
papyri is a powerful name of a god (e.g.
PGM 12:192), sometimes identified with the
OT Yahweh (PGM 4:3019-3020 “the God
of the Hebrews, Jesus”). On the other hand
in a theological framework /ésous may sig-
nal the true humanity of Christ; thus, Justin
considers it the name of the man and
saviour, while ‘Christ’ can already designate
a function of the Logos (apol. 11 6:3-4). The
typology Joshua-Jesus is exploited (Justin,
Dial. 75:1-2; 113:1-4; Barn. 12:8-10;
Irenacus, Epid. 27). The Gospel of Philip
seems to be conscious of the contingency of
lēsous. It is a ‘hidden name’, not translat-
able into other languages, in opposition to
the revealed name Christ (NHC II 3,56,
3.5.6). But gnostic writings can speak with-
out differentiation of “our god Jesus”, too
(NHC VIII 2,133,8). It is not until the first
Ecumenical Councils that it is clarified in
what sensc Jesus can be called God. There
the incamation model triumphs.
IV. Bibliography
R. BAUCKHAM, Worship of Jesus (Christ),
ABD 3 (1992) 812-820; J. BECKER, Jesus
von Nazaret (Berlin/New York 1996); G.
BORNKAMM, Jesus von Nazareth (Urban
Bücher 19; Stuttgart 1956; ET New York
1960); H. BRAUN, Jesus (Themen der Theo-
logie 1; Stuttgart/Berlin 1969, enlarged
1984); C. BURCHARD, Jesus von Nazareth,
Die Anfänge des Christentums (J. Becker
u.a.; Stuttgart 1987) 12-58; B. CHILTON &
C.A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical
Jesus (NTTS 19; Leiden 1994); H. CONZEL-
MANN, Jesus Christus, RGG III (1959) 619-
653; H. CONZELMANN, Jesus Christus in
Historie und Theologie (ed. G. Strecker;
Tübingen 1975); N. A. DAHL, Jesus the
Christ (ed. D. H. Juel; Minneapolis MN
1991); J. Dupont (ed.), Jésus aux origines
de la christologie (BETL 90; Louvain/Gem-
bloux 21989); J. D. G. Dunn, Christology
in the Making (Philadelphia 1980); DuNN,
Christology (NT), ABD | (1992) 979-992;
C. A. Evans, Life of Jesus Research. An
Annotated Bibliography (NTTS 13; Leiden
1989); W. FOERSTER, ‘Inocovs. TWAT III
(1938) 284-294; X 2 (1979) 1118-1120 [&
lit.]; R. H. Futter & P. Perkins, Who is
this Christ? (Philadelphia 1983); J. GNILKA,
Jesus von Nazaret (HTKNTSup 3; Frei-
burg/Basel/ Wien 1990); F. HAHN. Anfänge
des Christentums (eds. C. Breytenbach & H.
Paulsen; Göttingen 1991); M. HENGEL,
Christologie und neutestamentliche Chrono-
logie, Neues Testament und Geschichte (ed.
H. Baltensweiler & B. Reicke;
Zürich/Tübingen 1972) 43-67; A. J. HULT-
GREN, New Testament Christology. A Criti-
cal Assessment and Annotated Bibliography
(New York 1988); L. W. HURTADO, One
God, One Lord (Philadelphia 1988); J. JERE-
MIAS, Neutestameniliche Theologie I. Die
Verkiindigung Jesu (Gütersloh 1971); M. DE
JONGE, Christology in Context (Philadelphia
1988); DE JoNGE, From Jesus to John (ed.
M. C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield
1993); L. E. Keck, The Future of Christo-
logy (ed. A. J. Malherbe & W. A. Mecks;
Philadelphia 1993); K. KERTELGE (ed.),
Riickfrage nach Jesus (QD 63;
Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1974); W. KRAMER,
Christos Kyrios Gottessohn (ATANT 44,
Zürich/Stuttgart 1963) esp. 37-38 & 199-
202; H. Leroy, Jesus (Ertrige der For-
schung 95; Darmstadt 1978); J. P. MEIER, A
Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical
Jesus (New York I 1991, II 1994); B. F.
MEYER, Jesus (Christ), ABD 3 (1992) 773-
795; U. B. MOLLER, Die Menschwerdung
des Gottessohnes (SBS 140, Stuttgart 1989);
C. Perrot, Jésus et l'histoire (Paris 1980);
W. PescH (ed.), Jesus in den Evangelien
(SBS 45; Stuttgan 1970); E. P. SANDERS,
Jesus and Judaism (London 1985); SAN-
DERS, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Lon-
don 1993); L. SCHENKE, Die Urgemeinde
(Stuttgart 1990), esp. 116-156: H. SCHUER-
MANN, Jesus. Gestalt und Geheimnis (Pader-
born 1994); R. SCHNACKENBURG, Christolo-
gie des Neuen Testamentes, Mysterium
472
JEUSH — JEZEBEL
Salutis lll 1 (ed. J. Feiner & M. Lóhrer;
Einsiedeln/Zürich/Koóln 1970) 227-383:
SCHNACKENBURG, Die Person Jesu im Spie-
gel der vier Evangelien (HTKNTSup 4;
Freiburg/Bascl/Wien 1993); G. SCHNEIDER,
'Incobg. EWNT II (1981) 440-452; E. Scn-
WEIZER, Jesus Christus im vielfültigen Zeug-
nis des Neuen Testaments | (Siebenstern-
Taschenbuch 126; München/ Hamburg
1968); G. N. STANTON, Jesus of Nazareth in
New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27;
Cambridge 1974); G. THEISSEN & A.
Merz, Der historische Jesus (Göttingen
1996); G. VERMES, Jesus the Jew (London
1973); A. VócTLE, Der verkündigende und
verkündigte Jesus 'Christus', Wer ist Jesus
Christus? (ed. J. Sauer; Freiburg 1977) 27-
91; VOEGTLE, Jesus Christus, Bibeltheologi-
sches Wérterbuch (Graz 21994) 333-345; K.
WENGST, Christologische Formeln und Lie-
der des Urchristentums (SUNT 7; Giitersloh
1972); D. ZELLER, Dic Menschwerdung des
Sohnes Gottes im Neuen Testament und dic
antike Religionsgeschichte, Menschwerdung
Gottes - Vergüttlichung von Menschen (ed. D.
Zeller, NTOA 7; Fribourg & Göttingen
1988) 141-176.
D. ZELLER
JEUSH -* JAGHUT
JEZEBEL “IVN
I. Daughter of Eth-Baal, king of Sidon,
and wife of Ahab, king of Northern Isracl.
She was an active propagator of the
—Baal cult (1 Kgs 16:29-33; 18:19; 19:1-2;
21:25; 2 Kgs 9:30-37), who persecuted the
—Yahweh prophets (1 Kgs 18:4). The
meaning of her Phoenician name is dis-
puted; mostly interpreted as ‘where is the
—Prince’, ‘Prince’ being an epithet of Baal
(Heb "izebel, pause form "izábel; LXX-NT:
IeGapeA; Josephus: IgGafeAn, variant rea-
ding leGaBnAa).
II. In the NT Jezebel occurs in Rev
2:18-29, in the Letter to the Church at
Thyatira (Lydia), as the derogatory nick-
name of a self-styled prophetess in the
Jewish or Christian community there. She
taught her fellow church members to forni-
cate (pgoixeoo) and cat food sacrificed to
idols. In the parallel Letter to Pergamum
such teaching is ascribed to 'Balaam' and
‘the Nicolaitans' (Rev 2:14-15; cf. 2:6). Poss-
ibly, “to fornicate” (2:20 nopvevoat) and
“committing adultery with her" (2:22 por-
yxevovtac) are in this context synonymous
with “eating food sacrificed to idols” (2:20).
Compare Jer 3:6-10 LXX, where these two
verbs are unmistakably used as metaphors
for idolatry. Queen Jezebel herself was also
explicitly accused of fornication (nopveiat)
and sorcery (6Gppaxa) in LXX 4 Kgdms
9:22 ( MT 2 Kgs 9:22).
III. In 1892 E. ScHÜRER first advocated
the hypothesis that this NT Jezebel was not
a synagogue or church member, but the
priestess of a local cult of the Oriental Sibyl
named Sambéthé (LayPnOn). The sanctuary
of this Sibyl would be the capPaGeiov
which is mentioned in an inscription from
Thyatira, CJJ 752 (= CIG 2,3509 = IGR
4,1281). Schürer was well aware, though,
that this word could also refer to a syna-
gogue, like the caßßabeiov (varia lectio
caßßateiov) in Josephus, Ant. 16,164,
which was in the province of Asia, too. The
difference between pu and BB would be no
hindrance, since fluctuation of the two is
well attested, especially in odfBatov
(Hebrew Sabbar) and derived words, com-
pare also Latin 'sabbata' (Suetonius, Aug.
76.2) alongside 'sambatha' (P. Ryl. 4,613).
The main argument for not interpreting the
word as 'synagogue' in this inscription is
the mention of a sarcophagus being placed
in an open space (Ent toxov xa@apod, cf.
LSJ s. v. xa®8apog I 3a) near this samba-
theion, in ‘the precinct (mepiBoAoc) of the
Chaldaean’, along the public road. The
Vicinity of a tomb would have made, it was
argued, a synagogue ritually unclean. The
argument is, however, not compelling,
because a corpse was considered to defile
only within a distance of at most four yards
with regard to the Shema', so that it was
allowed to be recited only beyond that dis-
tance (b.Berakhoth 18a; b.Sotah 43b; 44a,
according to Beth Shammai). This makes it
473
JORDAN
very doubtful that a graveyard as such could
defile a synagogue building. Moreover, the
location of the tomb is not presented as dis-
puted in any respect.
The Sibyl, to whom we have assigned the
comprehensive name of ‘Oriental’, figures in
a number of interdependent testimonies, in
which she is considered to have been both a
blood relation and the daughter-in-law of
->Noah (Sib. Or. prol. and 3,827). She is
therefore referred to as ‘Jewish’, ‘Hebrew’,
‘Persian’ and ‘Chaldaean’ at the same time
(FGH 146.1). Only Pausanias speaks about a
Palestinian-Babylonian-Egyptian Sibyl named
Sabbé, a name which is evidently a hypoc-
oristic of Sambéthé (Description of Greece
10,12,9). A third variant of her name may
have been preserved on a 3rd-dth cent. CE
ostracon from Karanis (Fayüm), apparently
a list of divine names and a writing exercise
of some kind (O. Mich. 657 = CPJ 496).
Here she probably appears as LapPaGic,
unless the name is to be read as Fap-
Babi(o)s. showing the well-attested Koine
Greek shortening of words ending in -tog or
-tov. In the latter case, the name could refer
to ‘the god of the Shabbath', the god of the
Jews. Unlike the other Sibyls listed by the
ancients, the Oriental Sibyl is not connected
with a specific town or place. SCHORER also
assumed that “the precinct of the Chaldae-
an” mentioned in the inscription, was named
after a ‘Chaldaean’ or soothsayer who used
to make statements in the name of this
Chaldaean-Jewish Sambéthé. Jezebel would
then have performed the same function as
this 'Chaldaean' towards the end of the first
century CE. This theory (a combination of
three unprovable assumptions) has not found
wide acceptance. It seems certain, at least,
that consultants of such an oracle did not
constitute a regular congregation as implied
by Rev 2:18-29. Nor would Jezebel, if she
were an outsider, have been allowed to
‘teach’ in the local Christian community (cf.
| Cor 8). It is much more likely that she
was a church member in the ordinary sense,
given the fact that she was allowed some
time 'to repent', that is to revoke her heresy
(2,21). The cvvoóos cap a8, figuring in
a I CE inscription from Naucratis (Egypt)
(SB 12; reign of Augustus?), refers, there-
fore, not so much to a group of Sambéthé-
adherents as to an assembly of Sabbatists or
Godfearers, if not to an ordinary synagogue
mecting.
IV. Bibliography
E. ScuHÜRER, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.
- A. D. 135), [Revised Edition by G. Vermes,
F. Millar & M. Goodman] (Edinburgh
1986) Il] 1, 19; 622-626; V. A. TCHERIK-
OVER, A. FUKS & M. STERN, Corpus Papy-
rorum Judaicarum (Cambridge 1964) III 43-
87; H. C. Youtie, Sambathis, Scriptiunculae
I (Amsterdam 1973) 467-477; C. BURCHARD,
Sambethe, KP 4 (1972) 1531.
G. MUSSIES
JORDAN [Tv ‘lopdavng
I. The name of the river of Jordan,
(hay)yardén, occurs 177 times in the OT. In
the NT ‘lopSavng is attested 15 times. The
etymology of the name is debated. A deriva-
tion from the root YRD, 'to descend', im-
plying an interpretation 'the river that comes
down’ (e.g. Philo, Leg. All. 11:89; bBech
55a; BDB 432-434) probably rests on popu-
lar etymology. Generally, the name is inter-
preted as non-Semitic in origin. One pro-
posal connects the element dan with
Indo-Iranian don, ‘river’ (cf. e.g. Danube;
Djnepr) and interprets yar- as related to
Indo-european ‘year’. The name then Would
mean ‘perennial river’ (e.g. KOHLER 1939;
Counen, /DB 2, 973-978). In favour of this
approach it must be observed that in Greecé
two rivers are called 'Iápóavoc. one in Elis
(e.g. Homer, /liad 7:135; Strabo 8,3:20) and
one in Crete (e.g. Homer, Odyssey, 3:292;
Pausanias 6,21:6). HOMMEL construes both
the Canaanite river name and the Greck
rivers as derived from Hittite and compares
the name with the Armenian and Persian
noun ward, ‘rose’ (1927:170; see also J. R.
Harris, Crete, the Jordan and the Rhone,
ExpTim 21 [1909-10] 303-306; J. HEMPEL,
PJB 23 [1927] 64; W. voN SopEN, ZAW 57
[1939] 153-154) On the other hand, the el-
474
JORDAN
ement yar- has been construed as related to
Hurrian iar, ‘water’, while den was inter-
preted either as referring to the tribe of Dan
or as a derivation of DYN, ‘to judge’. The
name of the river then has as meaning "thc
water of Dan/of the ordeal' (ALDEN 1975).
The occurrence at Emar of the noun yardu
(Emar 363:2), supports a Semitic ongin of
the name Jordan, if the word should indeed
mean ‘river’ (see Amaud).
II. Outside the Bible, the Jordan is first
mentioned in records from the nineteenth
Egyptian dynasty: yrdn (J. Simons, Hand-
book of Egyptian Topographical Lists
[Leiden 1937] 201; ANET 242.255.477).
The name here occurs as an indication of a
geographical entity that can be crossed. The
name is also attested in the list depicting the
campaign of Pharaoh Sheshonq in the tenth
century BCE (Simons, Handbook, 180, No.
150 jrdn).
In texts from Emar, mention is made of
an offering to a deity SEN ya-ar-da-ni "the
lord of the flowing rivers’ (Emar 378:23).
Besides, the name of a gate: KA? 4a dwa-ar-
da-na-ti, ‘the gate of the river goddesses’
(Emar 137:1), occurs. They do not refer to
the Jordan river as such, but can be inter-
preted as an early attestation of ~>river-
deities.
III. The River Jordan runs from Mount
Hermon to the Dead Sea in the south. In a
rather speculative article, HOMMEL com-
pares the Jordan with the mystic and mythic
river Eridanos, known from Greck sources.
He then surmises that ancient, pre-Israelitc
myths were brought—by the intermediary of
Phoenicians—to Greece where they were re-
formulated as the Phaeton-legends. In Pales-
tine, the Jordan kept its religious signifi-
cance as a river of ordeal (1927).
In the OT the river has a religious sig-
nificance (Hurst 1965), though it is never
treated as a god. In the Book of Joshua the
Jordan is the border-river to be crossed to
enter the promised land. Traditions concern-
ing the event of the 'conquest under Joshua'
are connected to a commemorative feast (E.
Orro, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal [BWANT
107; Stuttgart 1975]). Furthermore, the Jor-
dan is ascribed mysterious and magical
powers: The Ascension into heaven of
Elijah took place on the other side of the
Jordan. In the story of Elisha and Naaman,
the water of the Jordan has a healing force
(2 Kgs 5:13-14). DAHooD (1966:258; cf.,
however, GónG 1982:903) construes "eres
yardén in Ps 42:7 as ‘the land of descent’
interpreting it as an expression for the nether-
world. He compares the expression with a
line from the ->Baal-epic tspr byrdim ars,
‘You will be counted among those who
went down into the earth’ (KTU 1.4 viii:8-
9).
In early Judaism, the Jordan has no
specific significance. In Life of Adam and
Eve 6-8 it is told that Adam, as penitence
for his ->sin, spent 40 days fasting and
praying in the Jordan while —Eve did the
same for 37 days in the ->Tigris.
In the NT the Jordan is the place where
-*Jesus and many others were baptized by
John (Mark l:1-11//). Hebr 3:17-19 might
be interpreted as implying a metaphorical
Jordan. as a symbol of crossing from life to
death (THOMPSON 1992:957)
IV. On the architrave of the triumphal
arch of Titus, the part facing the Colosseum.
three Romans are depicted bearing the Jor-
dan river. He is presented as a river deity in
the form of an old man. The scene re-
sembles the way in which elsewhere rivers
as personifications of conquered provinces
were represented in the procession of the
victor (RENGSTORFF 1968:613; PFANNER
1983).
From the sixth century CE onward, in
Christian mosaics depicting the baptism of
Jesus, a figure is present which can be inter-
preted as a deified Jordan river. The icon-
ography of the scene and the figure indicates
that the Jordan-character was modelled after
a pagan, Graeco-Roman river deity (JENSEN
1993; pace RENGSTORFF 1968:613). In the
light of the OT roots of a deification of the
Jordan a revival of popular belief can be
assumed too.
V. Bibliography
R. ALDEN, Jordan, Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible 3 (Grand Rapids
475
JOSEPH
1975) 684-692; M. J. DaHoop, Psalms |
(AB 16; Garden City 1966) 258; M. GÓRG,
Jarden, TWAT 3 (1982) 901-909; E. Hom-
MEL, Der Name und die Sagen des Jordan in
altkanaaninischer Zeit, Journal of the So-
ciety of Oriental Research 11 (1927) 169-
194; A. R. Hurst, Der Jordan in den alttes-
tamentlichen Uberlieferungen, OTS 14
(1965) 162-188; R. JENSEN, What are Pagan
River Gods doing in Scenes of Jesus’s Bap-
tism?, Bible Review 9 (1993) 34-41; L.
KOHLER, Lexikologisch-geographisches. 1.
Der Jordan, ZDPV 62 (1939) 115-120; M.
PFANNER, Der Titisbogen (Mainz 1983); K.
H. RENGSrOnRrF, Tlotapos, notapoodpntos,
Topdavng. TDNT 6 (1968) 595-623; H. O.
TuoMPSON, Jordan River, ABD 2 (1992)
953-958.
B. BECKING
JOSEPH 727
I. In biblical genealogical tradition
Joseph is the son of —Jacob and -'Rachel
(Gen 30:22-24). His name is a hypocoris-
ticon, presumably of *yósip-'el/DN like
yósipyàh (Ezra 8:10). Tradition. preserves
two explanations of his name, the one link-
ing it to the root ‘sp (Gen 30:23 E?), the
other to vsP (Gen 30:24 J?); the latter inter-
pretation is probably correct. The name
expresses the classical wish for a quiver full
of children (Ps 115:14; NorH, /PN, 212; DE
Vaux 1971; ANDRE, TWAT 3 [1977-82]
685). The form yéhdsép (Ps 81:6), frequent-
ly found in later Hebrew, is perhaps a case
of hypercorrection. In 19th century research
the story of Joseph was often interpreted in
terms of a fertility myth, in particular the
seasonal contest between rain and drought
(WESTERMANN 1975:56-64). He is identified
with the fertilizing rain, being a child of
Rachel and Jacob, who are identified with
respectively the clouds and the nightly sky
(GOLDZIHER 1876:191-194). Others hold
that Joseph, an ancient Canaanite numen of
Joseph-El, was turned into an Israelite epo-
nym by the tribes of Ephraim (MEYER
1906).
I. The story of Joseph (Gen 37:39-
47:50; Ps 105:16-22; Sir 49:15), does not
tell us much about the origins of the tribe or
‘house’ of Joseph. The story supposes
knowledge of the patriarchal sagas, in par-
ticular the ancient tradition that “Jacob and
his sons went down to Egypt” (Josh 24:4;
NorH 1948; WESTERMANN 1982). Joseph's
story in its present form, whether taken as a
didactic narrative from the wisdom school,
or as a specimen of a diaspora story (MEIN-
HOLD 1975), is the tale of a young Hebrew
far from his home-country rising to power
under Yahweh's guidance. It gives interest-
ing insights into the Hebrew soul and to a
lesser extent into Egyptian society, but hard-
ly preserves a reminiscence of a Middle
Palestinian tribe by the name of Joseph. The
story may share some episodes and motifs
with the Egyptian ‘Tale of the Two
Brothers’. The fact that the latter tale is
about the gods Anubis and Bata, Bata being
a pastoral god, taking either the form of a
ram or a bull, does not imply that Joseph
was a mythological hero in lsraclite tradi-
tion, even when, according to an alternative
interpretation, he is compared to a young
bull (bn prt Gen 49:22; Deut 33:17; SALO
1968). The background of Joseph’s career
may be found in the genres of the Königs-
novelle, the success story of the wise Court-
ier (Gen 41) and similar stories of Asiatics
who carved their way high up into a foreign
administration (-*Moses, Biya, ->Daniel.
etc; DE VAUX 1971). Attempts to find the
precise historical setting of the story in the
Hyksos period are highly questionable.
III. Joseph is the eponym of a tribe
Joseph (Num 13:11) or a group of tribes,
known as the béné Yosép (Num 1:10; 34:23;
Josh 16:1; 17:14) or the bé: Yósep (Josh
17:14-18; Judg 1:22-23; 2 Sam 19:21; 1 Kgs
11:29; Amos 5:6). The last expression is
attested outside the Hexateuch as opposite to
the house of Judah (Judg 1:22-23.35; 2 Sam
2:8-11; 19:20; 1 Kgs 11:28; Amos 5:6). This
seems to be a rather ancient usage though
the exact geographic and demographic
ramifications remain unclear. In later tra-
dition Joseph’s ancestorship is limited to the
tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, but
476
JUDAH
whether they became Joseph’s house
together, or split up in separate tribes is still
a disputed question. In a number of cases
Joseph is a synonym for -*Jacob/Israel (Ps
77:16; 81:6; Ezek 37:16.19; Amos 5:15; 6:6;
Obad 18), either meaning the northern king-
dom or the people of Israel. Apart from the
Joseph story itself, sources about the
patriarch Joseph are rather poor. Except for
traditions about Joseph's name and the tra-
dition of his tomb near -*Shechem;
-"Thukamuna (Josh 24:32) some obscure
allusions are found in the tribal sayings
(Gen 49:22-26; Deut 33:13-16) and topo-
graphical texts (Josh 17:14-18). Later Jewish
tradition tells about Joseph’s sarcophagus
sunk into the Nile (Mek.Exod 13:19; Str.-B.
II 674), referring to the ~Osiris-myth (JERE-
MIAS 1958:131), but the story of Joseph is
neither a myth, nor the usual kind of patri-
archal saga. There is no reason to suppose
that Joseph was originally a hero or a city-
god. The alleged toponym Joseph-El does
not exist (pace MEYER 1906:292; cf. DE
Vaux 1971:297 n. 87). The name is charac-
teristic of the Amorite onomasticon in the
early second millennium BCE, so in this
respect he might indeed have been onc of
the early Israelite ancestors, remembered
and perhaps cven venerated at a place
somewhat east of Shechem on the border
between the later tribes of Ephraim and
Manasse (Gen 33:18-19; Josh 17:7; John
4:5; Acts 7:16; JEREMIAS 1958:31-36).
According to a fragmentary tradition in Gen
48:22 Shechem was given to Joseph by
Jacob, but the relation to 33:18-19 remains
unclear (DE VAUX 1971:584-587; WESTER-
MANN 1982:217-218; pace NorH 1948:90-
91). According to later tradition Joseph, not
Jacob, was the ‘owner’ of the plot of land at
Shechem, and subsequently believed to be
buried there amidst the clans that traced
their origins back to him. In connection with
the sons of Joseph, viz. Ephraim and
Manasseh, similar wishes for progeny are
expressed as with Rachel and Leah (Gen
41:52; 48:13-20). Joseph was known not to
be buried in Machpelah—which confirms
the strong tradition of his own sepulchre and
veneration, notwithstanding medieval Jewish
and Muslim tradition.
IV. Bibliography
J. JEREMIAS, Heiligengrüber in Jesu Umwelt
(Góttingen 1958) 31-36.130-131; M. MEIN-
HOLD, Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte
und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I],
ZAW 88 (1976) 72-93; E. MEYER, Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstümme (Halle
1906); M. Notu, Uberlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuchs (Stuttgart 1948) 90-91; V.
SALO, Joseph, Sohn der Firse, BZ 12 (1968)
94-95; R. DE Vaux, Histoire Ancienne 1
(Paris 1971) 277-303; J. VERGOTE, Joseph
en Egypte. Genése 37-50 à la lumiere des
études égyptologiques récentes (Louvain
1959); C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-50
(EdF 48; Darmstadt 1975); WESTERMANN,
Genesis 37-50 (BKAT [I/3; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1982).
M. DIJKSTRA
JUDAH > YEHUD
477
KABOD ^ GLORY
KAIWAN ]Y2
I]. Kaiwan occurs under the form Kiyyün
in Amos 5:26, after Sikküt (7 Sakkuth). The
Masoretic vocalisation is that for idols
~Abominations. The real pronunciation
must have been Kaiwan, cf. Syr. Keywdn
(and variants), the name of the planet Saturn.
Both go back to the Babylonian name for
Saturn, Kajjamánu, "The Steady One". The
Hebrew text used by LXX was already cor-
rupted in having an initial r instead of k
resulting in Rayphan (and variants); in Acts
7:43 Rompha. CD VII 15 mistook the name
as a word meaning "base", cf. Heb kén
(BoncEn 1988:78-9).
II. In Assyrian/Babylonian religion,
Kajjamánu/Saturn was not of great import-
ance. The name of the star mainly occurs in
astronomical texts (e.g. in SAA 8). That
KajjamánwSaturn was seen as a divine en-
tity can be inferred from the fact that the
name is preceded by the determinative for
deities. In Mesopotamia, Saturn is the only
star not related to one of the major deities
(BARSTAD 1984:123).
III. In the OT, the name is attested only
in Amos 5:26, together with the equally
unique Sakkuth. Both are foreign idols made
by the Israelites. Sakkuth is qualified as
“your king”, Kaiwan as “your images” (plu-
ral); after a pause (aindh) follows: “the star,
your god which you made for yourselves”.
One tends to reverse the order of these
qualifications, as LXX already did: “the star
of your god Rayphan, their images which
you made for yourselves”; see also BORGER
(1988:79 n. S). It should be noted that
Salmu, lit. “image”, was a god in Assyria
and in Arabian Taima; (-Image; S.
Da.teEy, Iraq 48 [1986] 85-101, E. A.
KNauF, Ismael, 2. Auflage [Wiesbaden
1989] 78-79, 150-151; KNaur. Trans-
euphraténe 2 [1990] 212).
A. KuENEN (De godsdienst van Israël
(Haarlem 1869] 260) suggested that the Is-
raclites worshipped Saturn, having adopted
his cult from the Kenites. It is more prob-
able, however, that the Israelites had bor-
rowed the worship of this planet from the
Assyrians. In this case there are two options.
(1) The Israelites took over the worship
before the fall of Samaria. Then Amos 5:26
can be interpreted as a prophetic accusation
for not having served >Yahweh (e.g. Bar-
STAD 1984). (2) Amos 5:26 refers to one of
the deities mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:28-30
who were brought to the Samaritan area by
Assyrian settlers. This view implies that the
text is a later insertion by a (deuterono-
mistic) redactor who confused the situation
before and after the conquest. of the capital
(H. W. WorrF, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel
und Amos [BKAT XIV/2; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1969] 310-311). Recently, DE Moon
(1995:10-11) has argued that the word
kiyyfin in Am 5:26 should be construed as a
noun derived from the root KWN, and inter-
preted as ‘pedestal’. This elegant proposal
implies that the expression *'the pedestal of
your statues’ in Am 5:26 does not refer to a
particular deity.
IV. Bibliography
H. M. BarstaD, The Religious Polemics of
Amos (VTSup 34; Leiden 1984) 118-126; P.
R. BERGER, Imaginäre Astrologie in spät-
babylonischer Propaganda, Die Rolle der
Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens
(ed. H. D. Galter; Graz 1993) 275-289; esp.
277 n. 2; *R. BORGER, Amos 5,26, Apostel-
geschichte 7,43 und Surpu Il, 180, ZAW 100
(1988) 70-81; O. Loretz, Die babylo-
nischen Gottesnamen Sukkut und Kajjamanu
in Amos 5, 26, ZAW 101 (1989) 286-289; J.
C. De Moor, Standing Stones and Ancestor
Worship, UF 27 (1995) 1-20.
M. STOL
478
KELTI — KENAN
KELTI
I. In the Amama letters the name of the
Judean town of Keila (Josh 15:44; 1 Sam
23; | Chr 4:29; Neh 3:17-18) is written
uUQj-il-te/tu, probably to be pronounced
/Qiiltus (EA 279:12; 280:11.17; 287:11;
289:28; 290:10.18). JiRKU related the name
to a god whose name he read as 4Ki-el-ti
(1930).
II. The text in which Jirku found the
god Kelti mentioned is KUB 17 no. 20 ii,
part of a ritual for the ->‘olden gods’ (for a
transcription and translation see H. T. Bos-
SERT, MIO 4 [1956] 202-203). Line 7 of
column ii mentions PKi-el-1i pDUMU DA.A as
one of the recipients of the offerings. Kelti
the son of the goddess -*Ayya, the spouse
of the Babylonian sun-god Shamash, is the
deified personification of the forest (cf. E.
VON SCHULER, WbMyth I/1, 189-190). His
name is the Hurrianized form of Akk qistu,
*wood, forest' (H. EHELOLF, Kleinasiatische
Forschungen | [1930] 143 n.2; C.-G. voN
BRANDENSTEIN, Ein arisches und ein semi-
tisches Lehnwort im Churrischen, AfO 13
[1939-40] 58 and n.2), which also occurs in
the by-form qiltu (CAD Q 272). In spite of
the Akkadian origin of the name, there is no
unambiguous evidence of the deification of
woods and forests in Mesopotamian relig-
ion: the rare occurrences of ‘tir (tir is
Sumerian for ‘forest’) should be understood
as ÓSe.tir, ie. the grain-god Ashnan (P.
MANDER, Brevi considerazioni sul testo
“lessicale” SF 23 = SF 24, OA 19 [1980]
191).
III. Though the god Kelti is definitely
known in the ancient Near East, it is ex-
tremely unlikely that he is in some way con-
nected with the place-name Keila. The pres-
ence of the ‘ayin in the biblical toponym can
simply not be explained on the basis of
Kelti < Akk gilt. Also, there is no need to
search for an Anatolian deity in order to
explain the toponym Qe'ilá. More than
thirty years after his first etymology, JIRKU
himself came up with the far more plausible
suggestion that Keila is related to the Ugar-
itic word q‘? (1963:87). This term is to be
explained as ‘hill’ or ‘mountain ridge’
(NEIMAN 1971:65-66). The city of Keila
would owe its name, then, to a distinctive
feature of the landscape in which it was
situated (cf. LirtSsk1 1973).
IV. Bibliography
A. JiRKU, Der Ursprung des Namens der
südpaláüstinensischen Stadt .Ke'íla, ZAW 48
(1930) 228-229; JiRKU, Zu einigen Orts-
und Eigennamen Palistina-Syriens, ZAW 75
(1963) 86-88; E. LipiXski, Recherches ugar-
itiques, Syria 50 (1973) 36-37; D. NEIMAN,
‘BR.IHT.NPSMM (‘NT:VI:8-9): A Proposed
Translation, JNES 30 (1971) 64-68.
K. VAN DER TOORN
KENAN jsp
I. In genealogical lists of the ante-
diluvian heroes, the son of Enosh is called
qénàn/Kenan (Gen 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; cf.
Luke 3:37 Kainam). Etymologically the
name can be interpreted as derived from the
noun or name gayin Cain with a diminu-
tive ending -an. The name can mean either
‘smith; javelin’ (HALAT 1026) or ‘little
Cain’ (Hess 1993). The name has been
compared to a Southarabian deity Qayndn
(ROBERTSON SMITH 1894:43 n. 4; WESTER-
MANN 1974:483).
II. From Himyaritic inscriptions a Sab-
aean deity Qayndn is known (CIH 2, 232).
He was especially worshipped by the tribe
of the hsm (RES 3974, 4648, 4649). In
view of the etymological relation with the
Arabic noun qayn 'smith' it stands to reason
that Qaynán has been a patron deity of
smiths and metalworkers (HÓFNER, WbMyth
VI, 524).
III. In the OT only genealogical infor-
mation on Kenan is given (Hess 1993). He
lived for 910 years (Gen 5:14) and begot
Mahalalel when he was 70 years old. The
identity of his name with the Sabacan deity
is probably sheer coincidence.
IV. Bibliography
R. S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names
of Genesis 1-11 (AOAT 234; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1993) 67-68; M. HöFNER, WbMyth
1/1, 524; W. RoBertson SMitH, The Re-
ligion of the Semites (London 1894); C.
479
KESE?
WESTERMANN, Genesis 1-]] (BKATUI;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974).
B. BECKING
KESE? N72
I. The Hebrew word kese? ‘full moon’
(?) occurs in two Bible passages (Ps 81:4;
Prov 7:20), and possibly in a third as well
(Job 26:9). The word is also known in other
West-Semitic languages. J.-M. DURAND
identifies a Mesopotamian divinity Kisa
with West-Semitic kese? , attested in a Uga-
ritic god list under the form ksa (1997: 279).
II. In an Old Babylonian augury text
(divination by birds), some omens are inter-
preted to signify ‘presence of Kisa’ (ma(-
an)-za-az ki-sa). The fact that the term man-
zaz/mazzaz is normally followed by thc
name of a deity in divinatory apodoses sug-
gests that Kisa is the name of a god as well;
the lack of a genitival ending supports its
identification as a name. A comparison with
a related list of omens shows that Kisa cor-
responds, antithetically, with 7nanna, i.e.
the moon god. Given the many Western
characteristics of these augury texts,
DuRAND (1997) identifies this hapax with
West-Semitic kese?. An Ugaritic god list
refers to the couple yrhi wksa ‘Moon and
Plenilunium (?)" (KTU 1.123:6). The latter
context suggests that in the West-Semitic
realm, the plenilunium (?) was personified
as a distinct deity alongside the god -*Moon
as a stellar body (yrl). Since Sîn (Sum
nanna) and Kisa are the Mesoptamian ana-
logues to yrh wksa, it may be assumed that
a similar distinction between the deified
moon as a stellar body and the plenilunium
(?) obtained in Babylonia.
II. Akk kisa and Ug ksa correspond with
Hebrew kese?, routinely translated as ‘full
moon, plenilunium’. The precise meaning of
the root KS? and its derivatives in various
Semitic languages is a thorny issue, howe-
ver. The traditional interpretation ‘pleniluni-
um’ goes back to the Syriac translation of 1
Kgs 12:32, where Heb bahamisXá *asar yóm
lahodes (*on the fifteenth day of the month’)
is rendered as bks?? bh byrh? (‘on the Ks? of
the month'). An annotation to Ps 80:3 (MT
81:4), ascribed to Aquila and Symmachus in
the Codex Syro-hexaplaria Ambrosianis,
specifies shr? bks°? hn? bmlywt?, ‘The moon
in the ks?, that is: in its fullness’ (A. M.
CERIANI, Momumenta Sacra et Profana ex
codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambro-
sianae, VII: Codex Syro Hexaplaria Ambro-
sianis [Milan 1874]). Other Syriac passages
also suggest the meaning 'new moon, pleni-
lunium, middle of the month’ for ks?. The
few occurrences of kese? in the Hebrew
Bible are not conclusively in support of the
traditional rendering *plenilunium'. Job 26:9
is a doubtful occurrence and an obscure pas-
sage; Prov 7:20 gives no clue as to the
moment of the kese’; and Ps 81 uses késeh
(presumably for kese?) in a synonymous
parallelism with hode§, 'novilunium'. Both
the Septuagint translators (Ev evorp@) and
the rabbinical tradition (see M. JASTROW, A
Dictionary of the Targumim, 652b) prefer to
interpret kese’ rather vaguely as ‘the proper
moment in time’. The evidence from Ugarit
(ksa) and Phoenicia (ks?) does not allow a
decision between plenilunium, interlunium,
or novilunium. DURAND suggests that Akk
ki-sa is related to KuXXüm, which in texts
from Mari denotes the end of the month (ina
kussim; ARMT 21 [1983] no. 48 and p. 56
n. 10). A similar meaning obtains for Ar
kus? (‘the latter part of the month; its last
ten days, or about that period'; E. W. LANE,
An Arabic-English Lexicon [Beirut 1968]
7.2608 s.v. kus?). On the assumption that
the terms passed in review all go back to
the same root KS", it would seem that Ks?
stands for the lunar phase from the pleni-
lunium till the interlunium. Common
Semitic Ks? would thus designate the latter
half of the month or, as G. Bickell formula-
ted it with reference to Syriac ks?, "signifi-
cat proprie ct etymologice tempus inter
plenilunium et interlunium quo luna
sensim obtegitur" (reference apud R. PAYNE
SurrH, Thesaurus Syriacus, I [Oxford 1879]
1783).
Whilst the Hebrew Bible exhibits some
traces of a mythological background of the
moon as a stellar body (-*Moon), the term
480
KESIL — KHVARENAH
kese? did not retain any association with a
deity.
IV. Bibliography
M. Astour, Some New Divine Names from
Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284, esp. 282:
J.-M. Duranp, La divination par les
oiseaux, MARI 8 (1997) 273-282, esp. 279.
K. VAN DER TOORN
KESIL ^ ORION
KHONSU
I. The name of the Egyptian god
Khonsu occurs once in the Apocrypha of the
Old Testament (3 Macc 6:38) as part of the
Egyptian name of the ninth month of the
year and first month of the summer season:
Pachon, i.c. ‘He of Khonsu’.
II. The god Khonsu was mostly repre-
sented in the form of a mummy with the
head of a child wearing the sidelock of
youth or with the head of a hawk. In both
cases he usually wears the sign of the moon
on his head. He was a moongod. His name
might be explained as the “wanderer” or “he
who comes and goes”. He was the divine
child of Amun and Mut in the divine triad
of Karnak. He had a beautiful temple in the
precinct of Amun at Karnak. The famous
Bentresh-stela which extols Khonsu as a
healing god was found in another temple of
Khonsu in Kamak. Besides in Karnak or
Thebes, Khonsu was venerated together with
Amun and Mut in many places and temples
in Egypt.
II. This ninth month of the Egyptian
calendar received its name after the festival
of the god Khonsu (BRUNNER, LdA 1, 962;
ALTENMULLER, LdA II, 174). The name
Pakhón/Pashons is still retained as the name
of a month in the Christian-Coptic calendar
(April 26 - May 25).
IV. Bibliography
J. voN BECKERATH, Kalender, LdA III 297-
299; H. Brunner, Chons, LdÄ | 960-963;
G. PosENER, Recherches sur le dieu Khon-
su, Annuaire du College de France 65
(1965-1966) 342-343; 66 (1966-1967) 339-
342: 67 (1967-1968) 345-349; 68 (1968-
1969), 401-407; 69 (1969-1970) 375-379;
70 (1970-1971) 391-396.
H. TE VELDE
KHVARENAH
I. The Iranian divinity Khvarenah (A-
vestan Xvarenah), Glory, is once found in
the Bible as an element of a personal name.
In Num 34:25 mention is made of Parnak
(LXX Pharnach), which resembles Old Iran-
ian *farndka, comparable to other hypoco-
ristic theophoric names attested in the Perse-
polis Fortification Texts, such as *Mazdaka,
*Mithraka and *Bagaka. This resemblance
can only be a coincidence in the context of
Moses, but the adversary of Judith in the
book named after her is called by the truly
Iranian name Holophernés, probably bor-
rowed from the historical Cappadocian
prince Orophernés. The etymology of this
name is a matter of dispute, but it probably
derives from *vanifarnah, meaning “having
wide Glory”. (For all these names, M.
MAYRHOFER, Onomastica — Persepolitana
[Wien 1973]; for *varufarnah, R. SCHMITT,
Einige iranische Namen auf Inschriften oder
Papyri, ZPE 17 [1975] 15-24).
Il. Although the Zoroastrian divinity
Glory is mainly known by his Avestan name
Khvarenah, the noun meaning "glory" is
attested in almost every Iranian language
with initial f. Thus we have Old Pers *far-
nah (abundantly attested in personal names),
Soghdian prn, Khotanese phårra-, Bactrian
farr. It occurs in Armenian as a loanword,
pfark', and is also attested in the isolated
north-eastern Iranian languages, Scythian
*farna, Ossetic farn, although in these Jan-
guages it may be a West Iranian loanword.
The occurrence of the word in all Iranian
languages indicates that the idea of a divine
glory has a common Iranian background and
cannot be attributed exclusively to the Zoro-
astrian tradition. In view of the general lack
of information conceming non-Zoroastrian
Iranian religions, however, the evidence we
have for the divinity can only be grasped
from the Zoroastrian sources. The etymol-
ogy of the word xvarenal/farnah is a matter
481
KHVARENAH
of debate. BAILEY suggested that n derives
from a root *hvar, to acquire, and hence
means “the good things of life" (1971:
XXUII-XXIV). DucHESNE-GUILLEMIN how-
ever took up the old suggeston that it de-
rives from Old Iranian *hvar, "sun", and
that it means “solar fluid’, the essence
which causes life to prosper (1963). In the
new edition of the main hymn to Khvare-
nah, Yt. 19, HiNTzE (1994:28-33) has sug-
gested an etymology on a verbal root *x"ar-
(Indo-European *suel), “to smoulder",
which is now commonly adopted (GNOLI
1996). The new etymology restores a fiery
aspect to the origial semantic field of the
deity’s name.
Khvarenah occurs in the Avesta both as a
noun, meaning “glory” and as a personified
abstract divinity “Glory”. It is a frequent
element in personal names both in Avestan
and in all other Iranian languages. There-
fore, it 1s to be considered a very important
religious distinction in the Iranian tradition.
Khvarenah in the Avesta is in the first place
a quality possessed by the gods. Ahura
Mazda calls himself the “glorious” and the
“most glorious” (Yt. 1.12), Verethraghna,
the god of Victory introduces himself with
the words “J am the most glorious in glory"
(Yt. 14.3) and the important river-goddess
Anahita is said to possess “as much glory as
the whole of the waters” (Yt. 5.96).
In the hymn to the sun (Yt. 6) and the
hymn to the moon (Yt. 7) Glory is described
as something the gods give to the earth:
“(The spiritual yazatas) gather that Glory,
they pour down that Glory, they give (it)
unto the Ahura-created world, to increase
the worlds of Righteousness, to increase the
creatures of Righteousness” (Yt. 6.1). In this
respect Khvarenah belongs to a sphere of
ancient divine concepts of fertility and seem-
ingly amoral elements of fortune, sharing
important characteristics with the goddess
Aši (fortune) and the above-mentioned
Verethraghna (KREYENBROEK 1991:137-138).
Khvarenah withdraws itself, it flees from
those who possess it, when they lie, but also
when they are faced with oppression and
hardship.
482
Khvarenah has two important and
obvious connections in the Avesta, with
sovereignty and with the Iranians, For both
these connections it has special epithets, i.e,
kaoiia (kingly), uyra (strong), atriiana (Iran-
ian) and ax"areta (a word of unknown
meaning, either "unseizable" or "lightless"),
There are two hymns in the Avesta devoted
to Khvarenah and to those who possessed it,
Yt. 18 and Yt 19. The short Yt. 18 (in-
scribed to the goddess of Justice, Arstdr) is
devoted to Glory of the Aryans, a special
aspect of Khvarenah as the protector and
upholder of the well-being of the Iranians.
Of more theological interest is the much
longer Yt. 19 (inscribed to the goddess of
the earth, Zam), which is an elaborate
description of Khvarenah and of the differ-
ent persons who possessed Glory or who
tried to seize jt, but failed (HINTZE 1994).
Despite its obvious connection with fire and
warmth, Khvarenah 3s often said to hide in
Lake VourukaSa, where it is safely kept by
the water-god Apam Napat. All important
heroes of Iranian mythical history are repre-
sented as possessors of the kingly Glory,
when they performed their miraculous
works. The most important of these is Yima,
who possessed Glory until it left him be-
cause he lied (Yt. 19.31-34). The Glory
leaving Yima is embodied in the shape of a
bird. There is a detailed description of Fran-
grasyan, one of the most hated enemies of
the Iranians, who undresses himself and
swims in Lake Vourukaga to get hold of the
Khvarenah, but never succeeds (although in
Yt. 19.93 he actually possesses Glory for a.
very short while). The glory that Frangras-
yan tries to steal from Lake Vourukasa is.
described as “the Glory that belongs to the
Aryan nations, born and unborn, arid to the -
holy Zarathustra” (Yt. 19.64), and the fact.
that Zarathustra actually possessed Glory ís
a consistent element in the Avesta and in the.
Jater Zoroastrian tradition, culminating in
the story of the joumey made by Glory:
before it came to Zarathustra's mother 25:
described in Dénkard VIL. After Zarathustra: i
the Khvarenah is passed on to Vistaspa, hi$:
patron and it is said to come to the v:
à
KIMAH — KING
Saviours at the end of time.
Apart from the information provided by
the Avesta and by the occurrence of farnah
in personal names, a wealth of icono-
graphical material, from the Achaemenid era
onwards, provides an important insight into
the practical and political meaning of Glory.
It has by now been accepted by most
scholars that the famous "figure in the
winged disk", that can be found in very
many specimens of Achaemenid art, is a
representation of the kingly Glory, a divine
symbol of the orthodoxy and sovereignty of
the king of kings. The interpretation of the
“figure in the winged disk” as Glory was
convincingly given by SHAHBAzI (1974-
1980; Boyce 1982:100-105). It appears on
some of the majestic Achaemenid reliefs,
where it carefully mirrors the gesture and
appearance of the king, it appears in the
presence of the sacred fire and it appears as
an omamental symbol in solitary works of
an. The identification of this symbol with
the kingly Glory is not completely un-
problematic (LEcoQ 1984), but the fact that
it often appears as the exact similitude of
the king makes an identification with Ahura
Mazda (as upheld by LEcoQ) unlikely. The
omnipresence of the symbol, and the com-
bined evidence of classical authors, who fre-
quently mention the khvarenah, translating it
with tyche, (-Tyche) daimón (-*Demon) or
doxa, indicate that under the Achaemenids
the concept of Khvarenah clearly had both a
religious and a political meaning, even
though it is conspicuously absent from their
inscriptions. The Achaemenid kings pro-
fessed their religious affiliation by endlessly
invoking Ahura Mazda as the god who gave
them their sovereignty, who made them
king, who appointed them as his chosen
ones. The external evidence for this special
position was the appearance of the divine
Glory, carefully fostered in art and in cere-
mony. The idea of a divine glory with spe-
cial links with the sovereign continued to
play an important part in the following Iran-
ian dynasties, and can be found in Parthian,
Sasanian and early Islamic literature and art.
The divinity Glory, apart from being praised
in two hymns, is also worshipped in several
prayers and rites of personal devotion.
III. Bibliography
H. W. BaiLEY, Zoroastrian Problems in the
Ninth Century Books (Oxford 1971, repr.);
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism II:
Under the Achaemenians (HdO VIIL.1.2.
2.2A; Leiden 1982); J. DUCHESNE-GUIL-
LEMIN, Le XYarenah, AZON, Sezione Lin-
guistica, 5 (1963) 19-31; J. DUCHESNE-
GUILLEMIN, La royauté iranienne et le
xVarenah, /ranica (ed. G. Gnoli & A. V.
Rossi; Napoli 1979) 375-386; G. GNo.i,
Note sullo "XVarenah-", Acta Iranica 23
(1984) 207-218; B. JAcoBs, Das Chvarnah -
Zum Stand der Forschung, MDOG 119
(1987) 215-248 [& lit]; GNout, Uber das
iranische *huamah: lautliche, morphologi-
sche und etymologische Probleme. Zum
Stand der Forschung, AoF 23 (1996) 171-
180; *A. Hintze, Der Zamyad Yašt (Beiträge
zur Iranistik 15; Wiesbaden 1994); P. G.
KREYENBROEK, On the Shaping of Zoroast-
rian Theology, Histoire et cultes de l'Asie
centrale préislamique (ed. P. Bernard & F.
Grenet; Paris 1991) 137-145; P. LEcoQ, Un
probléme de religion Achéménide: Ahura
Mazda ou Xvarnah?, Acta Iranica 23 (1984)
301-326; A. S. SHatBazi, An Achaemenid
Symbol I. A Farewell to "Fravahr and Ahu-
ramazda", AMI 7 (1974) 135-144; A. S.
SHAHBAZI, An Achaemenid Symbol II.
Farnah "(God given) Fortune" Symbolised,
AMI 13 (1980) 119-147.
A. F. DE JoNG
KIMAH -* PLEIADES
KING 175
I. The concept of kingship is wide-
spread in the ancient Near East. The epithet
melek, ‘king’, is also used 41 times for
Yuwu in the OT. In addition YHWH is 13
times subject of the verb milk, ‘to rule’, ‘to
be king’. The abstract nouns derived from
the root MLK occur nine times with reference
to YHWH. Moreover, personal names that
refer to the kingship of YHWH have been
found on Hebrew ostraca, bullae and scals
483
KING
from the carly seventh century BCE onward.
Furthermore, the name of a number of
ancient Near Eastern deities seems to have
been derived from the root MLK: —Malik,
—Melgart (< Milk-qart, ‘King of the City’),
-*Milcom and probably —Molech. The asso-
ciation of these deities with the god of the
underworld (-»Nergal) suggests that ‘king’
in these instances has the specific meaning
"Lord of the Underworld’. A deity with the
name Melek is nowhere attested in the Old
Testament: the massoretic melek in Isa 57:9
is best understood as a reference to
Malik/Molech and gam-há lammelek in Isa
30:33, which is probably a gloss, might also
refer to Molech.
II. Throughout the ancient Near East the
world of the gods is modeled after the
human society (HANDY 1994: passim). The
most important deity is portrayed as ‘king of
the gods’, he is the one who presides over
the -*council of the gods. The king among
the gods is first and foremost king over the
gods, though his rule may then include
kingship over the world and the people
(SCHMIDT 1961:54; GESE 1970:97).
In Babylonia >Marduk the god of Baby-
lon is known as the ‘king of the gods’. Mar-
duk’s ascendancy to kingship is celebrated
in the so-called Creation Epic Enuma Elis.
In the wake of his battle against -*Tiamat,
Marduk is proclaimed ‘king of the gods’:
dMardukma Sar-ru, ‘Marduk is king’ (IV,
28); see also inanna Sar-ru-ku-un, ‘now he
is your king’ (V. 110). The state god of
Assyria -*Assur is likewise considered ‘king
of the gods’. The epithet farru, ‘king’,
however, is also used for a number of other
deities in the Akkadian literature (TALLOQ-
visT 1938:232-240). The epithet is used to
sketch the dominion of the deities over the
universe or to portray them as the patron or
possessor of objects, topographical entities,
faculties or qualities: e.g. Ea (Aya) has the
title Sar aps, ‘Lord of the Deep’, and
Samax (-*Shemesh) is seen as Sar famé u
erseti, ‘Lord of Heaven and Earth’. Mar-
duk’s epithet Sar ilani, ‘king of the gods’, is
also used for Adad, Anu, Ea, Enlil, >Nabû,
Ninurta (-*Nimrod), -*Sin and others. The
moongod Nanna/Sin is occasionally called
Sar Sarrani, "king of kings’ and Enlil ‘king
of kings of kings" (TALLQvisT 1938:237).
In Ugarit the epithet mlk, ‘king’, is parti-
cularly used with reference to -*El, who is
called mik ‘Im, ‘etemal king’. He is the one
who presides over the council of the gods,
the dr [bn] il, ‘the circle of (the sons) of
Ilu’. The kingship of El, apparently, did not
prevent a number of other deities from being
involved in a fierce struggle for kingship
over the gods. Their kingship is always
exercised under the suzerainty of El, for he
is the only one who can appoint a god king.
In the Myth of -Baal (KTU 1.1-6) the
kingship is contested between the gods Baal
and Yam (-*Sea). The latter has to give up
his kingship when he has to succumb to
Baal. When Baal in tum has to surrender to
-*Mot, the god Attar is designated to take
over the kingship of Baal. Attar, however,
tums out to be too little to fill the throne of
Baal. Apparently not all gods were capable
to exercise royal power. In the end Baal, the
state god of the city of Ugarit, is restored to
power again (cf. SurrH 1994:xxii-xxiii). The
divine kingship in Ugaritic literature, is
characterized by certain accessories typical
for a king (KorreL 1990:282-283). The
king of the gods is supposed to live in a
palace, where he sits on a throne. He wears
fine clothes and has a royal cap and sceptre.
The kingship of El and Baal is different in
that El’s kingship is more static (‘eternal
king’), he remains the head of the gods,
whereas Baal’s kingship is dynamic, he
gives fertility and life to the world
(ScuMipr 1961:52-54; GesE 1970:125; cf.
also SMITH 1994:93-96).
III. The epithet melek is used sparingly
for YHWH in the OT. The personal name
yhwmlk appears two times, and the name
mlkyhw (cf. Jer 21:1) appears 15 times on
Hebrew ostraca, bullae and seals from the
early seventh century BCE onward (G. I.
Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions [Cam-
bridge 1991] 368, 426). The tentative inter-
pretation of an inscription in a cave near
Engedi from ca. 700 BCE as a reference to
the kingship of YHWH over the peoples: brk
484
KING
yhw(Ah..] ... brk bgy[m] mik "dny. 'Blessed is
Yuw[u] (..) Blessed (is He) with the
peop[les] as king. (Blessed is) my Lord’ (cf.
K.A.D. SMELIK, Historische Dokumente aus
dem alten Israel [Göttingen 1987} 146-147),
has been rejected on good grounds (see J.
Renz & W. RöLLIG, Handbuch der Althe-
brüischen | Epigraphik (Darmstadt 1995}
173-175. In the OT the concept of the kings-
hip of YHWH is, strikingly enough, only
found twice in prose texts (1 Sam 8:7;
12:12), though 1 Kgs 22:19-23 does imply
the idea of YnwH'’s kingship. Most referen-
ces occur in hymnic texts. The epithet melek
is used 20 times in the Psalms, of which
seven can be found in the YHWH-is-King
Psalms (Ps 47; 93; 95-99; cf. JEREMIAS
1987). The verb mik with YHWH as subject
also occurs seven out of 13 times in the
YHWH-is-King Psalms.
The texts that refer to the kingship of
YuwH mostly date from the exilic and post-
exilic period. The references to his kingship
in the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic
History are very difficult to date (Exod
15:18; Num 23:21; Deut 33:5; 1 Sam 8:7;
12:12; see also Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 10:19).
The origin of the concept of the kingship of
YHWH cannot easily be established. On close
examination the kingship of YHWH combi-
nes traits from the kingship of those deities
who preside over the council of the gods
and from the kingship of the deities who
become king after they overcome their ene-
mies. YHWH presides over a heavenly coun-
cil like Anu and El (Isa 6; 1 Kgs 22:19-23),
but he also shares in the accessories which
establish Baal’s kingship (palace, throne)
after his victory over Yam (SCHMIDT
1961:71-72; KorreL 1995:283-285). It is
very unlikely that YHWH was portrayed as
‘king of the gods’ at a relatively early stage
in history. In the period of the monarchies
(1000-586 BCE) the religion of Israel shared
the characteristics of the polytheistic reli-
gion of the neighbouring peoples, which
were all variants of a common Syro-Palesti-
nian pattem (LANG 1983:20-21). The
national gods of the peoples surrounding
Israel were not seen as heads of the Pan-
theon. The OT is still conscious of the fact
that YHwu, the national god of Israel, ori-
ginally was one of the gods in the council of
El (Deut 32:8-9*). The idea that national
gods were nevertheless each perceived as
king of their people, cannot be deduced
from the fact that the names of Melqart, the
national god of Tyre, and Milcom, the
national god of Ammon, appear to have the
meaning ‘king’, because of their obvious
association with the underworld. YitwH only
gradually acquired the title and the characte-
ristics of ‘king of the gods’, when the
YHWH-alone-movement gathered momentum
in the seventh and sixth centurics BCE and
YHWH ousted Baal and El from their posi-
tions in the Canaanite pantheon. A number
of the YHwu-is-King psalms attest to the
precedence YHWH is given over the other
gods (Ps 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9). In the later OT
tradition of Isa 6; 1 Kgs 22:19-23 and Job 1-
2 the gods of the council have been demy-
thologized to mere heavenly beings. When
the existence of the other gods is finally
denied altogether, the concept of the kings-
hip of YHWH is given a new meaning. No
longer ‘king of the gods’, YHWH becomes
the ‘king of Israel’ (ScHMIDT 1961:72-76).
Only that the end of this development the
Deuteronomist can use the idea of the kings-
hip of YHWH to criticize the earthly kingship
(1 Sam 8:7; 12:12).
IV. In the Qumran literature the title
‘king’ is also used for God. In 1QapGen
2:4, 7 God is called ‘king of all aeons’ and
in IQapGen 2:14 ‘king of heaven’. In 1QM
12:3 the verb milk is used with God as a sub-
ject. In 1 QM 12:8; 19:1 the title melek
hakkabéd, ‘king of splendour’, can be
found. The kingship of God is often men-
tioned in the hymnic literature of Qumran.
In IQM 14:16 the title ‘king of kings’
occurs in parallelism with ‘god of gods’ (see
also 4Q381 fragments 76-77 line 7; cf. the
similar ‘god of gods and lord of lords’ in
Deut 10:17). In 2 Macc 13:4 the title ‘king
of kings’ is also used with reference to God.
The development of the title ‘king of kings’
might be a reaction to the Persian military
and administrative conception of the empe-
485
KING OF TERRORS
ror as king of kings and the corresponding
religious ideology of the transcendent god or
spirit, Ahura Mazda (cf. T. L. THOMPSON,
The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical
Narrative, The Triumph of Elohim. From
Yahwisms to Judaisms [ed. D. V. Edelman;
Kampen 1995] 114-116). In Sir 51:12n the
superlative ‘king of kings of kings’ can be
found (see also Aboth 4:22). In the NT the
title ‘king’ is rarely used with reference to
God. The title ‘king of acons’ occurs in 1
Tim 1:17, whilst Matt 5:35 refers to God as
‘the great king’. In some of the parables in
the Gospel of Matthew God plays the role
of the king (Matt 18:23; 22:2, 7, 11, 13).
Nonetheless, the frequent occurrence of
‘kirigdom of God’ in the synoptic Gospels
implies the concept of God's being king.
The title ‘king of kings’ is used in the NT
with regard to -*Jesus in 1 Tim 6:1; Rev
17:14; 19:16.
V. Bibliography
F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion
of Israel (Cambridge, MA 1973); H. GESE,
M. HórNzER & K. RUDOLPH, Die Religionen
Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandüer
(RdM 10,2; Stuttgart, Berlin, Kóln & Mainz
1970) 1-232; L. K. HANDY, Among the
Host of Heaven: The Syro-Phoenician Pan-
theon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake 1994);
J. JEREMIAS, Das Künigstum Gottes in den
Psalmen (FRLANT 141; Góttingen 1987);
M. C. A. KonPEL, A Rift in the Clouds:
Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the
Divine (UBL 8; Münster 1990) 281-286; B.
LANG, Monotheism and the Prophetic Mino-
rity (Social World of Biblical Antiquities
Series 1; Sheffield 1983) 9-59; H. RING-
GREN, Die Religionen des Alten Orients
(Göttingen 1979); *H. RINGGREN, K. SEv-
BOLD & H. J. FABRY, 170, TWAT IV (1982-
1984) 926-957 [& lit); *W. H. SCHMIDT,
Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel
(BZAW 80; Berlin 1961); SCHMIDT, Alttes-
tamentlicher Glaube in seiner Geschichte
(Neukirchen Vluyn 19824) 152-160; M.
SMITH, Palestinian Parties and Politics that
Shaped the Old Testament (New York
1971); M. S. Surru, The Early History of
God (San Francisco 1990); SMITH, The Uga-
ritic Baal Cycle 1 (VTSup 55; Leiden 1994);
J. A. Soccin, 722, THAT | (1978) 908-920
[& lit}; K. Tattovist, AKkKGE. (StOr 7;
Helsinki 1938) 232-240; H. KLEINKNECHT,
G. vou Rap, H. G. KuuN « K. L.
SCHMIDT, Baowets xKtdA, TWNT 1(1933)
562-595.
J. A. WAGENAAR
KING OF TERRORS r2 qo
I. The Designation ‘King of Terrors’
(mlk blhwt) occurs only once in the OT, in
Job 18:14. Some commentators describe the
term ‘King of Terrors’ as a metaphorical
expression with some mythological back-
ground that was common in the ancient
world; compare rex tremendus in Virgil,
Georgics 4.469 (FOHRER 1988:304).
II. Attempts at identifying the ‘King of
Terrors’ with ancient Near Eastern deities of
the underworld remain doubtful. According
to IRWIN, Job 18:14 is an allusion to the
tule of Ereshkigal, queen of the ‘Land of no
Return’ (1962:222). The argument could be
based on the feminine verbal form wis‘dhw
(compare v. 15), but the form is not quite
clear (leaving aside conjectures). SARNA
proposed a t-preformative for the 3.m.s.
(1963:318; compare Job 20:9; EA 143:27-
28; 323:22). This proposal is discussed by
CLINES (1989:406).
Some interpretations relate the ‘King of
Terrors’ to the bkwr mwt in v13 (-*First-
Born of Death), but the identification of this
term is controversial. The crucial point is the
question whether there is a Mesopotamian
or Canaanite background for bkwr mwt.
Burns (1987; 1993) argues strongly for
the Mesopotamian option: “There, Namtar is
the god of plague and pestilence. He is
described as sukallu (sic) irsiti, the ‘vizier of
the underworld’. He is also the iliri
dEreškigal the ‘offspring of Ereshkigal’,
who was queen of the netherworld. In Mes-
opotamian mythology the first-born, if male,
was generally the vizier of his parent.”
(Burns 1987:363; AGE 387-388; compare
already DHORME 1926:240). The ‘King of
486
KING OF TERRORS
Terrors’ may be identified with Nergal, the
husband of Ereshkigal BURNS cites a pas-
sage from a vision of the realm of death:
«The netherworld was filled with terror;
before the prince lay utter sti[H]ness... With
a fierce [c]ry he shrieked at me wrathfully
like a fu[rioJus storm; tbe scepter, which
befits his divinity, one which is full of ter-
ror, like a viper.” (ANET 110, Col. I; the
relevant Akkadian terms are puluhtu and
šiššu; VON SODEN, ZA 43 [1936] 17, 53; see
also SAA 3 [1989] no.32 r.13-15). BURNS
comments on this passage: "The image con-
veyed is quite clear. The ‘First-Born of
Death’, Namtar, god of pestilence, lays hold
on the wicked man, devours his skin with
buming fevers, consumes his shriveled
limbs and drags him before Nergal, king of
the underworld and husband to Ereshkigal
the mother of Namtar.” (1987:364). The
difficulty with Burns’ approach lies in the
fact that Namtar’s status as the firstborn son
of Ereshkigal is not explicitly expressed in
the texts; it is only a matter of recon-
‘struction.
A Canaanite background was emphasized
iby SARNA: in v. 13 mwt is a designation for
the well-known deity of death and the
metherworld (Mot). The ‘King of Terrors’
may be identified with this deity. The prob-
Jem with SARNA's view is apparent in the
designation bkwr mwt. Mots firstborn
‘would “occupy the same position in Canaan
‘as did Namtar, the messenger (...) and son
of Ereshkigal in Babylonian mythology. He
;would be a demon of evil fate, the grim
‘herald of Mot, assigned the function of driv-
ing the souls into ^Sheol" (1963:316). But,
as Sarna clearly states, in Canaanite
:mythology no mention of Mot’s sons has yet
sturned up (1963:316 n. 13).
ty. The identification of the ‘King of Terrors’
With Mot is adopted by Wyatr (1990: 215).
‘tying to avoid the problems concerning
Mot’ S sons, he suggests that bkwr in bkwr
Jw! be taken as an apposition, translating
& Firstborn Death'. According to his recon-
‘Sttuction ‘firstborn’ should be a designation
E Mot as a son of >El; but this desig-
Ration is not found in the Ugaritic texts. It
seems doubtful that bkwr should be under-
stood as a title; bkwr is a relational term,
which simply emphasizes that the figure in
question is the firstborn of another. This
indication would be missing in WyAatTr’s
proposition.
Wf. The noun baliahé derives from the
root BLH which is etymologically related to
BLH. The meaning of ballahá is ‘terror’,
especially in the plura] form which is char-
acteristic of the book of Job (18:11, 14;
24:17; 27:20; 30:15; so BDB 117) As
SARNA has pointed out, every usage of
balláhá in Job is associated with a figure of
destruction. The term describes an objective
disaster rather than a subjective experience
(Cumrzs 1989:419). The association with
slmwt in Job 24:17 (cf. 10:21; 38:17) dem-
onstrates that ballahá is a designation for
the netherworld (SARNA 1963:315). In Job
18:14 the LXX and Vg differ from the MT
(DHORME 1926:240). The identification of
the ‘King of Terrors’ with Nergal seems to
be the most appropriate option (T. H. Gas-
TER, IDB I, 820-821; his textual evidence is
problematic though; instead of EBELING,
TuL 35, see VAN Dux, SKIZ 4). The ter-
rifying luminosity (German ‘Schreckens-
glanz') of this god is described in various
Sumerian and Akkadian terms; as VON
WEINER has pointed .out, this refers to
Nergal as a luminous deity (1971:73-75).
The mention of Nergal’s kingdom and of his
terror is found in a Sumerian hymn (SGI Yl,
1,7-9. 55). The deity is well attested in the
West (KAI 222 A 9) and once in the OT (2
Kgs 17:30 as the deity of Babylonian colon-
ists after the Fall of Samaria); the cult con-
tinues up to the second century CE (VON
WEIHER 1971:105-106).
YV. Bibliography
J. B. BunNs, The Identity of Death's First-
Born (Job xvii 13) VT 37 (1987) 362-364;
BunNs, Namtaru and Nergal — down but not
out: a Reply to Nicolas Wyatt, VT 43 (1993)
1-9; D. J. A. CLINES, Job 1-20 (WBC 17;
Dallas, Texas 1989) 403-425; P. DHORME,
Le Livre de Job (Paris 19262) 233-244; G.
Fourer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Güters-
loh 19882) 296-306; W. A. IRWIN, Job's
487
KING OF TYRE — KINNARU
Redeemer, JBL 81. (1962) 217-229; N. S.
SARNA, The Mythological Background of
Job 18, JBL 82 (1963) 315-318; E. von
WEIHER, Der babylonische Gott Nergal
(AOAT 11l; Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn
1971); N. Wvarr, The Expression bekór
màwet in Job xviii 13 and its Mythological
Background, VT 40 (1990) 207-216.
U. RUTERSWORDEN
KING OF TYRE ~ MELQART
KINNARU mn.
I. The word kinnór ('lyre') occurs some
42 times in MT. Stringed instruments used
in the cult, such as the lyre, were at times
deified in the cultures surrounding Israel.
Il. The term knr appears 6 times in the
Ugaritic texts, both as a stringed instrument
(e.g. KTU 1.19 1:8; 1.108:4), and as a divine
name in the Ugaritic pantheon lists KTU
1.47:32 = 1.118:31, in the Akkadian list RS
20.24:31 (¢-8i8ki-na-rum), and in the sacrifi-
cial list KTU 1.148:9.38, where the god
receives one sheep. Ín view of the close
relationship between cult, religious language
and music, it is not surprising to find the
instrument to whose sounds hymns were
‘sung, deified, the instrument’s ‘song’ bemg
the voice of the god. The identity of the in-
strument—‘harp’ or ‘lyre’—is disputed. Gk
kinyras is commonly derived from West
Semitic (e.g. ALBRIGHT 1968:125 n. 91,
128; but cf. M. H. Pork, £l in the Ugaritic
Texts [V TSup 2; Leiden 1955] 53-54).
III. In most cases where the lyre is men-
tioned in the Hebrew Bible it is simply a
matter of the use of the instrument in popu-
Jar (Job 21:12) or cultic (2 Sam 6:5) context,
often in association with other instruments.
In no instance can it be understood as a di-
vine name as in Ugaritic, but the following
passages may faintly echo the old theology,
albeit long reinterpreted. Ps 49:5[4] explicit-
ly refers to the cultic use of the instrument:
’atteh lémasal ’ozni “Y incline my ear to the
proverb", "eptah békinnór hidati “I expound
my enigma to the accompaniment of the
lyre”. This may well be stereotyped lan-
488
guage, meaning no more than that the sing-
ing is accompanied. But the form of words
points to an older situation in which the in-
strument contributed (as a conscious partici-
pant?) to the process, as a divine mouth-
piece. In Ps 57:9[8] = 108:3[2] the lyre is
invoked along with another stringed instro-
ment, the nebel. In the context this may be
no more than poetic apostrophe (cf. e.g. Ps
24:7,9; 148 passim), but again it echoes an
older usage when minor gods of the pan-
theon were called upon to glorify their over-
Jord (KTU 1.108:4 cited above may echo the
same motif).
In 1 Sam 10:9-13 Saul joins a band of
ecstatic prophets following his election as
king; their spirit-possession is certainly
enhanced, if not caused by, the playing of
the instruments listed, Jute, drum, pipe and
lyre (v 5). And in 2 Kgs 3:15 Elisha sum-
mons a minstrel, and is possessed when the
man plays. The instrument is not specified,
but in view of the single use of the instru-
ment by David to placate Saul’s evil spint
(1 Sam 16: 14-23), it is possible that the
same is used here. So the instrument appears
to be credited in the tradition with the abil-
ity to enable communication between the
spiritual and natural worlds. There is how-
ever no direct biblical evidence for the sur-
vival of the deified instrument in israe) or
Judah.
The hypothesis which sees in the biblical
toponym Chinnereth (cf. V. Fritz, Chinne-
reth, ABD 1 [1992] 909-910) a reflection of
a goddess Kinnartu, the counterpart of Kin-
naru, has no foundation in the texts whatso-
ever (contra Jirku 1960; cF. ALBRIGHT
1968:125 n. 91).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan (London 1968) 125, 128; A-
Cooper, Divine Names and Epithets in the
Ugaritic Texts, RSP 3 (1981) 384-385; A.
Jirku, Gab es eine palüstinisch-syrische
Gottheit Kinneret?, ZAW 72 (1960) 69; J:
NouGayro r, Ug V (1968) 59.
N. WYATT,
a
e
SG od Mex usi
KIRIRISA
KIRIRISA
I. Kirinia (var. Kiris3a) is an Elamite
goddess. consort of NapiriSa, and mother of
Hutran (WbMyth V1, 55). JENSEN 1892:64
urged that the name of Zeresh (O7i, Est
5:10.14; 6:13), the wife of Haman, goes
back to the name of the goddess Kiririsa.
This theory is to be rejected on phonological
grounds
I. KirinSa is an important Elamite
deity. Her name means 'great lady' (kiri-
risa) and she was the consort of NapiriSa,
the ‘great lord’. She is a mother goddess and
her most important epithet is ‘mother of the
gods’ (amma nappipir). Her cult is attested
from the beginning of the second millenni-
um BCE onwards and remained very impor-
tant until the Late Elamite Period. A major
cult centre of Kiriri8a was located on the
peninsula Liyan (modern Bandar BuSahr),
on the coast of the Persian Gulf, where in
the 18th century BCE Simut-wartas, the suk-
kalmalı of Susa, dedicated a gift to this god-
dess. King Humban-numena (13th century
BCE) built a temple for Napiriša and Kiririša
on the same location.
Another old cult centre of Kiririša is
Ašnan, modem Tall-i Malyan. In this city
she was the consort of the important god
Napiriša, and they became, with the political
rise of the city of Anšan in the second mil-
lennium BCE, together with InSuSinak, the
god of the city of Susa, the heads of the Ela-
mite state pantheon (-*Humban). The son of
this divine couple was Hutran (W. HiNz,
Hutran, RLA 4 [1972-75] 526-27). Napirisa
was identified with the Babylonian god Ea,
god of the subterrancan waters, magic and
knowledge (E. REINER, Surpu. A Collection
of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations
[AfO Beih. 11; Graz 1958] 51 Commentary
C: 54). The great temple complex of Choga
Zanbil, constructed by Untaš-Napiriša (13th
cent. BCE) in an effort to combine the differ-
ent pantheons of the composite Elamite
state, contained a temple of KiririSa (DE
MIROSCHEDII 1980: 142-43)
In Susa, Kirirnisa was sometimes grouped
together with the local main deity InSu3inak.
Already in the early second millennium they
appear together in texts (MDP 18 no. 26, a
scribal exercise from the Sukkalmab-period)
and later texts mention common characteris-
tics: both Inšušinak and Kiririša possess a
'forest-temple" (siyan husame / siyan kiš-
tumma; GRILLOr 1986: 175-76), and they
are qualified as temti kukunnum lahakra,
‘lord of the dead in the elevated temple’,
and zana ^SLiyan lalakra, ‘lady of the dead
in Liyan’ respectively (GRILLOT 1986: 179;
for the translation of lala see WALLAT
1997). GRiLLor 1986 assumes that, owing
to political factors, Kiriri$a rose to importan-
ce in Susa and was therefore coupled with
the old main deity of this city. VALLAT 1997
offers a different explanation: according to
his theory ‘forest-temples’ and temple-
towers crowned with elevated sanctuaries
(kukunnum) are indicative for the afterlife
orientation central to the Elamite religion.
Each god in his titulary town was the centre
of a cult oriented on the netherworld, which
means that Kiriri$a played this role in Liyan
and InSuSinak in Susa. The supposed asso-
ciation between the two gods is therefore
only virtual. Kiririsa is also attested as ono-
mastic element (R. Zanox, The Elamite
Onomasticon [Napels 1984} 20 s.v. 103 b.
Kiri-ri3a).
HiNz 1976-80 argued that Kiririsa was a
substitute-name of Pininkir, the wife of the
god Humban, used when her original name
had become a taboo. This theory cannot be
upheld and both goddesses must be separa-
ted: Pininkir is part of the pantheon of the
Awan-dynasty and Kiriri*a originates from
the south.
Ill. Zeresh. the wife of Haman, plays
only a minor role in the biblical Book of
Esther. JENSEN wishes to connect her name
to Kiririsa (or, as he read it, KiriSa): "Ich
bemerke hier nur vorläufig, dass ich gegrün-
dete Vermuthung habe, dass ĶKiriša in 005,
der Gemahlin des (Añ fonlebt ...” (1892:64).
The speculated link mirrors the one posited
by Jensen between Haman and Humban,
since Kiririša was, in his opinion, the con-
son of Humban, as Zeresh is the spouse of
Haman. There is no need, however, to have
recourse to a theonym to explain Zeresh’s
489
KOKABIM — KOSHAR
name. More convincing etymologies have
been suggested, though none of them has
won the support of the majority of scholars
(for possibilities sce GEHMAN 1924:327;
ZADOK 1977:268). The implied change of
Elamite /k/ into Hebrew /z/ would seem to
preclude a connection between Zeresh and
the goddess Kiririsa (Zapox 1977:268).
IV. Bibliography
H. S. GEHMAN, Notes on the Persian Words
in the Book of Esther, JBL 43 (1924) 321-
328; F. GniLLor, KiririSa, Fragmenta Histo-
riae Aelamicae (Mél. M.-J. Steve; ed. L. De
Meyer, H. Gasche & F. Vallat; Paris 1986)
175-80; W. Hinz, Kiriri$a, RLA 5 (1976-
80) 605-606; P. JENSEN, Elamitische Eigen-
namen, WZKM 6 (1892) 47-70; H. Kocn,
Lijan, RLA 7 (1987-90) 19; P. DE Miro-
SCHEDJI, Le dieu élamite Napirisha, RA 74
(1980) 129-43; F. VaLLar, Le caractére
funéraire de la ziggurat en Elam, NABU
1997/38; R. Zapox, On Five Biblical
Names, ZAW 89 (1977) 266-268; ZADOK,
On the Historical Background of the Book
of Esther, BN 24 (1984) 18-23.
F. vaN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
KOKABIM ~ STARS
KOSHAR ^32
I. The deity Kotharu (/kôtaru/ <
/kawtaru/) appears in Ugaritic as an inde-
pendent deity, and as part of the binomial
ktr w hss, ‘skillful and cunning’, of which
the regular parallel is hyn d hrš ydm (lit.
‘the deft one who is a worker with his
hands’). The meanings of the name and the
associated epithets are in keeping with
Kotharu's function as craftsman deity. It has
been proposed that this deity, under the
form of Koshar, is alluded to in Ezek 3:32
and Prov 31:19. His name may occur, more-
over, as an element in the name Cushan-
Rishathaim (Judg 3:8.10).
II. In the Ugaritic ‘pantheon’ texts, as
well as in the polyglot vocabularies, kir/ku-
Sar-ru is identified with the Mesopotamian
craftsman deity Ea/Aya (J. NOUGAYROL,
Ugaritica V [Paris 1968] 45, 51 [text 18:15]:
248 [text 137 iva 19]). The plausible inter-
pretation of several mythological passages
as indicating that Kotharu was at home in
both Egypt and Crete implies the view that
the arts and industrics were particularly
associated with these ancient centres of civi-
lization (on the history of discussion regard-
ing the identification of Iikpt/ligkpt and Kprr,
sec SurrH 1985:101-104).
The vocalization of the first syllable as
fk6/ « fkaw/ is established by analogy to the
feminine form (-*Kosharoth); because that
form appears to have been vocalized
fkawsuratum/ in the Old Babylonian period
(J.-M. DungaND, MARI 4 (1985] 161-164).
In the Ugaritic mythological texts.
Kotharu is the craftsman deity par excellence.
He plays the roles of architect (in the Ba‘lu
cycle), artisan (in the Ba‘lu and ’Aghatu
cycles), and musician/diviner (in KTU 1.108
and KTU 1.6 vi 42-53). A detailed presen-
tation of these various roles and an analysis
of the relevant texts can be found in SMITH
1985; cf. the bibliography in D. PARDEE.
AfO 36/37 (1989/1990) 454-455.
The deity was important in the religious
life of Ugarit; for. in addition to his presen-
ce in a broad spectrum of mythological
texts, he is fairly frequently named as the
recipient of sacrifices in the ritual texts (P.
XELLA, / testi rituali di Ugarit. I. Testi
[StSem 54; Rome 1981} 389). He also ap-
pears as the theophoric element in several
personal names (F. GRONDAHL, Die Per-
sonennamen der Texte aus Ugarit [StP 1;
Rome 1967} 152).
Veneration of Kotharu continued in
Phoenician society, as is indicated by the
theophoric element &(y)¥r in Punic and Neo-
Punic personal names (F. L. BENz, Per-
sonal Names in the Phoenician and Punic
Inscriptions [StP 8; Rome 1972] 336) and
by the reference to the deity Chousor in
Phylo Byblius’ Phoenician History (H. W.
ATTRIDGE & R. A. ODEN, JR., Phylo of
Byblos. The Phoenician History |CBQ
Monograph Series 9; Washington, D.C.
1981] 45, 84, SmMitH 1985:473-476) and in
Mochos’ Phoenician Mythology (ATTRIDGE
& ODEN, ibid., p. 102-104).
490
KOSHAROTH
A relic of the divine name may be pre-
served in the Quranic reference to al-
Kawthar (Sura 108; cf. Cooper 1981:386).
III. There is no certain reference to
Koshar in the Hebrew Bible, and one can
doubt even the presence of allusions to the
deity in Prov 31:19 and Ezek 33:32 (see
Cooper 1981:386). In Prov 31:19, there is
no need to emend Kisór; the translation 'dis-
taff is quite satisfactory. So is the under-
standing of Sir ‘agabim as ‘love songs’ in
Ezek 33:32. Finally, the presence of rei in
the second element of the personal name
küsan ris'átayim (Judg 3:8, 10) allows one
to doubt that the renditions Chousarsathoóm /
Chousarsathaim in LXX and Chousarthos
in Josephus represent a tradition according
to which the first element of the name
would have been kitSar. HOFFMANN (1896)
mentions the forms without accepting the
identification with Chousor.
IV. Bibliography
A. Cooper. Divine Names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic Texts, RSP, vol. III (AnOr 51;
Rome 1981) 333-469: G. HOFFMANN,
Aramiische Inschriften aus Nérab bei Alep-
po: Neue und alte Gótter, ZA 11 [1896] 207-
292, esp. 255; M. S. Smitn,: Kothar wa-
Hasis, the Ugaritic Craftsman God (diss.
Yale 1985).
D. PARDEE
KOSHAROTH 71732
L The &Aótarátu, apparently ‘the (fe-
male) skillful ones’, appear in Ugaritic
mythological texts in passages dealing with
human conception and in the ‘pantheon’
texts as the equivalent of Mesopotamian
mother-goddesses. A biblical reference to
these goddesses has been proposed in Ps
68:7 (e.g. W. F. ALBRIGHT. Yahweh and the
Gods of Canaan [London 1968] 119).
IH. The plural form krri appears in the
Aqhat legend (KTU 1.17) and in the Mar-
riage of Nikkal text (XTU 1.24) in contexts
associated with marriage and conception:
and in poetic parallelism with bnt hll snnt.
From the first fact it is clear that the
kôtarātu are not ‘midwives’ as such, be-
cause their intervention precedes pregnancy.
The interpretation of All snnt has been dis-
puted, some scholars construing the phrase
as denoting ‘song’, others as denoting
‘brightness, purity’ (for bibliography sce
SmĒmiırH 1985:467-468; D. PARDEE, AfO 36/
37 [1989/1990] 455-456). The regular paral-
lelism with bnt, an unambiguously plural
form, as well as the verbal form ‘rb in KTU
1.17 ii 26, show that kirt in these texts is
plural.
The other primary set of data from Ugarit
is provided by the ‘pantheon’ texts, where
one finds two variants in the syllabic entries
corresponding to ktrt in the Ugaritic ver-
sions: Snin mah (RS 26.142:16', RS 1992.
2004:4) and dsa-si-ra-tu4 (RS 20.24:12).
When publishing RS 20.24, J. NoUGAYROL
first interpreted the Akkadian entry as a sin-
gular, then as a plural (Ugaritica V [MRS
16; Paris 1968] 50, 63). From his comments
on RS 26.142 (ibid., 322), it is clear that he
did not realize the identification of 4nin
mah with 4sa-si-ra-tuy, an identification
which became clear only from the compari-
son of this ‘pantheon’ text with the Ugaritic
ritual text KTU 1.148 verso. This identi-
fication was pointed out by M. C. Astour,
who interpreted 4sa-sii-ra-tug as a singular
on the basis of the logographic entry
(Studies on the Civilization and Culture of
Nuzi and the Hurrians 2 [Winona Lake
1987] 56 n. 405. On Ninmah as mother-
goddess and creatrix, see D. O. EDZARD,
WbMyth 1 105).
The plural form dingir meš ka-Sa-ra-ti
appears in a list of divine names from Emar
(D. ARNAUD, Emar VV3 [1986] 372, text
378 ii 18).
Because Snin mah can be used to des-
ignate a plurality (E. LarocneE, RHA 34
[1976] 111), and because the form s/
Sassttrdtu is only a plural in Akkadian, it
appears best to understand all references in
the Ugaritic texts as designating a plurality,
rather than positing the presence of a singu-
lar in the ‘pantheon’ and ritual texts and a
plural in the mythological texts. If the el-
ement Kirt in the personal name bn kirt (F.
GRÖNDAL, Die Personennamen der Texte
49]
KUBABA — KYRIOS
aus Ugarit [StP 1; Rome 1967] 152) is
theophoric, that clement may be singular.
The presumed occurrences of the Kosharoth
in a cuneiform tablet from Beth-shemesh
(W. F. ALBRIGHT, BASOR 173 [1964] 51-
53) are based on an erroneous reading (see
M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Die Alphabet-
tafel aus Bet-Semes und die ursprüngliche
Heimat der Ugariter, Ad bene et fideliter
seminandum. Festgabe fiir K. Deller [AOAT
220; eds. G. Mauer & U. Magen: Kevelaer/
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988] 61-85).
In the mythological texts the Kótarátu
bless marriages and foster conception. The
epithet bnt All in these texts may denote
either an abstract quality (as has generally
been held) or a filiation (cf. the deity Hulélu
at Emar: ARNAUD, Emar VI/3 [1986] 328,
text 369:73; cf. idem, SEL 8 (1991] 38). In
sequence with All, the second epithet, srt,
is better derived from a root denoting
‘brightness, purity’ (A. vaN SELMS, Mar-
riage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature
[London 1954] 86 n. 24) than construed as
'swallows (i.e. the birds)' (for bibliography
on the latter interpretation, see SMITH 1985).
The phrase would mean ‘the daughters of
purity/Hulel, the pure ones’. Whether these
goddesses were also lunar goddesses, as
VAN SELMS thought, still remains to be
proved.
No Uganitic text attests to the perception
of a relationship between Kotharu and the
Kotharatu; so such a connection can there-
fore only be envisaged on the basis of cty-
mology (both names show the root KTR) and
function (Kotharu as ‘maker’ of things, the
Kotharatu as responsible for human concep-
tion). See SMITH 1985:469.
HI. Following Albright, various authors
have argued that Ps 68:7 must be interpreted
as an allusion to the Kosharoth. J. C. DE
Mook translates “Elohim ... leads out the
prisoners among the Kosharoth" (1990:119;
cf. Coorer 1981:387-388). This interpre-
tation has been refuted by LICHTENSTEIN
(1972). Since Ps 68 contains no hint of
childbirth, a reference to goddesses of con-
ception and birth is indeed unlikely. It is
therefore preferable to translate bëēkóšārôőt as
either ‘in prosperity, in good health, un-
scathed' (cf. A. EMBER, AJSL 21 [1904-
1905] 229) or ‘deftly’.
IV. Bibliography
A. Cooper, Divine Names and Epithets in
the Ugaritic Texts, RSP, IIl 333-469; M. H.
LICHTENSTEIN, Psalm 68:7 Revisited,
JANES 4 (1972) 97-112; J. C. DE Moor,
The Rise of Yahwism (Leuven 1990) 119,
124, 170; M. S. SMITH, Kothar wa-Hasis,
the Ugaritic Craftsman God (diss. Yale
1985).
D. PARDEE
KUBABA ~ CYBELE
KYRIOS xvpiog
Il. Kyrios (fem. kyria) is a substan-
tivated adjective probably deriving from a
thematic form *kyros (Sanskrit sitra
‘strong’, ‘hero’). In Greek profane life it
means a man of superior status, who has
authority and can dispose of things and per-
sons under his control. As a religious title it
betrays the respect of a deity’s ‘servant’ and
can function as a proper name.
II. Though Pindar, /sthm. 5:53 (first half
of the Sth century BCE), praises Zeus, who
destines everything, as ho pantén kyrios
(Lord of all things), usually there are other
titles expressing the sovereignty of the tradi-
tional Greek gods: potnia, anax, medeón in
epics, basileus, despotés in poetry, despoina
for goddesses connected with nature. A
recently reconstructed hymn from Epidauros
(SEG 36,350) invokes the -*Father of the
gods as kyrios. Otherwise, for Zeus wc only
have examples in Roman provinces north of
Greece or in Syria. There, some local deity
may hide behind him as is the case in kyrios
tyrannos Zeus Masphaletenos (CIG 3438,
Lydia, beginning of 2nd century CE). This
indicates that the designation kyrios for gods
is mainly a non-Greek, oriental phenomenon
from Hellenistic and Roman times. The tra-
gedian Sosiphanes (4th century BCE ) who
calls Hades kyrios (TGF 1 92 fr. 3) may be
an exception. It is hardly a cultic title for the
god of the underworld (DREXLER 1890-94:
492
KYRIOS
1762, no. 23 [Pluton] stems from Thracia).
In Egypt, hundreds of testimonies of per-
sonal picty in inscriptions or on papyrus
(proskynéma-formulas, entreaties and thanks-
giving votive gifts, acclamations, requests
for oracles) add kyrios or kyria to the name
of the individual deity. They concentrate on
kyria Isis (Philae from the second half of the
2nd century BCE onwards, RONCHI [III
1975:601-611] has 85 instances, for the
Mediterranean areas. SIRIS 261.332.334.
491. for domina s. Index p. 344) and kyrios
Sarapis (cf. RoNcur III 1975:627-635 with
87 instances, SIRIS 26.172.306.498), esp. in
invitations to sacred meals (listed in ZPE 2
[1968] 121-126; add SB 11049; NewDocs I
1). Several other Egyptian (esp. Mandulis,
Amenothes, -^Bes, Ammon, see RONCHI III
1975:614-616.618-619.622-625) and Syrian
deities (for the Semitic origin see -*Lord)
are called kyria or kyrios, as occasionally
Men (besides ryrannos) in Asia Minor and
Sabazios in Thracia. The title is favoured for
the Ephesian ->Artemis, Thracian gods and
heroes, esp. for Asklepios (127 times) in
Moesia and Thracia assimilated to a
Thracian horseman (SEG 30, 717-783).
Only in Thracia is it attested for Hera (25
times), Herakles (9 times), the Nymphs
(17 times). Mithras, too, is titled dominus
(CIMRM 3332.764.1483; cf. Porph., antr
Nymph. 24: yevéoews Seondtms). If the
names of Greck deities, e.g. -*Apollon, in
Egyptian or Thracian documents are
adorned with kyrios or kyria, they often
represent non-Greek gods or goddesses.
Thus -Hermes (12 cases in Ronci III
1975:619-620.) may be -*Thoth. Phylac-
teries or tablets of imprecation appeal to
anonymous kyrioi theoi (R. WüNscH, Deisi-
daimoniaka, ARW 12 [1909] 1-45 esp. 38-
39; BullEpigr 1952.13; SEG 38, 1926; cf.
PGM IV 687, VII 368-369, 707). In the
magical papyri (3rd-4th cent. CE) the address
kyrie or kyria, sometimes composed with
the name, is current for Egyptian as for
Greek gods as well. In the predication “he is
the lord of the gods, he is the lord of the
ecumene” (PGM V 135-136) the influence
of Jewish prayer language is sensible.
A genitive connected with the term cir-
cumscribes the domain. Such an addition is
traditional with hieroglyphic neb. In her
aretalogies ->Isis predicates herself as
mistress ruling over the elements of the sea,
over fertility, and warfare (TOTTI 1:31.41-
42, 49, 54; 20:122-123, 194-195, 236-240;
Apuleius, Met. 11:5 elementorum omnium
domina). She is not only the lady of all the
land, but of the whole world (TOTTI
20:23.121 anassa; |:3 tyrannos, Apuleius,
Met. 11:7; Plutarch, Mor. 367a; CIG II 3724
anassa). In the same manner territories arc
assigned to Greek gods in more literary
texts, too (Dio Chrys. 37:11; Plutarch, Mor.
365a.675f: -*Helios, Lord of the fire;
—Poscidon, Lord of the water, the latter cl-
ement belonging to -*Dionysos, too; 413c
Apollon, Lord of the sun). Philo of Byblos
interprets Baalshamen as monos ouranou
kyrios (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 1:10,7). The
-'Sun is named ‘Lord of heaven and earth’
(PGM IV 640). The title ‘Lord of all things’
(see above Pindar on Zeus, allusions in
Demosthenes 60:21 and Plutarch, Mor.
426a; cf. Diodorus Sic. 3:61,4 Kyrion ... tón
holón for the God of the Jews) is applied to
the Stoic Zeus in Philodemus, Piet. 11, to
—Osiris in Plutarch, Mor. 355e (cf.
353b.354f Lord and King), to the Sun in
PGM I 212, to Iao in PGM XIII 201-202
and to God in general in lamblichus, Vita
Pyth. 137 (cf. Plutarch, Numa 9: plural).
The appellative Ayrios is also used for
kings and the Roman emperor. In Egypt, the
political sense is evident in the formulas
kyrios basileión (Ptol. V) or kyrios basileus.
The combination theos kai kyrios is cus-
tomary with the last Lagides and twice at-
tested for Augustus. Absolute fo kyrios
dominates from Nero onwards. Even in the
phrase “the Lord of all the world”, applied
to Nero Syli. 814, 30-31, the title in itself
does not imply deification (cf. Epictetus,
Diss. 4:1, 12 ho panton kyrios kaisar), but
probably the association of dominus et deus
introduced by Domitian does so (dominus
corresponding to Gk despotés, which sugge-
sted oriental tyranny and therefore was refu-
sed by the first. principes as primi inter
493
KYRIOS
pares). It is only in the context of emperor
worship that Christian martyrs are confron-
ted with the alternative: Ayrios Kaisar or
acknowledgment of their own kyrios (cf.
Mart. Pol. 8:2; Acta Mart. Scill.; CERFAUX
1954:56-57). Tert., Apol. 34:1 would not
refuse to call the emperor Lord, if he is not
constrained to do this instead of thus honou-
ring God. See —Ruler cult.
III. In the LXX kyrios replaces the divine
name -*Yahweh (6156 times according to
QUELL, TWNT 3 [1938] 1057; Von Dos-
SCHUTZ, 1931: 6742 times). In old mss. (cf.
list in Howard 1977) the tetragram in
Hebrew or Aramaic letters is left (this may
in part be duc to archaizing revisions:
PIETERSMA 1984), but probably it was pro-
nounced kyrios (cf. Origen, In Ps. 2,2).
Less often the title corresponds to Hebrew
appellatives for ‘God’ (279 times [QUELL]).
Ca. 375 times (VoN DosscHÜrz [1931) it is
translated from the Heb '"'adón, ’ddoni,
*ddonay (Lord) though in many cases the
Hebrew or the Greek text is not ascertained.
The custom of reading 'ádónày instead of
the tetragram in Palestinian Judaism, now
attested in 1QIsa?*, may have induced an
analogous procedure in the Diaspora syna-
gogue. Pagan influence, assumed by VON
BAUDISSIN (1929) and others, can—espe-
cially in Egypt—not be excluded; but neit-
her can it be proved. In biblical writings not
contained in MT, kyrios as a designation for
God occurs ca. 640 times. By comparison,
the term despotés is relatively rare for God.
Sometimes it renders "ádón in the double
expression 'adón(ày) Yhwh to avoid a kyrios
kyrios otherwisc current.
Regarding the semantics of the term in
LXX when used as predicate, the correlation
between 'Lord' and 'servant' is still per-
ceptible (e.g. Mal 1:6). The formula kyrios
tōn kyrin exalts God above all other
heavenly Lords (Deut 10:17; Ps 135:3) and
earthly rulers (Dan 4:37; cf. 2:47; 1 Tim 6:
15; ] Enoch 9:4; 63:2). The universal
dominion of the 'Lord of all the earth' (Josh
3:11, 13: Mic 4:13; Zech 4:14; 6:5; Ps 96:5;
Exod 8:22 only LXX; Josh 4:7 only LXX),
the ‘Lord of heaven’ (Dan 2:37) resp. the
‘Lord of heaven and earth’ (Tob 7:17; Jdt
9:12 despotés; cf. Luke 10:21; Acts 17:24)
or the ‘Lord of all things’ (Add Esth 4:17c;
4Q542 1 1,2f ‘Lord of all the created’; ho
kyrieuón hapantón theos, Ep. Arist. 18:45;
frequently pantokratór is combined with
kyrios; this also happens 7 times in Rev; cf.
the addition in LXX Jer 39:19) is founded in
his acts as creator (cf. Jer 39:17-19; 1 Esdr
6:12; Add Esth 4:17; Acts 17: 24); the claim
is underlined against pagan concurrents
(Dan 3:17,45; 1 Esdr 8:25; 2 Esdr 19:6; Add
Esth 4:171; Josephus, Ant. 20:90), while
arrogant kings consider themselves as 'Lord
of all the earth' or 'Lord of land and sea'
(Pss. Sol. 2, 29).
For Philo kyrios represents one of the
main powers of God (in contradistinction to
theos, the creator and father) and signifies
his ruling activity. Kyrios does not per se
connote divine monarchy; as in daily life, it
can be used in a religious context as respect-
ful address, thus for example for angels (e.g.
the angelus interpres in Zech and Dan; cf.
BERGER [1970/71] 417 n. 3). As a name for
angels it is late (ib. 418 n. 1). In magic texts
they are addressed as kyrioi (theoi) aggeloi
(PGM 36:44.246; BullEpigr 1952, 13).
Kyrios for God occurs in the NT ca. 181
times (including 70 citations of the OT);
more often it is used as a title for -*Jesus
~Christ (ca. 468 times, 11 OT quotations
being related to him). In the Synoptics and
in John people seeking miracles, but also
disciples or potential followers, address
Jesus as kyrie (cf. ’ddonf, for Elijah, Elisha
in 1-2 Kgs). The usage goes back to Q,
could even be authentic and corresponds to
Aram mari, attested as a form of address of
persons in a position of authority. Its
significance does not differ much from
rabbi, (Gk didaskale) that sometimes (Matt
9:28; 20:33; Luke 18:41) is the Markan base
of Matthean or Lukan kyrie (cf. the paral-
lelism in the parabolic saying Matt 10:24
and in John 13:13). Matthew adds redac-
tional kyrie; so does Luke who, however,
prefers epistata. In the context of a plea for
salvation (Matt 8:25; 14:30; 17:15)—often
connected with a proskynésis—it presup-
494
KYRIOS
poses a divine faculty of the one addressed
(cf. Epiktet, diss. If 7,12). In John 13 Jesus
accepts the title ‘master’, but paradoxically
behaves like a servant. As predicate kyrios
in Mark 2:28 refers to the sovercignty of the
-*Son of Man over the -Sabbath. In Mark
it is employed absolutely only in a reference
by the disciples to ‘the master’, who can re-
quire the property of other people like a
king (11:3).
More often Luke and John reflect the
absolute usage of the Early Church, which
probably spoke of ‘Our Lord’ in analogy to
Aramaic-Semitic titling of kings (CERFAUX).
The reason for this is not only the personal
loyalty of the disciples to Jesus in his earth-
ly ministry, but also his royal position on
account of his resurrection. Otherwise, he
could scarcely be invoked at all. So it is the
risen one that the Jewish-Christian com-
munity addresses with Aram mdrand@’-1@ (1
Cor 16:22, rendered Rev 22:20 'come, Lord
Jesus', cf. Did. 10:6). Because he is now
enthroned at the right hand of God, he is
expected to realize his reign at his coming
in glory (cf. the address of the king and
judge Matt 25:37,44 kyrie).
It seems that this heavenly exaltation is
expressed relatively early with Ps 110:1,
though the argumentation Acts 2:34-36
(Jesus thus constituted by God kyrios) relies
on the Greck text. Against Bousset (1921)
the cultic appeal to the Lord is to be as-
cribed not only to the Greek speaking com-
munity. It is improbable that it is modelled
after Hellenistic-Onental cults. There is a
certain continuity between the address kyrie
directed to Jesus during his public life and
to the risen one (so in Acts in the context of
visions). But now He has a divine quality;
therefore Thomas recognizes his Lord at the
same time as his God (John 20:28) applying
to him the language of the Psalms. The
object of Easter visions is indicated by
kyrios (1 Cor 9:1; Luke 24:34: John 20:18,
20, 25; Acts 9:27). Yet this transition to the
absolute use can be grasped only in the
Greck phase of tradition. Especially in the
letters of Paul we find fixed formulae whose
pre-Pauline origin can be demonstrated.
Thus, the stereotyped expression ‘the
brothers of the Lord’ refers to the historical
Jesus as does Paul when introducing auth-
oritative sayings of the Lord. The Hellenistic
communities took up the liturgical ‘our
Lord’ affixing it to the double name ‘Jesus
Christ’ with kyrios. In their worship they
acclaimed Jesus, the risen one, as kyrios (1
Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9). He is the Lord not
only of his believers, but of all mankind
(Rom 10:12; 14:9; Acts 10:36), an affirma-
tion that stimulated the mission to the gen-
tiles. The exalted one dominates also the
spiritual powers of the three zones of the
world. God remains the cosmocrator, but in
the pre-Pauline hymn Phil 2:6-11 he
bestows an incomparable dignity (‘name’)
on Jesus whom all have to acknowledge by
the kyrios-acclamation. Sometimes the sug-
gestion is made that this ‘name’ is the di-
vine name as in Jewish tradition angels can
be named after Yahweh, their king (3 Enoch
10:20; 12:20-23; cf, Fossum 1985:292-301).
Yet it is not certain that kyrios (v 11) is
meant as a translation of Yahweh, because
the whole action aims at the glorification of
God the Father. But as vv 10-11 allude to
Jes 45:23 (a prophecy of the universal ador-
ation offered to Yahweh) the way is open to
apply to Jesus OT kyrios-passages in pre-
Pauline tradition as well as in the NT itself.
Thus, already before Paul, the Christians
called themselves 'those invoking the name
of the Lord', actualizing Joel 3:5 (1 Cor 1:2;
cf. Rom 10:12-13; Acts 2:21; 9:14, 21; 2
Tim 2:22). The 'day of the Lord' (cf. Joel
3:4) now was understood as the parousia of
Christ. In general, eschatological utterances
are often connected with kyrios. Paul in
several places adduces OT texts where
kyrios now must signify Jesus. Due to its
use in the LXX, the title now points not
only to Jesus’ assuming divine functions,
but also to his godlike status.
If we except Rom 10:9, where the con-
fession kyrios lésous is the outward ex-
pression of the faith in his resurrection, and
Acts 16:31, the title does not appear to have
been part of the creed. Other titles like
‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ prevail. Kyrios
495
KYRIOS
primarily defines the relation of Christ to the
believer resp. his ‘servant’, the apostle (cf. 2
Cor 4:5; douleuein Rom 12:11; Col 3:24;
Acts 20:19). In a polemical context the title
can become exclusive. So in | Cor 8:4-6:
some Corinthians participated in sacral
dinners—possibly in one of the Egyptian
temples within reach. The trapeza kyriou
(10:21)—though attested in the OT for the
altar of God—may even form a contrast to
the kliné of the kyrios Sarapis in the well-
known invitations. That some Christians did
not refuse to eat mcat sacrified to pagan dei-
ties, constituted a problem for the commu-
nity. Paul answers with the Jewish mono-
theistic belief, but in view of so many
kyrioi, like the oriental gods, he adds a
parallel 'christological statement analogous
to pagan acclamations like heis Zeus
Sarapis: ‘and there is only one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom all things (came into
existence) and we (will be saved) through
him’ (8:6). It is unlikely that Paul here de-
liberately split the formula from Deut 6:4, as
it is sometimes assumed. The soteriological
role of Christ is affirmed against the com-
peting oriental deities, whose importance for
the individual had increased so much. It is
anchored in the instrumental role of the
preexistent one in God's creation, a function
assigned in Judaism to -*Wisdom (cf. Ps
101:26-28 in Heb 1:10-12, now addressed
with kyrie to the Son). This is the unique
passage where Jesus’ being Lord is con-
fronted explicitly with pagan competition. It
scarcely gives a hint as to the origin of the
concept (pace BousseT 1921), but rather
develops his relevance in a world of differ-
ent henotheistic movements. It is not certain
whether human rulers—who could be in
view v 5a (‘Gods on earth’}—are attacked,
too. Only in Revelation the christological
predications ‘Lord of the lords and king of
the kings’ (17:14; 19:16—in the OT these
titles are attributed to God) are pointed
against arrogant worldly potentates. Eph 4:5
repeats the heis kyrios as foundation for the
unity of the Church.
IV. Bibliography
W. W. Graf BAUDISSIN, Kyrios als Gottes-
name im Judentum und seine Stelle in der
Religionsgeschichte, 4 vols. (Giessen 1929);
K. BERGER, Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen
Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel,
NTS 17 (1971) 413-422; W. BOUSSET,
Kyrios Christos (FRLANT 21; Göttingen
21921); F. F. Bruce, ‘Jesus is Lord’, Soli
Deo Gloria (ed. J. M. Richards; Richmond
1968) 23-36; L. CERFAUX, Le titre Kyrios et
la dignité royale de Jésus (1922/23), Recueil
Lucien Cerfaux (BETL 6/7; Gembloux
1954) 3-63; CERFAUX, Le nom divin
'Kyrios' dans la Bible grecque, ib. 113-136;
CERFAUX, 'Adonai' et 'Kyrios' (1931), ib.
137-172; CERFAUX, 'Kyrios' dans les ci-
tations pauliniennes de l'Ancien Testament
(1943), ib. 173-188; D. Cuss, Imperial Cult
and Honorary Terms in the New Testament
(Paradosis 23; Fribourg 1974) 53-63; A.
DEISSMANN, Licht vom Osten (Tübingen
41923) 298-311; D. R. Detacey, ‘One
Lord’ in Pauline Christology, Christ the
Lord (ed. H. H. Rowdon; Leicester 1982)
191-203; E. vo DosnscHÜrz, KYPIOX
IHZOYZ, ZNW 30 (1931) 97-121; W. DREX-
LER, Kyria und Kyrios, LGRM 2, | (1890-
1894) 1755-1769; W. FAuTH, Kyrios bzw.
Kyria, KP 3 (1975) 413-417; J. A. Frrz-
MYER, The Semitic Background of the New
Testament Kyrios-Title (1975), A Wandering
Aramean (SBL MS 25; Chico 1979) 115-
142; FITZMYER, Kk)piog, EWNT 2 (1981)
811-820; W. FOERSTER, xKúpioç, TWNT 3
(1938) 1038-1056.1081-1094; 10.2, (1979)
1152; J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and
the Angel of the Lord (WUNT 36; Tübingen
1985); D. HAGENDORN & K. A. Worp, Von
KYPIOZ zu AEXIIOTHX. Eine Bemerkung
zur Kaisertitulatur im 3/4. Jh., ZPE 39
(1980) 165-177; F. HAHN, Christologische
Hoheitstitel (FRLANT 83, Góttingen 1983)
67-125; A. HENRICHS, Despoina Kybele:
Ein Beitrag zur religiösen Namenkunde,
HSCP 80 (1976) 253-286; O. Hortus, Einer
ist Gott — Einer ist Herr, Eschatologie und
Schöpfung (ed. M. Evang, H. Merklein &
M. Wolter; Berlin/New York 1997) 95-108;
G. HowanD, The Tetragram and the New
Testament, JBL 96 (1977) 63-83; D. L.
JoNES, The title kyrios in Luke-Acts, SBL
496
KYRIOS
Seminar Papers 110,2 (1974) 85-101; J. D.
KINGSBURY, The title ‘Kyrios’ in Matthew’s
Gospel, JBL 94 (1975) 246-255; W. KRa-
MER, Christos Kyrios Gottessohn (ATANT
44; Zürich/ Stuttgart 1963) 61-103, 149-191,
215-222; P.-É. LANGEVIN, Jésus Seigneur et
Peschatologie (Studia 21; Bruges/Paris
1967); P. MAIBERGER & K. Woscuitz,
Herr, NBL 2 (1991) 126-129; A. D. Nocx,
Essays on Religion and the Ancient World
(Oxford 1972) I 47.74-77; A. PIETERSMA,
Kyrios or Tetragram, De Septuaginta (ed. A.
Pietersma & C. Cox; Mississauga 1984) 85-
101; H. W. PLEKET, Religious History as the
History of Mentality: the 'Believer' as Ser-
vant of the Deity in the Greek World, Faith,
Hope and Worship (ed. H. S. Versnel; Lei-
den 1981) 152-192, esp. 171-178; J. R.
RovsE, Philo, K$fnoc, and the Tetragram-
maton, SPRA 3 (1991) 167-183; G. RONCHI,
Lexicon theonymon rerumque sacrarum et
divinaum ad Aegyptum pertinentium quae
in papyris ostracis titulis graecis latinisque
in aegypto repertis laudantur IIN (Milan
1975); L. SCHENKE, Die Urgemeinde (Stutt-
gart 1990) 98-99, 342-347; G. SCHNEIDER,
Gott und Christus als KYRIOS. nach der
Apostelgeschichte (1980), Lukas, Theologe
der Heilsgeschichte (BBB 59; Bonn 1985)
213-226; S. SCHULZ, Maranatha und Kyrios
Jesus, ZNW 53 (1962) 125-144: C. Spica,
Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament
(Fribourg 1991) 859-872; H. STEGEMANN,
Religionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu den
Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten,
Qumrân (BETL 46; ed. M. Delcor
Paris/Gembloux/Leuven 1978) 195-217, esp.
204-207; M. Tateva-Hirova, Uber die
Gótterepitheta in den griechischen Inschrif-
ten aus Moesia inferior und Thracia, Bulgar-
ian Historical Review 6 (1978) 52-65; G.
VERMES, Jesus the Jew (New York 1973)
103-128; P. VIELHAUER, Ein Weg zur neu-
testamentlichen Christologie?, Aufsätze zum
Neuen Testament (TB 31; München 1965)
141-198, esp. 147-167; D. ZELLER, Der
eine Gott und der eine Herr Jesus Christus,
Der lebendige Gott (ed. Th. Sóding,
NTA.NF 31; Münster 1996) 34-49.
D. ZELLER
497
LABAN 125
I. On the assumption that he was orig-
inally a semi-divine hero or a god (MEYER
1906), Laban, the son of Bethuel (Gen 28:5)
and father of —Leah and —Rachel (Gen
29:16) has been connected with the Old
Assyrian god Laba(n) (E. SCHRADER, Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament [Ber-
lin 1903; 3rd ed. by H. Winckler & H. Zim-
mern) 363). The name of the latter deity bas
been jnterpreted as a shortened form of
Labnan, which would mean that Laban was
“originally an ancient West-Semitic deity
venerated in the Lebanon” (LEwy 1934:45),
HI. Laban occurs already in Old Assyrian
personal names as the designation of a deity
(HinscH 1972:33) and wes still worshipped
in Neo-Assynan times (Takultu 100). The
character of the god remains uncertain.
Though there can be no doubt about the
veneration of the Lebanon, not only as the
dwelling-place of the gods but as a deity in
its own right (Wrrrrert 1980-83:648-649,
esp. § 5.2; see also ~Lebanon), it is not cer-
iain that Laban can be equated with
Lebanon. Mt Lebanon is known in cunei-
form sources as Labnan or Lablan (for these
and other forms see WEIPPERT 1980-83:641-
642), and it is difficult to see how a variant
Laban or Laba could originate. The two
names are now generally distinguished as
belonging each to a separate deity.
INI. The connection between the biblical
figure Laban and the Assyrian god Laban
(or Lebanon) rests on a number of
unverified assumptions. Few modern
scholars would be ready to accept that the
majority of characters of the patriarchal nar-
ratives are demythologized deities, as was
once widely believed. If there is no reason,
a priori, for the assumption that Laban has a
mythological] background, however, there is
no need to have recourse to a poorly known
498
deity in order to explain Laban's name. The
root LBN (to be white) is unproblematic in
Hebrew; there is nothing unusual, moreover,
in naming babies by the colour of their skin
(cf. NotH, IPN 225).
IV. Bibliography
H. Hsc, Untersuchungen zur altassy-
rischen Religion (AfO Beiheft 12/14; Osna-
brück 21972); J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-
assyriens et P Ancien Testament, RHR 110
(1934) 29-65, esp. 44-45; E. MEYER, Die
Israeliten und thre Nachbarstimme (Halle
1906) 245 n. 2; M. WEIPPERT, Libanon, RLA
6 (1980-83] 641-650.
K. VAN DER Toorn
LADY > ADAT; BELTU
LAGAMAL ^ LAGAMAR
LAGAMAR
I. The name kédar-la‘omer, ‘Chedor-
laomer' Xing of Elam (Gen 14:1.4.5.9.17;
IQGenAp 21:23), is to be interpreted as a
combination of the noun kudur (Akk) or
kutir/kut.e.r (Elamite), ‘protector’ (see R.
ZADOK, The Elamite Onomasticon [AJON
Sup 40; Napoli 1984] 25 for names contain-
ing this noun), with the name of the Elamite
underworld deity Lagamal/Lagamar (BOHL
1916:67; ASTOUR 1966:78; WEIPPERT 1976-
1980; AsroUR 1992:893). The name
Lagamal means "No mercy" (LAMBERT
1980-83:418).
IJ. The name of the deity is written La-
ga-ma-al/mal or La-ga-ma-ru. The /r/ occurs
in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions only. The
earliest attestation of the divine name is in.
an Old Akkadian seal inscription (PBS
14:138). By the Babylonians, Lagamal was-
interpreted as the son of Urash, the wife of’
An (An = Anum V:43; cf. J. A. CRAIG,
22.
SRB ern
LAH
Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts I
{Leipzig 1895} No. 58:21). In a letter from
Mari, it is related that he, or his image, went
from Mari to Terqa (ARM XIII 111:5-9).
Lagamal is worshipped throughout the Nco-
Elamite period (1000-539 ncE). His name
occurs as a theophoric element in personal
names and he had a temple at Susa (F. W.
KóNiG, Die elamischen KOnigsinschriften
[AfO Beiheft 16; Graz 1965] 200). When
Ashurbanipal conquered Susa he took away
a statue of the deity as booty (M. STRECK,
Assurbanipal und die letzten Könige bis zun
Untergang Nineveh's (VAB VII; Leipzig
1916] 52:33; ARAB 1I $ 810).
T. G. PINCHES (Certain Inscriptions and
Records referring to Babylonia and Elam
and their Rulers, and other Matters, Journal
of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute
29 [1897] 43-89) published a small col-
lection of Late-Babylonian texts from the
Parthian period. The inscriptions are known
as the Chedarlaomer or Spartoli texts. The
texts—which give the impression of being
copies of seventh to sixth century BCE orig-
inals—mention four kings who have as a
common trait that they all sacked or op-
pressed Babylon and its holy shrine Esagila
and that they were either murdered by their
sons or died in the sea. The names of these
four kings are written as cryptograms. The
name of one of them, PKU.KU.KU.MAL Or
PKU.KU.KU.KU.MAL, has correctly been inter-
preted as PKu-diür-náh-hüd or PKu-diir-náh-
hun-tá. (e.g. ASTOUR 1966:91.93-94). An
Elamite king Kudur-Nahhunte (IT) is known
who actually took part in a conquest of
Babylon in the twelfth century BcE. This
event is still recalled by Ashurbanipal (IHR
38:12; ARAB II § 923; Astour 1966:91).
Gen 14 has been interpreted as the inter-
pretatio Israelitica of an original seventh to
sixth century BCE version of the Chedar-
laomer-texts. Kudur-Nahhunte would have
been a model for Chedarlaomer (AsrouR
1992:894). In that case, the name element
là'omer would refer to the Elamite deity
Nahhunte, a sun god and a god of justice
(cf. Elamite nahute, ‘sun’).
HI] In Gen 14. Chedarlaomer is pre-
sented as king of Elam and as leader of a
coalition of four kings who battled with
— Abraham after having defeated a group of
Canaanite tribes and having plundered
Sodom and Gomorrah. From a linguistic
point of view, a connection between /a‘omer
and an Elamite deity Nahhunte is problem-
atical. Firstly, an original form in Hebrew
*la'omer must be read with an interchange
of /d/ to /r/. Secondly, it must be assumed
that the consonant /n/ changed into /l/. Such
a change is not attested in Elamite phonol-
ogy. Thirdly, Heb // must be construed as a
derivation via /g/ from Elamite /hh/. Elamite
AV, however, cannot be compared with a
velar-sound, but should be connected to a
weak pharyngal spirant. such as German /h/.
A connection with Sem /g/ and Hebr // is
very unplausible (O. RóssrtER, apud M.
WEIPPERT, Die Landnahme der israeli-
tischen Stämme in der neueren wissenschaft-
lichen Diskussion [FRLANT 92; Göttingen
1967] 96-97 n. 5; WeiPPERT 1976-80). This
observation makes the alleged relation
between Gen 14 and the Chedorlaomer texts
less probable. Therefore, a connection be-
tween Laomer and Lagamal is more plaus-
ible. Assuming that the Elamite name was
pronounced */agamar, Heb là'omer can be
understood on the basis of the similarity of
gf and /'/ (WEiPPERT, Landnahme 96 n. 5).
An Elamite king Kudur-Lagamal/r is not
known from the sources.
IV. Bibliography
M. C. Asroun, Political and Cosmic Sym-
bolism in Genesis 14 and in its Babylonian
Sources, Biblical Motifs (A. Altman ed.;
Cambridge 1966) 65-112; AsTOUR, Chedor-
laomer. ABD 1 (1992) 893-895; F. M. T.
(DE LiAcRE) Bónur, Die Kónige von Ge-
nesis 14, ZAW 36 (1916) 65-73; W. G.
LAMBERT, Lāgamāl, RLA 6 (1980-83) 418-
419; M. WEIPPERT, Kedorlaomer, RLA 5
(1976-80) 543-544.
B. BECKING
LAH n2
I. The element lah has been interpreted
as a divine name in certain Hebrew proper
499
LAHAB — LAHAI-ROI
names. These are the place names Beer-
>Lahai-roi (Gen 16:14; 24:62; 25:11),
Ramath-lehi (Judg 15:17; 2 Sam 23:11) and
Bethlehem, and in particular, the Hebrew
personal name Methu-selah (Gen 5:21.22.
25.26.27; 1 Chr 1:3).
It has been suggested that the personal
name Methu-selah is not to be analysed as
mt, ‘man’ + 3lh, '(the god) -*Shelah', but
rather as métu, ‘man’ + Se, ‘of? + lal, ‘(the
god) Lah’. Similarly, hy has been inter-
preted as a theophoric element in the name
b’r-lhy-r'y. Again, lh has been interpreted as
a divine name in btlhm; provided it is ana-
lysed as bt, ‘house/temple of + lh ‘the god
Lah’ + enclitic m. The word leah occurs in
Hebrew with the meaning ‘moist’ (e.g. Gen
30:27) and the root Ihh in several Semitic
languages means ‘to be moist’. The god Lah
would, then, be “an ancient Canaanite god
of vital sap and vigour” (VAN SELMS 1966).
Further evidence is provided by the Moabite
place-name Luhith (/whyt Isa 15:5; Jer 48:5
qere: hlhyt; ketib: hlhwt), in the neighbour-
hood of Medeba. It is said to be derived
from the name of a goddess (//tyt) related to
lah. Finally, the noun ylhn, derived from /h,
occurs in Ugaritic (KTU 1.5 ii:21; 1.6 i:48)
and in KTU 4.35 i 8 as a personal name (bn
ylhn) with the meaning ‘vital power’ (VAN
SELMS 1966).
II. Nevertheless, the following objec-
tions can be raised against the proposed
identification:
(1) there is absolutely no evidence, even
outside the Bible, for the existence of a god
called Lah; (2) even though another name
with the form mr (‘man’) + § (‘of’) + divine
name is known in Hebrew (m?l = m +š +
fl) it is generally accepted that mslh means
‘Man of (the god) Shelah’ (i.e. st + Sth)
(TsEvAT 1954); (3) the place name P'r-Ihy-
ry means ‘Well of the Living One who sees
me’ (the place-name /hy probably means
‘Jawbone’; cf. léhi, ‘jaw, cheek’): in neither
docs the alleged deity /h occur; (4) the place
name btlhm means ‘House/Temple of the
god lhm' (-Lahmu); (5) the Ugantic evi-
dence is uncertain. The verb lhin may be re-
lated to /h(//) and mean ‘to moisten’, or it
may have other meanings (DEGEN 1979;
TROPPER 1990) but it provides no proof that
a god /ah existed; (6) the Moabite place-
name may originate from the name of a
goddess; but this is simply conjecture.
In short, the purported existence of the
god lah is pure speculation. [t is based on
very vague evidence; proposed by but a
single scholar (VAN SELMS 1966); and ac-
cepted by no-one.
Il. Bibliography
R. DeGEN, Bemerkungen zu //in im Nord-
westsemitischen, apud M. ULLMANN,
Wahairu I-haditi mà kàna lahnar (München
1979) 25-32; O. LonErz, Der Gott 3//i, Hc.
ših 1 und ših 11, UF 7 (1975) 584-585; *A.
VAN SELMS, A Forgotten God: Lah, Studia
Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano
Vriezen dedicata (Wageningen 1966) 318-
326; J. TROPPER, Der ugaritische Kausativ-
stamm und die Kausativbildungen des Semi-
tischen (Münster 1990) 138-139; M.
Tsevat, The Canaanite God Silah, VT 4
(1954) 41-49.
W. G. E. WATSON
LAHAB -* FLAME
LAHAIL-ROI "R^ "5
J. The name Lahay Ró'i appears only
three times in the Hebrew Bible: always in
the combination of the toponym Bé’ér
Lahay Ro’i: Gen 16:14; 24:62; 25:11. In
Gen 16:14, Lahai-roi (or Hai-roi) could be
construed as a divine name in accordance
with the versions. Yet the interpretation is
speculative and not supported by extrabibli-
cal evidence.
II. In the three biblical occurrences.
Béér Lahay Ro’i designates a well or a
locality somewhere in the Negeb (24:62). Its
localization is unknown. Gen 16:14 locates
it "between Kadesh and Bered". lt certainly
confirms a southern location; but it is not
very helpful because the location of Bered is
equally unknown (KNAUF 1989:46 n. 211).
Gen 24:62 and 25:11 indicate that the en-
virons of B&’ér Lahay Roi are the current
abode of Isaac; but they do not give any hint
500
LAHAI-ROI
about the nature of that place or a clue to
the meaning of its name. Moreover, both of
these texts are considered to belong to the
very latest strata of the ->Abraham stories.
Gen 24 is attributed by BLuM (1984:384-
387, 390-391) to the postexilic D-compo-
sition; whilst Gen 25:1-11 is commonly
regarded as P. Even in these late contexts,
moreover, the two verses could be ‘redac-
tional additions’ (see KNAUF 1989:26-27 nn.
113-116; 46 n. 210) influenced by Gen
16:14. We are thus left with Gen 16:14 as
the only starting point for further investi-
gation. One problem, however, remains: In
Gen 24:62 and 25:11, the place is linked to
Isaac, whereas in Gen 16:14 its naming is
attributed to Hagar and connected with
—Ishmael. How could an ‘Ishmaclite’ place
have been connected with Isaac? Often,
Bé’ér Lahay Ro’i has been considered as the
place of origin (‘Haftpunkt’) of the Isaac tra-
dition; i.e. because Ishmael and Isaac were
originally related groups (NOTH 1960:118-
119. and for discussion, BLuM 1984:494-
495; ALBERTZ 1987:295; ScuMiD 1991:25-
28, 30-31, 65, 73); but this already specu-
lative hypothesis raises two further prob-
lems: first, in what sense could a watering
place or a way station in the desert function
as the ‘Haftpunkt’ of a patriarchal tradition;
and, second, what is then the meaning of the
‘northern’ associations of Isaac (Am 7:9.16:
Gen 28:13; 31:42.53; 35:8)?
In Gen 16:14, Be'er Lahay Ró'Í is con-
nected with the theophany of —El-roi to
Hagar. If this verse is read in the light of v
13, it functions as a succinct cult legend of
the sanctuary of El-roi: a legend that has
been integrated into the ethnological legend
of the origin of the Ishmaelites (RENDTORFF
1983:101). Because it is possible that the
name Lahai-roi has given rise to the name
El-roi, the original value and meaning of
Lahai-roi is not necessarily linked to the
semantic context suggested by v 13. In the
present context of the story, Lahay—or, per-
haps more probably, hay—R6’i is presented
as the equivalent of El-roi. It could therefore
be construed as a divine name. This is ac-
tually the way in which early Jewish and
Christian tradition has understood the pas-
sage (LXX: phrear hou endpion eidon,
"well of the one before whom I have seen";
Vulgate: Puteum Viventis Videntis me, “well
of the Living one who sees me"; rabbinical
interpretations also go in that direction, Tar-
gum and Rashi paraphrasing: "The well at
which the everlasting Angel appeared to
me"). Inspired by this traditional view, DE
MooR (1990:253) has suggested that Gen
16:14 is best understood as an allusion to
the ‘living’ Yahweh-El, as polemically op-
posed to —Baal and his annual death. This
interpretation is speculative, however, and
not supported by any other observation.
Since elsewhere in the region there is no
divine name or epithet attested with the
component /hy there is little possibility that
(la)hay Ro’? refers to an existing deity.
Unfortunately, we are also reduced to
conjectures about the possible etymology of
Laliay. WELLHAUSEN (1878:329 n. 1) sup-
posed that the toponym derived from *//y
‘jawbone’, ry coming from a defigurated
animal name—in analogy to lhy (Amwr) of
Judg 15:18-19. Even if this proposal
remains uncertain, it is indeed probable that
Běër Lahay Rö’î is a place name derived
from a personal or a tribal name. KNAUF
(1989:47-48) lists several instances from the
pre-Islamic Arab world where hypocoristical
names are composed with /Ay 4 a divine
name (e.g. *//y "ttr) or a parental name (e.g.
*lhy‘m/mlhy). thy can also be the theo-
phorical element in names such as //tymi's or
§lmlhy. Lahay Ró'f could then be a place
name derived from a personal or tribal name
composed with a divine name + epitheton;
but that would hardly suffice to transform
Béér Lahay Ró'i into a cult place and
(La)iyy Ró'i into a deity. The available
documents are still far too scanty to permit
firm conclusions.
UI. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Isaak I, TRE XVI (1987) 292-
296; E. BLuM, Die Komposition der Viiter-
geschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen 1984);
E. A. KNaur, Ismael. Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im
l. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden,
501
LAHMU — LAMB
2. Aufl. 1989); J. C. DE Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism
(BETL 91; Leuven 1990); M. Nomi, Über-
lieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stutt-
gart 1948 = Darmstadt 1960); R. REND-
TORFF, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung
(Neukirchen 1983); H. ScHMiD, Die Gestalt
des Isaak. Ihr Verhältnis zur Abraham- und
Jakobtradition (EdF 274; Darmstadt 1991);
J. WELLHAUSEN, Geschichte Israels I (Ber-
lin 1878).
A. DE Pury
LAHMU Ci?
I.. Lalhmu has been proposed as a divine
name or theophoric element in the OT in
certain especially old texts and names, par-
ticularly the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:8) and
the place name Bethlehem.
II, Lahmu is clearly (albeit rarely) at-
tested in Sumerian and in the Akkadian lit-
erature of the Old Akkadian, Standard
Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian periods and at
Mari. As a divine name Lahmu appears
paired with Lahamu in the theogony of
Enuma Elish, begotten by —-Apsu (—Ends
of the carth) and -*Tiamat (the waters) and
begetting AnSar (sky) and Kišar (earth).
Later in the same work, as well as in other
texts, the term or its plural, /ahmi, appears
as a name or description of one or more sea
monsters in the great deep (allied with Tia-
mat in Enuma Elish). In Sumerian and later
texts the plural also occurs with reference
either to “apotropaic figures at the gates”
(CAD L 42) or as “pillars of the earth”,
symbolized by the doorposts (LAMBERT
1985:199).
The etymology of Lahmu as used in these
contexts is the subject of debate. Some
(such as T. Jacobsen) argue from the context
of the Enuma Elish and from cognate de-
rivatives of lhm for a basic meaning
“muddy”, while others (LAMBERT 1985) pre-
fer “hairy”, based on both iconographic and
textual data.
III. While some distant, historical con-
nection between a deity Lahmu (or /ahma-
monsters) and OT occurrences of Ihm can-
not be apodictically denied, anything ap-
proaching the identification of a divine name
or description in the OT is rendered highly
suspect in the light of the following con-
siderations: 1) The comparative evidence is
relatively remote, being confined to Sumer-
ian and Akkadian (East Semitic), with Mari
the nearest location of an undisputed at-
testation. 2) There is no OT occurrence of a
verbal form or noun of the root lhm which
cannot be satisfactorily explained as related
to lhm-1 (fight) or lhm-1} (cat). including
lāhem in Judg 5:8 (most likely "war" or
"fighting"). 3) The relation of the place
name Bethlehem to Lahmu was proposed by
E. HoNIGMANN (Bit-Lahamu, RLA 2 [1933]
47), on the basis of one reference in the El
Amarna letters. However, there is uncertain-
ty as to thc rendering of the ideogram, so
that even the identity of the reference with
Bethlehem is questionable. Even granted the
reading “Bethlehem”, moreover, an etymo-
logical connection with one of the estab-
lished Hebrew uses of lhm, as “house of
bread” (or perhaps “house of fighting’).
seems a more reasonable construing of the
admittedly scanty evidence. (In this con-
nection the conjecture of H. CAZELLES may
be noted: a derivation from “house of
Lahai"; cf. Gen 16:14; 24:62; ABD | [1992]
712).
IV. Bibliography
H. CAZELLES, Bethlehem, ABD, | (1992)
712-715; W. G. LAMBERT, The Pair Lahmu-
Lahamu in Cosmology, Or 54 (1985) 189-
202.
G. C. HEIDER
LAMB ayvos, apviov
I. In the NT ->Christ is designated 31
times as a lamb. In John 1:29, 36 he is
called the lamb (apvdsg) of -*God; in the
Revelation of John (5:6, 8 et passim [29x])
he is depicted as a heavenly lamb (apviov)
that receives honour and worship as if it is
God himself.
IL. There is much uncertainty and debate
about the religio-historical background of
the image of Christ as a lamb. There seems
502
LAMB
to be partly an OT background to this
imagery, if one regards Isa 53:6-7 as the
source of the remark in John's Gospel that
—Jesus is the lamb of God that takes away
the sins of the world (1:29; cf. Acts 8:32
and | Pet 1:19), which apparently links the
Paschal sacrificial lamb of Exod 12 (cf. 1
Cor 5:7) with the lamb-like Suffering Ser-
vant (KRAFT 1974:109; Mites 1992:133), a
thesis that certainly cannot be ruled out
(contra DAUTZENBERG 1980:169-170). The
fact that in Revelation the lamb is presented
as slain (5:6; 13:8; etc.) also underscores the
connection with the Paschal and Servant
motive. But on the other hand there are
many traits in the lamb-imagery of Revel-
ation that certainly do not derive from this
background. It is in Keeping with the fact
that arnion, the word always used in Revel-
ation, originally meant ‘ram’, that several
belligerent and judgemental (i.e. messianic)
activities are attributed to this ‘lamb’. For
instance, it is said to be wrathful (6:16), to
conquer its enemies (17:14), to carry seven
horns as a symbol of its power (5:6), to be
worthy to open the seals of the eschato-
logical scroll (5:9), to be worthy “to receive
power, wealth, wisdom, might, honour,
glory, and blessing" (5:12), to be —“‘Lord of
lords and King of kings” (17:14), to be “the
Lion of Judah" (5:5), and to share God's
glorious throne in rule over his people (22:1,
3; for a detailed analysis of all these and
other passages see HoHNJEC 1980:34-149).
"The association of these ideas of violence
and power with the figure of a lamb is at
first sight paradoxical” (Dopp 1953:231).
Yet it would seem that antecedents of this
imagery are to be found in Jewish apocalyp-
ticism, although there are only two sources
to support this hypothesis (one should note
that the much discussed passage in T. Jos.
19:6 [the lamb that came forth from a vir-
gin] is Christian and based upon Revelation;
so rightly JEREMIAS 1966 contra KocH
1966). Firstly, in the second part of the
Enochic Book of Dreams (chaps. 83-90), the
so-called Animal Apocalypse (chaps. 85-90)
of J Enoch, in chaps. 89-90, we find a sur-
vey of history covering the period from
-*Noah to the last judgement (written in the
middle of the second century BCE; for an
extensive commentary sce TILLER 1993: esp.
269-382). The author makes use of many
pastoral symbols, the most striking of which
is the presentation of the great leaders of
God's people as lambs/sheep/rams (the
various versions have different designations
here, cf. Isa 14:9), for instance David in 89:
45-46 and Judas Maccabaeus in 90:9, where
this lamb is said to grow horns (!, as in Rev
5:6, probably due to a fusing of ram and
lamb; on much later stories about Moses
as lamb see BURCHARD 1966). As —mes-
siah-like figures these ‘lambs’ lead their
flock towards victory over the enemies of
God's children. Secondly, in the Tosephta-
Targum on ] Sam 17:43 and Targum
Jonathan on 2 Sam 23:8, we find an old
Aramaic song in which Goliath is called a
bear and a lion but David a lamb. This song
has clearly eschatological overtones in that
David as the victorious lamb is presented as
a messianic figure (with a throne) that will
conquer all powers of evil in the end (VAN
STAALDUINE-SULMAN 1993). It is very like-
ly that this Jewish apocalyptic imagery
forms the prototype of many lamb passages
in Revelation. A most significant difference,
however, is that, whereas the lambs in /
Enoch and the Targumic passages remain
human beings, the author of Revelation has
Christ as messianic Lamb almost united
with God: in Rev 5:8-13 worship of the
Lamb leads to the worship of God and the
Lamb together, and the Lamb's throne is
God’s throne (5:6; 7:17; 22:1, 3; BAUCKHAM
1993:60). Yet this same lamb is identified
with the sacrificial passover lamb that stands
‘as slain’ (5:6).
Ill. Bibliography
C. K. Barrett, The Lamb of God, N7S 1
(1954/55) 210-218; R. BAUCKHAM, The
Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cam-
bridge 1993) 54-65; R. E. BRowN, The Gos-
pel according to John I-XII (AB; Garden
City 1966) 58-63; C. BunmcHaRD, Das
Lamm in der Waagschale. Herkunft und
Hintergrund cines haggadischen Midraschs
zu Ex 1:15-22, ZNW 57 (1966) 219-228; G.
503
LAMIA —
DAUTZENBERG, Gjvóg, apüv, apviov,
EWNT 1 (1980) 168-172; C. H. Dopp, The
Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
bridge 1953) 230-238; N. HoHNJEC, ‘Das
Lamm -— to arnion’ in der Offenbarung des
Johannes (Rome 1980); J. JEREMIAS, Das
Lamm, das aus der Jungfrau hervorging
(Test. Jos. 19,8), ZNW 57 (1966) 216-219;
K. Kocu, Das Lamm, das Agypten ver-
nichtet. Ein' Fragment aus Jannes und Jam-
bres und sein geschichtlicher Hintergrund,
ZNW 57 (1966) 79-93; H. Knarr, Die
Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16a;
Tübingen 1974) 107-110; J. R. MILES,
Lamb, ABD 4 (1992) 132-134; E. VAN
STAALDUINE-SULMAN, The Aramaic Song
of the Lamb, Verse in Ancient Near Eastern
Prose (ed. J. C. de Moor & W. G. E. Wat-
son; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993) 265-292; P.
A. TILLER, A Commentary on the Animal
Apocalypse of | Enoch (Atlanta 1993).
P. W. VAN DER Horst
LAMIA -> LILITH
LAMP 73,
I. The Hebrew noun nir or nér, denotes
a light-giving body and is never used as a
divine name, but it may occur as a sumame
of a deity or as the name of a being partici-
pating in the divine sphere, such as an
angel. Its Akkadian equivalent nüru, as
well as Ugaritic nrt and nyr, are used meta-
phorically as epithets of the -*Sun-deity
called “the lamp of the gods" or "the lamp
of heavens and earth" (AHW 805b; CAD N,
348-349; KTU 1.24i:15;1.3.v:17; etc.).
Similar epithets are attributed also to other
gods, even to Yahweh in 2 Sam 22:29,
where the poet addresses the Lorp: “Thou,
Yahweh, art my lamp”, and he adds:
“Yahweh will lighten my darkness”. This
image occurs also in proper names with a
deity; the king, the father or the brother as
subject of the nominal sentence constituting
the proper name. Names of this type occur
in Amorite (GELB 1980:331), Akkadian
(AHW 805b; CAD N, 3493), Ugaritic (GRÓN-
DAHL 1967:165-166), Aramaic (ZADOK 1978:
LAMP
100), Palmyrene (SrARK 1971:39, 46, 75.
99, 108) North- and South-Arabian
(LANKESTER HARDING 1971:585, 603),
Phoenician (BENZ 1972:363), and Hebrew.
with Abner, 'My father is a lamp', and
Neriah/Neraiah, ‘My lamp is Yahweh’
(ZADOK 1988:397-398, 438), paralleled in
Aramaic by Yehonur in the Samaria Papyri.
The Aramaized form of the latter name,
Nopia, was given later to the wife of
—Noah and explained as ‘Fire of God" by
Epiphanius, Haer. XXVI,1.3. It is uncertain,
however, whether Abner's patronymic Ner
is a real Hebrew shortened name or a scribal
creation based on the meaning of Abner's
own name, viz. ‘My father is nér’, ie. ‘a
lamp’. The same name Nir was given in 2
Enoch 22 to the second son of Lamech.
II. The Akkadian noun nuru is used
sometimes with the determinative of divine
names to designate the sacred lamp, which
was the symbol of the god Nusku. It is
depicted on boundary-stones (so-called
kudurru's), once even with the subscription
'Nusku' (MDP 1, fig. 379). Some ritual
prayers to Nusku had to be recited “before
the lamp”, ana pan niri (OPPENHEIM, 1956,
340, Fragment III:1). The lamp (ziru) could
be addressed as ‘divine lamp’ (Szalag,'),
‘king of the night, spreading light through
the darkness’ (LKA 132:19//KAR II 58:39).
The ‘divine lamp’ (4izi-gar) is also quoted
in the incantations series Surpu Ill 16-
17.145. The Assyrian Tákultu ritual (108:
176, BiOr 18 [1961] 200: II 45) mentions a
‘divine lamp-figure, ¢Nu-ru-4salmue, stand-
ing in the temple of Adad (->Hadad). Being
present in the temple, such lamps partici-
pated in the divine sphere.
In the Aramaic Sefire treaty, Aya, the
consort of the Assyro-Babylonian Sun-god,
is called Nr (KAI 222 A 9). lt is even poss-
ible that the traditional cuneiform logogram
dA.A of her name should be read Nir in
contemporaneous Assyrian texts as well
(SAA 2, no. 2 vi 9; no. 3: 7. r. 2). Since
many of the same pairs of gods are listed in
the Sefire treaty and in the treaty of
ASSumirári V with Mati'el, king of Arpad,
comparison leaves little doubt that Nir was
504
LAW — LEAH
a surname of Aya in that period. In any
case, there is no reason to think that there
was a distinct goddess Nr in that time. In
the Ugaritic myth in which is narrated how
the —^moon-god Yarihu obtained his bride
Nikkal, the Ugaritic moon-god is called ‘the
luminary of heaven’ (nyr 3mm; KTU 1.24:
4.16).
III. The symbolic meaning of the ‘lamp’
in relation to God gave rise in the Jewish
tradition to an angel named in Aramaic
Nir@el, ‘Fire of God", and called also
Nahri’el. In several passages of the Zohar
—Uriel and Nuriel are the same angel. seen
under different aspects. He is called Uriel
when he appears as a merciful being, but
Nuriel when the aspect of rigor and severity
is to be stressed. This corresponds to his
description in the text of an Aramaic incan-
tation bowl from Late Antiquity: “Nuricl,
the great Nuriel is his name. He is clad with
fire and is covered with fire; a flame of fire
comes out of his mouth” (NAVEH & SHAKED
1985:202-203:18). In the inscription of an-
other bowl he is mentioned among seven
supernatural beings, the first of which is
Séd@ (C. D. IspeLt, Corpus of the Aramaic
Incantation Bowls (Missoula 1975 ] 110:1).
The variant form of his name, Mn, is
attested by an amulet found at Horvat
Kanaf, on the Golan, where he is listed
among angels (NAVEH & SHAKED 1985:50-
51:9), without any specified function.
IV. Bibliography
F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the Phoe-
nician and Punic Inscriptions (StP 8; Roma
1972] 363); H. DONNER, Zur Inschrift von
Südschin Aa 9, AfO 18 (1957-58) 390-392;
I. J. Gets, Computer-Aided Analysis of
Amorite (Chicago 1980); F. GR6NDAHL, Die
Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (StP
1; Roma 1967): D. KELLERMANN, nér, nir,
TWAT V (1986) 616-626 [& lit]; G.
LANKESTER HARDING, An Index and Con-
cordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions (Toronto 1971); J. NAVEH & S.
SHAKED, Anmulets and Magic Bowls (Jeru-
salem 1985); M. Noru, /PN 167-169; A. L.
OPPENHEIM, 7he Interpretation of Dreams
in. the. Ancient Near East (Philadelphia
1956) 298, 340; U. StEiDL, Die babyloni-
schen. Kudurru-Reliefs (Freiburg/Góttingen
1989) 128-130, XV; J. K. STARK, Personal
Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (Oxford
1971); R. ZADOK, On West Semites in Baby-
lonia (Jerusalem 19782); ZADOK, The Pre-
Hellenistic Israelite | Anthroponomy | and
Prosopography (Leuven 1988).
E. LIPIŃSKI
LAW > NOMOS; TORAH
LEAH 789
I. Leah, the name of -*Jacob's first
wife is traditionally explained as ‘defatigata,
weak’ (WETZSTEIN 1876). STADE (1881)
connected her name to Ar /d?à *‘Wildkuh’ (a
kind of antilope) and NOLDEKE (1886),
Haupt (1909) and others to Akk Jitt ‘cow’
(AHW 557-558). Along these lines, the
name lë’ came to be understood as a remi-
niscence of a goddess, or a tribal totem
(GRAY 1896; SwirH. 1894). Recently, her
name has been quoted as the female
counterpart of an epithet given to YHWH:
le? 'victor' (-*Aliyan).
Il. In. ancient Near Eastern religions
goddesses often received the epithet ‘Cow’
by virtue of their role as Magna Mater
(LURKER 1985; e.g. —Hathor, Ninlil (littu
rabitu CAD L 217], >Anat (arh b'l KTU
1.13:9-10), the ilt arht (KTU 1.4 vi 50) and
also -*Ba'alat (CPSI nos. 9,36). Tauromorph-
ism is a well-known aspect of the icon-
ography of these goddesses. In analogy to
West Semitic names like *bd-b'l, bn-b'l, bn-
‘nt, and ‘bd-lbit, the second element in the
Ugaritic name bn-liy (cf. the Phoenician and
Punic names ‘bd-l’yt, ‘bd-I’(y), and ‘bdl(’)t
(?) [2 Akk Abdi-Ii'ti, I R pl. 37 col. ii 49].
and the Hebrew name "mr-ly (bBaba Bathra
91a]) could refer to a deity (SzNvcER 1963).
This element might be taken cither as an
epithet meaning ‘strong. able, vigorous’ (cf.
Akk /éti, CAD L 151-156) or as an animal
name (cf. Ar la’a; Akk lû(m) and littu AHW
557-558.560; CAD L 217). However, this
kind of surname given to gods is sometimes
also given to human beings. It is impossible
505
LEBANON
to decide whether names such as Akk !Za-i-
ur, ÍLe-i-i-tu4, Ug bn.liy, Heb 1éa@ and Ar
Lwi, Là'à imply more than a physical or
moral quality. Animal] names given to
humans may simply express a wish or a
pun; they do not necessarily imply totem-
istic concepts (NorH, JPN 229). An em-
blematic understanding of the name (HAUPT
1909) can hardly be maintained: Israelite
clans were never differentiated in such cat-
egories as peasants, herdsmen, and the like.
JI. Very little is known about a cult of
Leah as an ancestral saint. Her burial in the
tomb of Machpelah (harim al-Khahl =
Hebron) is only mentioned in passing in a
very late P-addition to the Joseph story (Gen
49:32), which may 1mply that after the exile
her cenotaph was shown in Hebron. Gen
29:30-35; 30:14-24; Ruth 4:11 mention her
together with Rachel, both her rival and
the second mother of Israel. This may indi-
cate that she was venerated together with
Rachel in earlier Judean tradition, presum-
ably at Rachel’s tomb, in whose neigbour-
hood also Bilhah, Zilpah and Dinah were
buried (Jub 34:15-16; T. Jos 20:3; JEREMIAS
1958:76-77).
IV. Bibliography
P. HAuPT, Lea und Rachel, ZAW 29 (1909)
281-286; J. JEREMIAS, Heiligengrüber in
Jesu. Umwelt (Gottingen 1958); W. R.
SwirH, Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites (London 19273 repr.1969), 288-311;
B. STADE, Lea und Rachel, ZAW 1 (1881)
112-116; M. SZNYCER, A propos du nom
propre punique ‘bdl’y, Sem 13(1963) 21-30;
G. WETZSTEIN, in F. Delitzsch, Das Buch
Hiob (Leipzig 1876) 507.
M. DUKSTRA
LEBANON 7127
Y. Lebanon is the name of a mountain
range in Syria (Ar Gebel al-Lubnan), which
stretches ca. 170 km from the North (Nahr
al-Kabir) to the South (Nahr al-Qasimiya),
and rises from the Mediterranean Coast
reaching a height (at Qendt al-Sauda) of
3083 m; breaking off to the East it joins the
long Biga‘-Valley. Opposite, to the East, we
find the lower mountains of the Anti-
Lebanon. This prominent range is mentioned
in cuneiform documents from Old-Baby-
lonian times on, often written Lab-ni-ni (cf.
RGTC 5, 175), but also La-ab-a-anki
(RIMA 1, A.0.39.1, 84), La-ab-la-na/ni (cf.
RGTC 6/1, 244) and—seldom—Lib-na-nu
(LKU 39 I 4, collated text) or Ni-ib-la-ni
(RGTC 6/1, 285). In Hebrew its name is
lébànón, Gk libanos. This corresponds to
the Eg r-mn-n or (p-)r-bi-(r-)n-3 with uncer-
tain vocalization. Jt is etymologically de-
rived from lbn 4 àm/ón ‘the white (moun-
tain) with reference to its long-lasting
snow-cap (cf. Jer 18:18). The Lebanon was
famous for its wealth of wood, especially
the aromatic ‘cedars of the Lebanon’ which
were used for roofing temples and palaces.
In some Hittite treaties the mountain
Lebanon is deified. .
Yl. The Lebanon is referred to in Ugar-
itic texts as an area producing trees. The
building of the palace of —Baal is executed
with beams from the Lebanon and the
Sinon, ie. the Anti-Lebanon (KTU 1.4
vi:18-21). The bow of Aqhat is constructed
by Kothar-wa-Hasis with tgb-wood of the
Lebanon together with sinews of buffalos,
horm of an ibex etc., i.e. the best raw-
material (KTU 1.17 vi:2!1). The abundance
of the mountains with respect to fruits and
water is cited in the —-Rephaim-text. KTU
1.22 1:20, 25; the reference in KTU 4.65,4 is
doubtful. There are no traces of a deified
Lebanon in Ugaritic.
In Old-Babylonian times, the Babylonian
tradition of the Gilgamesh-Epic situates the
‘cedar-forest’, well guarded by the demon
Huwawa, in Lebanon (and Saria/2 Hermon);
it is called ‘the hidden dwelling place of the
Anunnaki’, i.e. the gods of the upper world
(S. GREENGUS, Old Babylonian Tablets
from Ishchali {Istanbul/Leiden 1979] 277°
r.13-20). By Middle-Babylonian times the
‘forest of the cedars’ is only mentioned as
the place where the demon Huwawa lives
without any exact localization (e.g. the MB
Fragment from Megiddo, S. Levy & A.
GOETZE, Atiqot 2 [1959] *122 0bv.T).
Hittite treaties concluded with princes In
506
LEGION
Syria invoke the Lebanon and the Saryana
among the gods and various deified moun-
tains; they are qualified as deities by their
determinatives. Cf. KBo I 4 IV 36 (Suppilu-
liuma I and Tette of NuhhasSe); V 9 IV 11
(MurSili Hl and Duppi-Tesup of Amurru);
KUB Ill 7 « ... RS 3 (Suppiluliuma I and
Aziru of Amurru); KUB VIII 82 « ... RS 18
(Tuthaliya IV and SauSgamuwa). The moun-
tain Lebanon is also invoked in Hurrian
rituals such as KUB 27.14,7; KUB 17,27 RS
III 22 (s Corpus hurrit. Sprachdenkmiiler 5
[1988] 195). which demonstrates his pro-
minent place among the mountain-dcities in
Ancient Syria.
In Phoenicia a b‘t /bnn ‘Baal of the
Lebanon’ is known through the inscriptions
on two bronze-bowls dedicated by a Tyrian
governor of Qart-Hadast (in Cyprus) which
came to light in the last century in Limas-
sol/Cyprus (CIS 1 5 = KAI 31). Therefore a
Baal of this mountain may have been vener-
ated sometime in the middle of the 8th cen-
tury BCE. Of controversial interpretation is a
certain int blbnn ‘Tinnit in Lbnn’ in a
Carthaginian inscription of the 2nd cent. BCE
(CIS 1 3914 = KAI 81), which commem-
orates the founding of new sanctuaries in a
mountain. This cultic place, may be situated
either on a white chalk hillside or it may be
a place somewhere in Phoenicia. It must be
stressed, however, that high-places and their
sanctuaries were generally dedicated to
male, not female, deities. That it was not
just during the 2nd half of the 2nd millen-
nium BCE, but also during the Ist millen-
nium that the mountains of the Lebanon
were venerated, is supported by Philo of
Byblos (transmitted through Eusebius.
Praep. Evang. | 10,9 = FGH IN C 790, F
2,9) knowing of a generation of heroes with
the names of mountains, inter alia Lebanon
and Anti-Lebanon.
III. The Lebanon is mentioned about 65
times in the OT. The mountain-ridge is said
to be famous for its cedar-wood (Cant 4:11).
Like Sharon, —Bashan and ->Carmel the
Lebanon is mentioned as a relatively fertile
region (Isa 33:9; Nah 1:4). Nowhere in the OT
a divine status of the Lebanon is implied.
IV. Bibliography
O. E1ssFELDT, Der Gott Tabor (Halle 1934)
35-36 - KS 2 (1951) 49; J. EBACH, Welt-
entstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo
von Byblos (BWANT 108; Stuttgart/Berlin/
Kóln/Mainz 1979) 132-148; R. H. SMIT,
Lebanon, ABD 4 (1992) 269-270; M.
WEIPPERT, Libanon, RLA 6 (1980-83) 641-
650 [& lit].
W. RÖLLIG
LEGION iAcyiov
l. Legion as a name of a -*demon
occurs only in Mark 5:9.15 and the parallel
in Luke 8:30. The meaning is explained in
the context, when the demon replies:
‘Legion is my name, for we are many’
(Mark 5:9). A somewhat different explana-
tion occurs in Luke 8:30: 'Legion, for many
demons entered into him’ (sc. the Gerasene
demoniac). The form of the name may also
vary in the manuscripts, but legión seems
more original, while legeón is mostly the
result of correction. The name is derived
from the Latin legio, the designation of the
largest unit in the Roman army (between
4,200 and 6,000 men, and a small contin-
gent of cavalry). In Latin, the term was used
also figuratively, c.g. to refer to a large
‘army’ of supporters (Plautus, Cas. 50; Mos.
1047; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 33.26). In Matt 26:53
Jesus applies the metaphor to -*angels
(‘more than twelve legions of angels’), com-
parable to the apocalyptic ‘mynads’ of
angels (Dan 7:10; Heb 12:22; Jude 14; Rev
5:11; 9:16; see also PGM 1.208-209; 1V.1203-
1204; furthermore BAGD, s.v. pupiag, 2).
H. While ‘legions of angels’ is also at-
tested in later rabbinical literature (see for
the passages Str-B 1.682[e], 997; 2.9),
Legion as a name for a demon occurs only
in the NT exorcism of the Gerasene demon-
iac (Mark 5:1-20 par.; Matthew has omitted
the name in his version, Matt 8:28-34). The
exorcism story apparently came from a pre-
Marcan source; its anti-pagan (anti-Roman)
tendency should be obvious (v 13 has
Legion's cohorts destroyed by drowning
together with 2,000 pigs).
507
LEL
IH. While the Latin legio is feminine,
Mark vacillates between the masculine name
for the demon and the neuter pneuma a-
katharton describing his nature (Mark
5:2.8.13); Luke (8:27.29.30.33.35.38) pre-
fers to speak of the plural daimonia (see on
this also BDR § 38 [3]). Later occurrences
of Legion as a demon’s name are found in
texts based on the story of the Gerasene
demoniac. Epist. Apost. 5 (16) explicitly
mentions the story and the name (see
HENNECKE-SCHNEEMELCHER- WILSON, Apoc
1.193; SCHNEEMELCHER, Apok 1.208-1.209).
An interesting development of the story is
found in 7. Sol. 11 (pp. 39*-41*, ed.
McCown; trans. D. C. DuLING, OTP 1.972-
1.973, with the corrections by JACKSON
1985:50-51). In this development the dia-
logue takes place between king Solomon, a
prominent figure in magic, and the demon.
When questioned, the demon reveals that he
and his company can be thwarted only ‘in
the name of the one who has submitted to
suffer a long time hence many things (at the
hand) of men, whose name is ->Emmanuel,
but who even now has bound us and will
come to torture us (by driving us) into the
water at the cliff (7. Sol. 11:6). T. Sol. 11
also provides a demonological explanation
for an ambiguity in the gospel narrative:
Does the name belong to one demon or to a
collective of demons? The question is
answered by saying that Legion is not the
demon’s real name but a description of his
activity (11:3; cf. Mark 3:22-27 par.): ‘I
assault (men) with the legions of demons
subject to me... The name for all demons
which are under me is legion’. What then is
the real name of the demon? He replies:
‘The Lion-Shaped Demon, an Arab by de-
scent’. This description takes a pagan
(‘Arab’) deity and demonizes it (see on this
point BLau 1898:65; MÖLLER, RAC IX
765-769), making it into a satanic figure (cf.
1 Pet 5:8 [Ps 21:14]; Rev 4:7; 9:8.17; 10:3;
13:2). This lion-shaped demon could then be
identified with various other names (see T.
Sol. 22:1-25:9; recension D 6:1-7:6, ed.
McCown; also PGM 1.144; III.510; IV.1667,
2112, 2132, 2302; XXXVIIL.22; etc.; and
JACKSON 1985, 1985b). For later interpre-
tations of the story see McCown's edition,
pp. 76-77. The suggestion by EITREM
(1966:71) that the name Legion expresses
hatred of the Roman military may find
support in PGM XXII.b.35; XXXV.15.
IV. Bibliography
BAGD, s.v. Ag£yvov [& lit]; O. BAUERN-
FEIND, Die Worte der Dümonen im Markus-
evangelium (BWANT 44; Stuttgart 1927)
26-27, 34-56; L. BLau, Das altjüdische
Zauberwesen (Budapest 1898); C. CoL», J.
MAIER, J. TER VRUGT-LENTZ, E. ScHwEI-
ZER, A. KaLLiS, P. G. VAN DER Nar & C.
D. G. MÜLLER, 'Geister (Dimonen)', RAC 9
(1976) 546-796 [& lit]; D. C. DuriNG, Tes-
tament of Solomon, OTP 1.935-1.959 [&
lit]; S. Errrem, Some Notes on Demonology
in the New Testament (Symbolae Osloenses,
Suppl. 20; 2nd ed.; Oslo 1966) 70-72; H. M.
JACKSON, The Lion Becomes Man: The
Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and _ the
Platonic Tradition (SBLDS 11; Atlanta
1985) [& lit]; JACKSON, The Meaning and
Function of the Leontocephaline in Roman
Mithraism, Numen 32 (1985) 17-45; Jack-
SON, Notes on the Testament of Solomon,
JSJ 19 (1988) 19-60; D. LUHRMANN, Das
Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tiibingen 1987)
93-101; C. C. McCown, The Testament of
Solomon (Leipzig 1922); R. Pescu, Der
Besessene von Gerasa: Entstehung und
Uberlieferung einer Wundergeschichte (SBS
56; Stuttgart 1972); R. PEscH, Das Markus-
evangelium, 1. Teil (HTKNT II:1; Freiburg
1976) 277-295 [& lit]; H. PREISKER, A£ytàv
TDNT 4 (1977) 68-69.
H. D. Betz
LEL 9%
I. The identification of a deity Lel in
the West Semitic world is a very difficult
subject for the historian of religions. The
existence of the deity as such has been
questioned and the meaning and etymology
of the name are a matter of debate.
The deity has been related to ly? - lylh
‘night’ (hence the conventional pronun-
ciation 'Lel') (DizTRICH & Loretz 1980:
508
LEL
403), but also to the Akkadian Jil(lu) known
in Old and Standard Babylonian as a god
and as a -*demon, meaning ‘fool, simple’
(THUREAU-DANGIN 1922, but cf. KREBER-
NIK 1987:20). The god has to be distin-
guished from Jilé, fem. lilitu (from Sum Ii,
related to ‘wind, breath’;-Lilith). Recently,
the name has been found in pantheon lists of
Mari (TALON 1980:T 186:10,12-17, 4le-el-
[lum]), but the identification of this god has
been debated by KREBERNIK (1987:20a),
who interprets this theonym as /-7/, ‘to ET
(but see RöLLIG 1987 who refers to an
offering list from Mari mentioning the god
JL ji-lum). Worshipped as a deity at Mari,
Ugarit, and in Canaan, Lel survives only as
a demythologized entity in the Hebrew
Bible.
H. What about Lel in the Ugaritic texts,
if it is not possible to identify // either with
lil as A. HERDNER suggested (Ug. 7 [1978]
30 and n. 94) or with /il(lim) (KREBERNIK
1987:20)? DiETRICH. & LonETz (1980:403)
have tried to prove that Ugaritic // is not to
be interpreted as a deity, but that it must
simply be understood as ‘night’. J. C. DE
Moon (The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit, UF
2 (1970] 187-228, esp. 194) put // in his list
of deities with a question mark.
It must be admitted that the meaning of
the two passages of ATU 1.132:16-17 Ipn /
Il and 25 pn ll is not entirely clear. The cdi-
tor (HERDNER, Ug. 7 [1978] 42-44), fol-
lowed with some hesitation by P. XELLA (/
testi rituali di Ugarit [Roma 1981] 305-309)
and Dietrich & Loretz (1980:403), has
understood (/)pn Il as a temporal indication;
she translates ‘before the night’. J.-M. DE
TARRAGON (Le culte a Ugarit [Paris 1980]
25, 118-119, 166), however, understood it as
the name of a deity. The choice between the
two options must be based on a close read-
ing of the text. [t seems clear that lines 2-3
have a corresponding section in lines 25-28:
“the bed of Pidraya is prepared bSt mlk”
(maybe to be rendered as “while the king is
laying down" instead of the usual translation
“with covers of the King"). The bed is then
“undone” (nir or tn‘r), and “at sunset, the
king is desacralized". In such a context, pn
Il (line 25) is best understood as a temporal
construction "before the night"; the same
meaning would fit also in lines 16-17. Such
a solution is consonant with the fact that the
text mentions Hurrian deities, Pdry being
the rendering of ~Hebat (lines 5, 14, 20); a
deity with a Semitic name /! would be out of
place.
The interpretation of KTU 1.106:27-28
(will fr[k] ksu) is not easy. Editor and com-
mentators generally choose the translation
“at night the throne is prepared ...", except
J. M. DE TARRAGON (Le culte à Ugarit
[Paris 1980] 24-25) who understands “for Li
the throne is prepared ..." The expression
follows an indication of a ritual purification
of the king on the 25th day (lines 25-27);
the king is desacralized at the end after the
answer is given (lines 32-33). This (second)
ritual follows a previous one on the 8th day
of the month, which finishes with lines 23-
24: the answer is given and the king is de-
sacralized. Lines | and 6 mention -*Resh-
eph (Resheph-Agb and Resheph-mA[bn]) as
the main deity of this first ritual; corre-
sponding to Resheph in the second ritual
(starting at line 25) is // (line 27). Here, Il is
best understood as a deity (note that "the
throne”, ksu [in the expression /K]su.ilt 'for
the th]rone of Elat; line 28] in the second
ritual may correspond with the "couches"
[line 15] in the first). A comparable succes-
sion of Resheph and Lel is found in KTU
1.90:2 (rsp.hgb) and 6 (w.s Il[l.al]p, see also
line 20: r§p.§.).
In the list of offerings described in KTU
1.39, a number of Semitic gods and god-
desses receive sacrificial offerings. Among
them, Resheph is listed a prominent po-
sition; he is mentioned in linc 4 after El
(line 2) and in the company of —Anat (lines
7, 17). In line 12, Lel is mentioned; the
sequence will.5p5 pgr.w... could well be
understood as “and to Lel (and) Shapshu-
pgr and ..." (cf. line 17 [r§]p ‘nt.hbly dbhm
3[p]$ pgr.), and not as "at night, Shapshu-
pgr and ...” (A. Caquot & J. M. DE Tar-
RAGON, Textes ougaritiques II [LAPO 14;
Paris 1989] 38 note 20). The same sequence
is found in RIH 77/4(411):1 [...].r$p.wlll[...].
509
LEL
"[..] Resheph and to Lelf...J’; 2
[...]wr3p.gn.y sn[...], "[god X] and Resh-
eph of the precinct will go out [...]". Two
other broken tablets confirm our interpreta-
tion. In KTU 1.49, the sequence lll.pri...]
“to Lel a bull[...]" (line 9) follows lifl), ‘to
El’, (line 2), [...Jpdr[...), 'to Pidar', (line
4), l'ttrt[], 'to Athtart (-*Astarte)', (line 6).
In KTU 1.50, the sequence w.lll.‘srm.w[..],
"and to Lel (two?) birds and[...]" (line 7)
follows /k]sw.ilt[, *for the th]rone of Elat[
(line 2), l'ttri[..., ‘for Athtart’, (line 3),
[w.]lilt.š ert, ‘and for Elat [~Terebinth], a
sheep, for Astarte’, (line 4) and /pdr.tt.s[in,
'for Pidar six pieces of small stock', (line
5).
All these examples, except KTU 1.132,
reveal a consistent pattern: Lel is mentioned
alongside Resheph and/or Pidraya (or Pidar).
This is a strong argument in favour of an
interpretation of Lel as a deity. The exist-
ence of a god Lel seems to be confirmed at
Ugarit by a hypocoristic anthroponym bn Ii
among a list of anthroponyms on a tablet
found at Ras Ibn Hani in 1983 (CRAIBL
1984:425).
The last Ugaritic instance of Lel occurs in
the mythological text, KTU 1.2 i:[14], 20, in
the expression rK.gr.ll.*m.phir.m'd, "(in) the
midst of the mountain of ll toward the mect-
ing of the assembly" under the presidency of
El. Now that the existence of the deity Lel
seems to be proved, it is not necessary any-
more to correct gr./| to gr.il as some com-
mentators have done (e.g. R. J. CLIFFORD,
The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the
Old Testament [Cambridge Mass. 1972] 42;
DIETRICH & Lorerz 1980:403). But a
difficulty remains. How do we have to
understand the name of the mountain ér ll?
Certain authors understand it as that of a
divine mountain: "the mount Luli" (M.
Pore, El in the Ugaritic Texts [VTSup 2;
Leiden 1955] 68-72; A. Caqvor, M.
SzNYCER & A. HERDNER, Textes ougarit-
iques, 1 [LAPO 7; Paris 1974] 128-130 (note
L), 65; DE TARRAGON, Le culte à Ugarit
[Paris 1980] 166); others as "the mountain
of -*Night" (C. H. GoRpoN, Ugaritic Text-
book [AnOr 38; Rome 1965] 428 no. 1379
{mythological place]; E. LiPINsKI, El's
Abode. Mythological Traditions Related to
Mount Hermon and to the Mountains of
Armenia, OLP 2 [1971] 13-69, esp. 41-43
[parallel to the Hebrew “mountains of dark-
ness"]). It seems better to keep the reading //
(not i/) and to understand it as a deity,
‘Night’ - Lél (see the vocalisation /é/ in a
Canaanite gloss of EA 243:13) or even Lilu
(sce ARTU 31).
A Canaanite occurrence of Lel is to be
read on a bowl sherd found in the Late
Bronze Fosse temple at Lachish, where
[...]/ Sy‘brill|[...] is to be understood either
as:...] 1(?) 3 y'br lll(..., *...) one(?) sheep he
offers to Lel[...°, or as: ...]iy *br lli[...,
*...Jan offering (he had] offered to Lel[...’.
Both readings are to be preferred above
Illy(?)[t], "to Lili(th]" (PuEcH 1986:15-17,
22).
The identity, character and role of Lel are
difficult to assess because of the nature of
the data. Is the Akkadian deity /il(lu) to be
read in some of the Ugaritic texts as homo-
graph of J "night", or are all the Ugaritic
passages to be understood as referring to
“Night/Lel - night"? Compare i/, which can
mean either ‘god’ or be the proper name El,
and rsp which may mean ‘plague’ or be the
proper name Resheph. Because Lel is in
some way connected to Resheph, a chthonic
god who brings plague and sudden death
(KTU 1.106; 1.39; 1.90; RIH 77/4[+ 11));
once associated to Nikkal, the wife of —Sin/
Yarikh; to the chthonic gods i/m ar[5] (KTU
1.106:14, 30-32); and once associated to
Shapshu-pgr (like Anath to Resheph; KTU
1.39), a goddess who knows the Manes-
Rephaim during their nightly travel in the
underworld and guides Anat looking for
—Baal, it seems that Lel (‘Night’) is at least
in some passages a lesser deity related to the
underworld; and/or as a god of the night he
may also bring plague or disease.
Resheph is sometimes described as the
gate-keeper of the -*sun goddess (KTU
1.78:2-4, see rip hgb, KTU 1.106:1 and
1.90:2). Further, the connection between
Resheph and Lel might reflect the associa-
tion of ?rq(/s)r$p of the Panamuwa inscrip-
510
LEVIATHAN
tion (KAI 214), for the god Arsu at Palmyra
or the Goddess Ruda of the Arabs is identi-
fied with the Evening star, Venus, who is
brother of Shapshu and son of Yarikh and
Nikka]. The gate-keeper of the sun goddess,
who welcomes her to the underworld at the
end of the day, js naturally related to the
god of the night, the latter being himself
related to the mountain (gr H) behind which
the sun is hiding at the sunset. As the sun
sets, the world is plunged into darkness;
Resheph and Lel, associated with a god of
evening, spread plague, disease and death by
the terror of the night. It is to be remem-
bered in this connection that the Akkadian
god Lilu is a son of Ninhursag, "the great
Lady of the Mountain” (THUREAU-DANGIN
1922). The observations made above con-
cerning the nature of the Ugaritic deity Lel
are supported by the still unique Canaanite
text of Lachish, in which city the god Resh-
eph was also known (PurcH 1986-87:15,
16).
.-À divinity of the Night is to be expected
as a counterpart of Yawm, ‘Daylight’ (~Day;
DE Moor, The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit,
UF 2 [1970] 187-228, esp. 202). The exist-
ence of such a divinity is confirmed by the
Aramaic treaties of Sefire from the 8th cen-
tiry BCE (KAJ 222 A 12: “in the presence of
Day and Night (lylh]") where the natural
phenomena possessing a numinous character
were invoked as gods; they were witnesses
to.the treaties, and as such supposed to bring
Maledictions over transgressors, maybe
Wnder some Hittite-Hurrian influences (cf.
ihe Assyrian tàkultu ritual, W. L. MORAN,
Some Remarks on the Songs of Moses, Bib
43 [1962] 317-327, esp. 319-320). Lel could
be compared to vit, a goddess of the night
i:Greek mythology.
welll. There is no example of Le] in the
Bible, except maybe in a conjectural reading
Oba corrupt verse, Deut 32:10, to be under-
stood “He found him in a land of wilderness
and in a waste of (and) the night of a
desert” (yll > Iyl by metathesis, or wil by
SOnfusion of waw/yod after a waw) (see Ih
®i:the Mesha stela, KAJ 181:15). In any
Bees there is no mention of a deity and the
word is to be related to ly! (7 times) / lylh
(225 times) “night”. Elsewhere known as
numinous forces, ‘Day’ and ‘Night’ have
been demythologized by the Bible; only the
phrase ‘Heaven and Earth’ retains mythol-
ogical overtones at times (e.g. Isa 1:2; Mic
6:1-2, Ps 50:4, Deut 4:26; Olden gods).
IV. Bibliography
M. DierricH & O. Lorerz, Kennen die
Ugaritischen Texte den Babylonischen Got-.
tesnamen LILLU(M)?, UF 12 (1980) 403;
M. KREBERNIK, Lil, RLA 7 (1987) 19-20; E.
PusEcH, The Canaanite Inscriptions of
Lachish and their Religious Background, Tel
Aviv 13-14 (1986-87) 13-25; W. R6LLIG,
Lilum, RLA 7 (1987) 25; P. TALON, Un nou-
veau panthéon de Mari, AXkadica 20 (1980),
12-17 [lit.]; F. THUREAU-DaNGIN, La pas-
Sion du dieu Lillu, RA 19 (1922) 175-185.
E. PuECH
LEVIATHAN pr
Jl. Liwyatàn is the Heb name of a
mythical monster associated with the —Sea
(or Yam). First attested in a Ugaritic text
(KTU 1.5 i:1 || 27) where it occurs as Itn (to
be vocalized litanu, as convincingly argued
by EMERTON 1982), the name is related to a
root Lwy. Etymologically it might be inter-
preted either as ‘the twisting one’ (cf. Arab
lawiya) or ‘the wreath-like’, ‘the circular’
(cf. Heb liwyd), both possibilities pointing to
an original concept of Leviathan as a snake-
like being. The second alternative should
not, however, lead to the opinion that
Leviathan were always imagined as the pri-
meval sea-serpent thought to surround the
earth (J. C. DE Moor, ARTU 69, n. 323; cf.
BiOr 31 [1974] 5a; for a late Kassite kudur-
ru-relief showing such a being, see U.
SEIDL, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs
[OBO 87; Fribourg & Göttingen 1989] no.
40). Both Ugaritic and Biblical texts use
litànu/liwyütàn aS a proper name; conse-
quently, the imagined physical appearance
of Leviathan cannot be deduced from ety-
mology alone, and as a matter of fact, the
texts do not give a single, homogeneous
portrait (see below).
511
LEVIATHAN
The concept of Leviathan is closely re-
lated to ~Rahab, insofar as the latter seems
to be a late exilic adaption of the former,
possibly supplemented from Babylonian
—Marduk theology (U. RUTERSWORDEN,
TWAT 7 [1993] esp. 376). Both Leviathan
and Rahab belong to the realm of ~dragon-
like monsters (>Tannin), both may be ter-
med ‘fugitive >serpent’ (cf. Isa 27:1 with
Job 26:13) and thus may sometimes have
been confounded, although the book of Job
clearly distinguishes between them (see 3:8,
40:25-41:26 on Leviathan and 9:13; 26:12
on Rahab, still 7:12 on Tannin).
Appearing in only one pre-Biblical text
and mentioned six times in the Bible,
Leviathan could seem to be a figure of
minor importance. However, as a para-
digmatic monster and enemy of considerable
mythological attire, he outweighs other
representatives of chaos and evil. The so-
called ‘Chaoskampf’ constellation or ‘com-
bat myth’ in which Leviathan plays the role
of a threatening, but vanquished enemy, has
been functionalized in politics and propa-
ganda from the early 2nd mill. sce until
today, with T. Hobbes’ Leviathan (a treatise
on the modern state first published 1651)
being only one peak in a tremendous ‘Wir-
kungsgeschichte’. The study of this monster
thus exemplifies how an ancient Near East-
ern mythological concept could travel from
one culture to another or adapt itself, within
one given culture, to changing historical
trends. It illuminates the fluidity in the de-
velopment of ancient Near Eastem mytho-
logical imagination.
Il. First of all, ‘Leviathan’ is a name
and as such identifies an individual being. In
KTU 1.5 i:1 |] 27, it designates a ‘fugitive
serpent’ (btn brh, cf. Heb nahas bariah in
Jsa 27:1 and Job 26:3) smitten by the vic-
torious weather-god Ba‘alu (~Baal). Two
closely related epithets, ‘wriggling serpent’
(btn ‘qlin, cf. Heb nahas ‘dgallatén in Isa
27:1) and ‘Mighty one(?) with the seven
heads' (3lyf d.Xb't ram), are usually under-
stood to refer to Leviathan, too, and the for-
mer is certainly used in this sense in Isa
27:1. Originally, however, they may well
512
have referred to at least one other monster,
mentioned again in KTU 1.3 iik41-42
together with the god Yammu (Sea), a
—dragon (Tannin) and four other opponents,
Clearly, Yammu had a number of helpers at
his disposal—as did Mesopotamian repre-
sentatives of chaos like Asakku, Anzá;
—Tiamat (—Tehom) or the like—and
Leviathan was but one of them. A seven.
headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly over-
come by an anthropomorphic hero or god is
attested as early as tbe third mill. BCE in
Mesopotamian iconography (H. FRANKFORT,
Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala
Region [OIP 72, Chicago 1955] 37, pl.
47:497) and texts (Lugal-e 133; Angimdim-
ma 39, 62; cf. ^Nimrod), but later survives
in the textual records only, until he reap-
pears in the Greek Hydra tradition from the
6th century on (Bist 1964-65; cf. LIMC Nl
[1990] 34-43). Consequently, when looking
for Bronze Age pictorial representations of
Leviathan, one should first consider his
undisputed serpent nature. In contrast, the
seven heads cannot be necessary prerequi-
sites since they may well have belonged to
some other monster and are at best second-
ary elements. Old Syrian seals (18th-16th
century BCE) showing the weather-god kil-
ling a serpent, often in front of a goddess,
are so numerous that there can be no doubt
about their figuring the prototype of the
Ugaritic Yammu/Leviathan conflict (see
WILLIAMS-ForTE 1983; W. G. LAMBERT,
BSOAS 48 [1985] 442-444; with KEEL
1992:212-215 for further material and inter-
pretation). Although the weather-god was
called at that time Haddu and his enemy
têmtum (J.-M. DURAND, MARI 7 [1993} 41-
61), the roles of the conflict between the
weather-god and the Sea were then fixed for
centuries to come. Interpreters of the Ugar-
itic texts discuss whether it was Baa} who
killed the dragon or Anal, since the latter
claims the victory in KTU 1.3 iii:38-46 and
may be invoked to trample on ‘the Fugitive
(brh, see above) in the incantation KTU
1.82:38 (BINGER 1992; N. H. Wars, Thé
Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth. (SBLDS
135; Atlanta 1992] 175-177). From thé
LEVIATHAN
point of view of iconography, Haddu/Ba‘alu
has clear priority as the serpent slayer, and
it may be more than mere coincidence if the
Leviathan is not mentioned among Anat's
vicüms in KTU 1.3; as a matter of fact,
dozens of pictures testify that this victory, at
least, was thought to be Baal's.
Some assimilation of Egyptian religious
traditions and the Leviathan concept could
have occurred in Southern Palestine and
Northem Egypt already during the Hyksos
period. A number of scarab seals show a fal-
con-headed god in conjunction with a croco-
dile, which is rclated to the god Sobek.
Since the falcon-headed Egyptian (sun-)god
(-^Horus) was identified in Middle Bronze
Age Palestine with the Syrian weather-god,
the scene might have been understood, in an
interpretatio semitica, as the Egyptian
version of the combat between the weather-
god and the Sea (cf. O. KEEL, Studien zu
den Stempelsiegeln aus Paldstina/Israel 11
{OBO 88; Fribourg & Göttingen 1989] esp.
268-275, with id., Corpus der Stempelsiegel
aus Palástina/Israel. Einleitung [OBO.SA
10, Fribourg & Góttingen 1995] 194 § 533).
Horus spearing a crocodile in Ist-mill.
monumental and minor art represents a pre-
cedent for the biblical association of Leviat-
han with the crocodile (Job 40:25-41:26,
and cf. Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 which call the
crocodile a ‘dragon’ {-*Tannin}!). In gener-
al, however, the tradition representing
Yammu or Leviathan as a serpent prevailed
in Syna and Palestine. Later scarabs of the
Late Bronze and carly Iron age show the
Syrian Baal, now identified with the Egyp-
tian god Seth, fighting with a lance against
a homed serpent (O. KEEL & C. UEHLIN-
GER, Góüttinen, Gótter und Gottessymbole
[QD 134; Freiburg i. Br. 19932] § 45; KEEL
1992:209-212). The latter represents Yammu
or Leviathan who may now have been assi-
milated to Apophis, a huge serpent who
during the night tries to hinder the sun-god's
travel through the netherworld (cf. LdA 1
[1975] 350-352). That Leviathan originated
as a concept borrowed from Egypt. as sug-
gested by S. I. L. Norin (Er spaltete das
Meer [ConB OT 9; Lund 1977] 67-70), is
most improbable, since Apophis has no
relationship to the Sea, which in turn is
essential for Leviathan.
Whether the Ugaritic and other Syro-
Palestinian ‘combat myth’ traditions should
be interpreted as 'Chaoskampf', within the
concept of ‘creation’, has been disputed by
generations of scholars; it is largely a matter
of definition (cf. PODELLA 1993). The Bibli-
cal texts clearly consider ->Yahweh’s mas-
tering of Leviathan as an aspect of cre-
ational order, although neither necessarily in
terms of a creatio prima or cosmogony nor
in terms of combat.
III. In the Bible, Leviathan is mentioned
exclusively in poetic texts, some of which
are deliberately archaizing. Ps 74. a com-
munal lament weeping over the profanation
of Yahweh's sanctuary by enemies, contains
a section which functions as a confessional
reminder for the distressed. (vv 12-17):
Yahweh is king "from of old" (migqqedem,
ie. since primeval times), and his kingship
specifically implies helpful dominion over
the carth (v 12). This is illustrated by a ref-
erence to the ‘traditional’ victories of
Yahweh over the sea (yam), the dragons
(pl.) and Leviathan (vv 13-14). As in Ugarit,
Leviathan and the dragons are considered as
Yam's associates of monstrous appearance
(note rd'$ím, mentioned twice, albeit with
unspecified number); together, the three
entities represent the maritime chaos which
once had endangered the earth but was then
overwhelmed by the creator-god and given
as food to wild beasts (or possibly sharks).
Yahweh's victory was a necessary prelude
to his subsequent organization of the cos-
mos: the opening of springs and the division
of time in day and night, summer and winter
(vv 15-17). While this text alludes to a pri-
meval battle appealed to in times of distress,
an apocalyptic rejoinder in Isa 27:1 an-
nounces such a battle for the future: On the
day when Yahweh will bring his wrath over
a corrupt creation, sparing only his faithful
people, he shall again draw his sword
against Leviathan and kill "the dragon
which is in midst of the sea"—an example
of the analogy often drawn between Urzeit
513
LEVIATHAN
und Endzeit, the latter being conceived as a
new, eventually better creation. Leviathan’s
disaster will coincide with the restoration of
the vineyard Israel (v 2), which implies that
‘Leviathan’ here works as a metaphor for an
historical-politica] entity, too, unnamed but
identified with mere chaos. While the
sequence ‘fugitive serpent’—‘wriggling ser-
pent'—'dragon' is the same as in KTU 1.5
i:1-3 || 27-29, the name liwyátàn is men-
tioned twice in Isa 27:1, and it is not al-
together clear whether Leviathan and dragon
are conceived as two different monsters or
whether ‘dragon’ is simply used as a variant
term to qualify Leviathan. In either case, it
is notable that the biblical texts have devel-
oped little speculative knowledge of and
terminology for monsters when compared to
the much more detailed descriptions dis-
played by Mesopotamian, Ugaritic and
Egyptian literature.
The two texts just mentioned are charac-
terized by their blending together of the
spheres of history and mythology, the
conflict on one level mirroring a conflict on
the other; consequently, Leviathan is con-
sidered a dangerous enemy and his mon-
strous force is underlined, since this may
serve to magnify the power of victorious
Yahweh. In stnking contrast, some sapien-
tial texts rather dedramatize the mythical
power of Leviathan. Amos 9:3 speaks of a
mere snake on the bottom of the sea, and Ps
104:26 even considers Leviathan to be a
harmless player therein. In the latter verse,
the final bd is syntactically ambiguous: Yah-
weh has fashioned Leviathan, but was it that
he might himself play ‘with him’ (according
to Rabbinic tradition, during the last three
hours of the day (b.Ab.Zar 3b]) or that
Leviathan might simply play ‘in it’, i.e. the
sea? Both readings are possible, and both
imply that the Psalmist did not consider
Leviathan dangerous any more. Consequent-
ly, Leviathan does not appear in Ps 104:6-9,
where discrete conflict metaphors are used
as a reminiscence of more dualistic creation
theology; he is only mentioned in v 26b as a
fitting example to demonstrate the somewhat
playful nature of Yahweh’s creation.
514
—————————
That such a detached, almost ‘natural-
istic’ approach was not considered al.
together realistic by other sages 1s shown by
the book of Job. Job 3:8 mentions people
“skilled in rousing up Leviathan.” Apparent-
ly they practised some magical technique
such as attested by much later Jewish-Aram-
aic incantation bowls (C. D. ISBELL, Corpus
of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls [SBLDS
17; Missoula 1975] no. 2, 6, 7). Job 40:25-
41:26, the second part of Yahweh’s second
answer to Job is entirely devoted to Levia-
than. While the rhetorical questions of the
first section (40:25-41:1) insist on Job's (as
any human’s) inability to capture him, the
sécond (41:2-26) gives a panegyric de-
scription imbued with numinous fear. No
doubt this text describes features of a croco-
dile, as recognized in 1663 by S. Bochart in
his Hierozoicon. But the crocodile-Levia-
than, ‘king of all beasts(?)’ (41:26), is not
simply considered as a zoological species. In
Egyptian iconography, the crocodile appears
as an enemy of the sun-god and is subdued
by the god Horns or the Pharaoh; early Iron
Age stamp seals from Palestine show a
‘master of crocodiles’ holding two of these
beasts under bis control (KEEL 1978:144-
154; KEEL & UEBLINGER, Göttinnen, Göt-
ter und Goitessymbole (QD 134; Freiburg i.
Br. 19932] §67). Obviously the author of
Job 4] had access to some animal mytho-
logical literature relating to the Egyptian tra-
dition. However, in contrast to this and to
the Syrian tradition taken over by apocalyp-
ticists, he does not present his issue in terms
of a mythological combat: Yahweh's own
words are full of respect for the crocodile-
Leviathan; the latter, just as -*Behemoth,
represents a symbolic residue, within reality,
of evil and chaos which even the creator
cannot expel! beyond the boundaries of his
creation. O. EzssFELDT (Baal Zaphon, Zeus
Kasios und der Durcheug der Israeliten
durchs Meer {Halle 1932] 25-50) compared
the ‘fourth beast’ in Dan 7 with the Uganac
lótàn. This comparison has been refuted by
Day (1985:152, 177).
IV. The post-biblical career of Leviathar
developed in two directions: one, which.
aedem iR
LIBRA
may be termed naturalistic and de-mythol-
ogizing. identified him with a whale (kétos,
as LXX Job 3:8); the other, apocalyptic and
more influential, continued to consider him
a dragon (Heb myn, Aram myn’ or Gk
drakón, as LXX Job 40:25). According to /
Enoch 60:7-9, 24 Leviathan is a female
dragon located at the bottom of the sea
above(!) the sources, while Behemoth is a
male dragon living in the desert; both will
be prepared for the meal of the righteous at
the eschatological banquet. an opinion
shared by 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:4 and the Rabbis
(cf. also 4 Ezra 6:49-52). The fact that
‘Leviathan’ is a name identifying an individ-
ual being facilitated the relative continuity
of the mythological imagination, attested by
the incantatory tradition, in Apoc. Abr. 21:4
where Leviathan still appears as a monster
having the sea as his domain and aiming to
destroy the earth, right up to modem times.
V. Bibliography
B. W. ANDERSON, The Slaying of the Fle-
eing. Twisting Serpent: Isaiah 27:1 in Con-
text, Uncovering Ancient Stones (ed. L. M.
Hopfe; Winona Lake 1994) 3-15: T.
Bincer, Fighting the Dragon. Another Look
at the Theme in the Ugaritic Texts SJOT 6
(1992) 139-149; A. M. Bisi, L'idra. Antecc-
denti figurativi orientali di un mito greco,
Cahiers de Byrsa 10 (1964-65) 21-42; A.
CaQuor, Le Léviathan de Job 40,25-41.26.
RB 99 (1992) 40-69; *J. Dav. God's
Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea
(UCOP 35; Cambridge 1985); J. Epacn,
Leviathan und Behemoth | (Philosophische
Positionen 2, Paderborn 1984); J. A. EMER-
TON, Leviathan and Ltn: The Vocalization of
the Ugaritic Word for Dragon, VT 32 (1982)
327-331; G. Fucus, Mythos und Hiobdich-
ning. Aufnahme und Umdeutung altorienta-
lischer Vorstellungen (Stuttgar/Berlin/K6ln
1993); C. H. GoRDON, Leviathan: Symbol
of Evil, Biblical Motifs. Origins and Trans-
formations (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge MA
1966) 1-9; *O. KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung
an ljob (FRLANT 121; Góttingen 1978)
esp. 141-156; *KEEL, Das Recht der Bilder,
gesehen zt werden (OBO 122; Fribourg/
Göttingen 1992) esp. 209-222; *E. LIPIŃSKI,
152 liwjtàn, TWAT 4 (1983) 521-527; T.
PoDELLA, Der ‘Chaoskampfmythos’ im
Alten Testament. Eine Problemanzeige,
Mesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica (FS K.
Bergerhof; Kevelaer & Neukirchen-Vluyn
1993) 283-329: C. UEHLINGER, Leviathan
und die Schiffe in Ps 104,25-26, Bib 71
(1990) 499-526; UrEntiNGER, Drachen und
Drachenkümpfe im alten Vorderen Orient
und in der Bibel, Auf Drachenspuren (ed. B.
Schmelz & R. Vossen: Bonn 1995) 55-101;
M. K. WAKEMAN, God’s Battle with the
Monster (Leiden 1973) esp. 62-68; E. WiL-
LIAMS-FoRTE, The Snake and the Tree in the
Iconography and Texts of Syria during the
Bronze Age, Ancient Seals and the Bible
(Malibu. CA 1983) 18-43.
C. UEHLINGER
LIBRA DNS
I. The Hebrew word for the sign Libra
is m6’zénayim and the Aram is mé’znayd’.
They derive from an originat root
WDN/WZN; Ar wazana ‘to ponder’, Ug mzn
‘weight’, mzaum ‘scales’, Ar mizdn ‘scales’
(Ges.'8 1, 30). The term has a secondary
derivation from Heb ’6zen, ‘car’, which KB,
25 considers mistaken; it is also associated
with Heb ’dzén, ‘tool’. The Jewish Aramaic
forms NIV, NSW and JUW which mean
'scales' are also found.
The Hebrew term occurs 15 times in the
Bible, especially in poetic and prophetic
language, and the Aramaic term occurs once
in Dan 5:27. They mean scales (with the
two pans). C'ZiN2 also appears in Sir 42:4
and C'Z(Y2 in 1QIsa* 40:12 still meaning
scales. The biblical contexts in which the
terms appear place considerable emphasis
on divine and human justice and they stress
the ethical value of proper conduct (e.g. Job
31:6). The image of the soul weighed on the
scales appears in apocryphal literature: c.g.
1 Enoch 41:1; 61:8; 2 Enoch 49:2 (see
Nort 1984: cols. 614-616).
As a constellation of the zodiac, Libra
has been involved in a process of deification
in ancient Mesopotamian literature. In the
Hebrew traditions, however, there are no
515
LIBRA
evident traces of a specific divine status.
]H. Mo'zénayim means Libra (the Latin
word for scales), the sign of the zodiac, only
in post-biblical literature, though the zodiac
was in all likelihood already known to the
Israelites in biblical times. The Hebrew
names for the signs of the zodiac are in any
case a translation of the parallel Greek
terms. The word Libra has a calendaric
origin as it alludes to the equilibrium
between night and day (equinox; BOLL,
BezotpD & GUNDEL 19665:52). Yt was
included in the zodiac in Babylonian times,
by the Mesopotamians, but there are many
indications in later times that it was de-
scribed as ‘the claws’ of the great Scorpio:
Ptolemy was the most prominent person to
have used this denomination.
The notion of the zodiac spread rapidly in
the Jewish cultural tradition owing to Hel-
lenism. Moreover, this is one of the motifs
that appeared most frequently in the icono-
graphy of synagogues in Israel of the early
centuries CE (4th-7th). In their mosaic floors
and elsewhere, such as the Palmyra ceiling,
Libra is always depicted as a person holding
the scales in his right hand. In Greece and
Egypt too the scales are sometimes held by
a male or female figure. (In some cases in
the synagogues in Israel] the word is written
On and not Qik.) The names of the
signs of the zodiac have found their way
into literature of the mystical currents, in
rabbinical writings and particularly in the
Piyyut, the liturgical poetry.
In Hekhalot literature the sign of Libra is
mentioned in a Geniza fragment of 3 Enoch
(SCHAFER 1988:15/22 G 12 [Geniza, fr. 12,
2b, 15. T.S. K 21.95.L.). In the Sefer
Yesira, chap. V, we read “He made the letter
Lamed reign, He intertwined it with a crown
and formed WYNN in the universe, Tishri in
the year and the liver in living creatures".
Libra is therefore associated with the letter
Lamed, the North-West corner, action, the
month of Tishri (September-October), the
liver (in other mss. the colon). Leviticus
Rabba 29:8 (comment on Lev 17:29-30 with
Ps 62:10: "When they go up on thc scales"):
“In fact they are pardoned during Libra (that
is to say) the month in which the constel-
516
lation is Libra. Which month has Libra as its
constellation? Jt is the month of Tishn,
which means: You can dissolve (tigre), par-
don and remit our sins. In fact (this hap-
pens) on Rosh Hashana, in the seventh
month, on the first day of the month”.
Pesigta Rabbati 40:7 (comment on the
sound of the Shofar “in the seventh
month”): “This is what is written (in Ps
62:10), “Oh how trifling men are, human
beings are a falsehood. When they go up on
the scales, together they are Jess than dust”.
What is "How trifling”? It means that (all)
trifles and (all) lies that Israel has pro-
nounced on all the days of the year will be
charged to them "when they go up on the
scales", in the seventh month under the sign
of the zodiac Libra, D'3iND. (What does
Tishri mean?) According to R. (Hiyya) ben
Marya (who quotes R. Levi, it means): You
dissolve (tigre) and pardon our sins (as
though they were lighter than a breath).
When? Just in the seventh month”. |
According to the Yalqut Sim'oni (Exod
418) the standards of the 12 tribes cor-
respond to the signs of the zodiac: in the
west are stationed Ephraim, Manasseh and
Benjamin with Libra, Scorpio and Sagit-
tarius. (For a further list of references, see
BEN YEHUDA 1960: IV 2759-2760.)
The rabbinical interpretation that connects
the instrument of the scales with the constel-
lation is based principally on Ps 62:10, and
in particular on the term MY’? (‘to go up’).
Libra can not be said to have ever been a
rea] deity in its own nght in the Hebrew tra-
dition (if we exclude the deification process
that has involved the —stars in general and
the presumable sanctification of the zodiacal
constellations in particular during a certain
period). Some allegorical links have been
established between biblical concepts and
this sign of the zodiac (as with other signs).
In this particular case the symbol of justice
is exalted.
IIl. Bibliography .
E. BEN YEHUDA, Thesaurus totius Hebrat-
tatis, 4 (New York/London 1960) 2759-
2760; F. BoLL, C. BEZoLD & W. GUNDEL,
Sternglaube — und — Sterndeutung. Die.
Geschichte und das Wesen der Astrologie.
LIERS IN WAIT — LIES
(Stuttgart 19665) 7, 51-52; L. IDELER.
Untersuchungen über den Ursprung und die
Bedeutung der Sternnamen (Berlin 1809)
174-178; IpELER, Über den Ursprung des
Thierkreises (Berlin 1838) 10-11; R.
NonrH, C3R2, TWAT 4 (1984) 614-616; G.
SARFATTI, I segni dello zodiaco nell'icono-
grafia ebraica, Scritti in onore di Umberto
Nahon (ed. R. Bonfil et al.; Jerusalem 1978)
180-195; P. ScHArER, Konkordanz zur Hek-
halot-Literatur, 2 (Tübingen 1988) 390.
I. ZATELLI
LIERS IN WAIT DINN
I. In 2 Chr 22, Ammonites, Moabites
and people of Mount Seir who have invaded
Judah, are routed when the LorD sets ‘liers
in wait' (C'2782) against them. The ‘liers in
wait’ are clearly not Judahites, and there is
no rcason to posit a third human party in the
conflict. Most commentators have recog-
nized that the reference is to a heavenly
force (see RUDOLPH 1955:261; WILLIAMSON
1982:300).
II. “Liers in wait’ is not the name of a
group of -*angels, but simply indicates a
function of a batallion of the heavenly host.
For the intervention of the heavenly host in
time of battle compare Josh 1:13-15 (the
prince of the army of the Lorp); 2 Sam
5:24 (a sound of marching in the tops of the
trees); 2 Kgs 6:16 (the mountainside filled
with horses and fiery chariots around Elisha);
2 Kgs 7:5-7 (a sound of chariots and horses);
2 Kgs 19:35 (the angel of the Lorn in the
Assyrian camp).
III. Bibliography
E. L. Curtis & A. L. MADSEN, The Book
of Chronicles (New York, 1910) 409; R. B.
DILLARD, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco,
Texas, 1987) 15; W. RUDOLPH, Chro-
nikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen, 1955) 261:
H. G. WILLIAMSON, / & 2 Chronicles (New
Century Bible; Grand Rapids, 1982) 300.
J. J. COLLINS
*
LIES C'2iz
I. The plural noun kézabim ‘lies’ with-
out any pronominal suffix is attested 10
times in the Hebrew Bible independent of
any association with gods, demons or idol-
atry. It is widely held, however, that the
form kizbéhem (‘their lies’ with third person
plural pronominal suffix) in Amos 2:4, is
employed there as a dysphemism referring
to gods. According to this interpretation,
which goes back to LXX, it is alleged there
that in the middle of the 8th century BCE
Judaeans abandoned the -Lorp and His
Teaching and reverted to the worship of
other gods: “Their lies (i.e. false gods)
whom their ancestors followed have led
them astray".
Should this interpretation of Amos 2:4
be correct, the prophet reflects here the
tradition expressed in Joshua’s farewell
prophecy in Josh 24:2: “In olden times your
ancestors ... lived beyond the -*Euphrates
and worshipped other gods”, namely, that
worship of “other gods” had characterized
Israel's ancestors before their arrival in
Canaan.
The idea expressed by Amos' use of the
term Kézábím ‘lies’ to refer to gods other
than the LORD is similar to that expressed in
Jer 2:13: "For My people have done a two-
fold wrong: They have forsaken Me, the
Fount of living waters, and they have hewed
out cisterns, broken cistems, which cannot
even hold water".
In Isa 28:15 the opponents of the prophet
are introduced as saying “ ... for we made
Lie (kdzab) our refuge and we take shelter
in Deceit”. VAN DER TOORN (1988:201-205)
rightly interpreted kdzdb as a reference to a
non-Judaean god associated with the under-
world.
IIl. A minority of modem scholars (see
Hayes 1988:101-104) maintain that the term
kézabim ‘lies’ in Amos 2:13 as in Isa 28:15-
17; Hos 7:13; 12:1 refers not to apostasy but
to foolish political alliances with foreign
powers entered into by the King of Judah.
III. Bibliography
J. H. Hayes, Amos (Nashville 1988) 101-
104; R. Mosis, kzb, TWAT 4 (1982) 111-
130; S. M. PAUL, Amos (Minneapolis 1991)
75; K. VAN DER Toorn, Echoes of Judaean
Necromancy in Isaiah 28,7-22, ZAW 100
(1988) 199-217; M. Weiss, The Book of
517
LIGHT
—
Amos (2 vols.; Jerusalem 1992), vol. 1, 46-
47 (in Hebrew).
M. I. GRUBER
LIGHT Tis
J. The Hebrew noun NN, traditionally
vocalized "ár when it means ‘fire’, and "ór
when it refers to the ‘light’ provided by fire,
is never used as a divine name in the Bible.
It occurs as a divine predicate, though, and
was personified in the post-biblica) period.
The theophoric element "TI of proper names
mentioned in Aramaic inscriptions from the
Persian period (L. DELAPORTE, Epigraphes
araméens [Paris 1912], nos. 48-50) is a
transcription of -Amuru (R. ZADOK, On
West Semites in Babylonia [Jerusalem
19782] 76), since in Neo-Babylonian /m/ in
medial position changed to /w/, as in
Shamash written šwš in Aramaic (J. J. GELB,
BiOr 12 (1955] 101b). This theophoric el-
ement was reduced to -wr when it was in
second position, as in Prwr (KAI 233:1), but
-wr can also render Mér, the name of the
divine eponym of Mari (G. Dossin, Syria
21 [1940] 155), as in "Iwr (TSSI 1I, 5, A, 1),
the Ilumer of the Assyro-Babylonian AN =
Anum god list (CT XXIX, pl. 45:24; cf. pl.
2D stand Ss eine a> ok * ong
Jl. ‘Light’ is often used in the Bible as a
divine predicate, when God is called Israel's
‘light? or ‘the light’ of his devotee (2 Sam
22:19; Isa 10:17; 60:1; Mic 7:8; Ps 27:1).
The same predicate occurs in proper names
despite the vocalization "ür instead of "ór,
which reveals the artificial character of this
distinction. Thus, we know Uriel, ‘My
light is EF, Urijah), ‘My light is
Yahweh’, and the hypocoristic name Uri.
The same names are also attested in epi-
graphical and papyrological sources (R.
ZADOK, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite
Anthroponomy and Prosopography {Leuven
1988] 399), and they are paralleled by
Amorite (. J. GELB, Computer-Aided Analy-
sis of Amorite {Chicago 1980] 208) and
Phoenician persona! names (F. L. BENZ,
Personal Names in the Phoenician and
Punic Inscriptions [Rome 1972] 274): &-ri-
A-du, ‘My light is Haddu’, u-ri-E-ra-ah,
518
‘My light is the --Moon-god’, él-%-ri, ‘El is
my light’, rbl, ‘My light is Baal’,
?r(y)mlk, *My light 3s Milku/the King’. See
also the name of the servant of an alleged
Ammonite king Baalisha: mlkm’wr (ed, L.
G. Herr, BA 48 [1985] 169-172). Such
names and the divine predicate ‘hight’ used
in poetry are metaphors expressing the
beneficial and salvific function of the deity
in opposition to darkness, which symbolizes
negative and destructive forces of the uni-
verse, This terminology is also used in
Qumran texts. It constitutes the basis for the
distinction between ‘the Sons of the Light’
and ‘the Sons of the Darkness’. Although
this division of humankind implies an ethi-
cal and theological dualism, the terms ‘light’
and ‘darkness’ can by no means be con-
sidered here as substitutes for two super-
natural principles, such as Spenta Mainyu
(‘the Bounteous Spirit’) and Angra Mainyu
(‘the Evil Spirit’) in Zoroastrianism. ©
WI. The divine predicate ‘light was per-
sonified in the late Persian or Hellenistic
period as Uriel, ‘Light of God’, one of
seven archangels. Perhaps Ps 104:2, describ-
ing the Lorp “wrapped in a robe of light”,
had an influence on this evolution of Jewish
thought concerning God’s ‘light’.
IV. Bibliography
S. AALEN, *6r, TWAT 1 (1973). 160-182
(bibl.); C. L. BLEEKER, Some Remarks on
the Religious Significance of Light, JANES
5 (1973) 23-34; A. P. B. BREYTENBACH, The
Connection between the Concepts of Dark-
ness and Drought as well as Light and
Vegetation, De fructu oris sui. Essays in
Honour of Adrianus van Selms (ed. l. H.
Eybers et al.; Leiden 1971) 1-5; J. CHMIEL,
Quelques remarques sur la signification
symbolique de !a Jumiére dans Ja littérature
de l'ancien Proche-Orient, Folia Orientalia
21 (1980) 221-224; J. H. Eston, Some
Misunderstood Hebrew Words for God's
Self-Revelation, The Bible Translator
(1974) 331-338; B. Lancer, Gott als
“Licht” in Israel und Mesopotamien (Klos
temeuburg 1989).
E. LIPIŃSKI
LIGHTNING
LIGHTNING p^3
I. The root BRQ is common to the Sem-
itic languages, where the nominal form
refers to the meteorological phenomenon of
lightning; the corresponding verb means ‘to
flash lightning’ and is probably derived from
the noun. The root occurs in the onomastica
of numerous Semitic languages. As for
Hebrew proper names, Baraq was the Israel-
ite commander immortalized in the Song of
Deborah (Judg 5:2-31; see v 12). Josh 19:45
mentions béné béraq (lit., ‘sons of Beraq’,
apparently a geographical designation) in
connexion with the territory allotted to the
tribe of Dan. Brq’l occurs in 6QEnGiants
frg. 1:4 and Barqdy (with the gentilic suffix)
is known from the Talmud. The root is not
attested, however, in names in pre-exilic
Hebrew inscriptions (LAWTON 1984). As for
other Semitic languages, brq appears in
proper names in Ugaritic, Amorite, Phoe-
nician-Punic, Palmyrene, Old South Arabic,
and Akkadian. In the Neo- and Late
Babylonian periods it functions as a
theophorous element: Ab-di-4Gfr(birgu)
(MARAQTEN 1988:146).
II. There is evidence that lightning was
deified in ancient Mesopotamia, though he
is never portrayed as independent of the
storm-god. In the Babylonian god-list An =
Anum, Birgu is called the vizier of the
storm-god Adad. He is listed in the Nco-
Assyrian ‘Address-book of the Gods’, where
his name is juxtaposed to that of Adad
(Takultu 5 ii 17, 7 vii 8) as well as to that of
Girra, god of fire (ibid., 6 ii 9, 7 vii 10).
Elsewhere in this region, lightning, though
not deified, was associated with the storm-
god as his symbol and/or his weapon. A sty-
lised lightning-bolt with two or three forks
functioned as such a symbol in Mesopot-
amia (KRECHER 1971:485-486) as well as
Anatolia, and north-central Arabia (HAus-
SIG WbMyth:1:137, 209, 443). Upon con-
quering the Qumanians, Tiglath-Pileser I set
up bronze lightning-bolts within their capital
city, undoubtedly an emblem or weapon of
Adad (ARAB $243). This recalls Adad's
epithet bel birgi, "lord of the lightning-bolt
(AfO 14, 146, 121). A well known bas-relief
of the god Baal from Ugarit shows him
holding a lightning-spear in one hand and a
war-mace in the other (ANEP 168 No. 490;
and sce Baal-cycle KTU 1.3 iii:2). J. Dav
(1979:143-148) has identified Baal’s ‘seven
lightnings’ (3b*t brqm) in KTU 1.101 3-4
with his 'seven servitors' (3b*t élmk) men-
tioned in KTU 1.5 v. 6b-11 (in a list of
metcorological phenomena). If he is correct,
these lightning-servitors parallel the subsi-
diary role of Birqu (deified lightning) to
Adad, Baal’s Mesopotamian counterpart.
III. In the OT lightning is never deified
nor does it appear as a demonic force (Day
[1979:149-151] claims that the Seraphim
are personifications of lightning, but the pre-
sent writer does not find his argument persu-
asive. Rather, lightning is associated with
the God of Israel in a ‘depersonalised’ form
under two aspects: (a) as a weapon in the
divine arsenal and (b) as a standard feature
of the theophany.
As in the case of Adad and Baal, light-
ning functions as a weapon of Yahweh in
his role as warrior/storm-god. In poetic texts
in which storm language is present,
Yahweh's ‘arrows’ refer to the lightning-
shafts he hurls at his enemies: “He sent
forth (his) arrows and routed them // (his)
lightning and panicked them” (2 Sam 22:15
= Ps 18:15; cf. Pss 7:14; 77:18; 144:6; Zech
9:14). In Hab 3:11 his lightning-bolt is
called a ‘spear’. Lightning also appears as
an instrument of divine judgement in Job
36:32-33; Sir 43:13. In other OT texts light-
ning is associated with God as one of the
phenomena of the theophany, often together
with thunder, cloud, and earthquake. Per-
haps the locus classicus of lightning in a
theophanic context is Exod 19:16-20:18.
Exod 19:16a (J) (cf. 20:18 [E]) describes
"thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud
upon the mountain" preparatory to Yahwch's
address to Israel. Ezekiel’s description of
Yahweh's presence signalled by the four
‘living creatures’ includes the detail of light-
ning (Ezek 1:13), a description echoed in
Rev 4:5. For Elihu lightning and thunder
serve to manifest God's power in the cos-
mos (Job 36:29-37:5); yet even here a theo-
519
LILITH
phanic underlayer shines through. The cos-
mic dimension is also evident in Ps 97:4:
“Your lightnings light up the [whole]
world”. The theophanic aspect of lightning
persists into the NT (see Rev 4:5).
Despite the disclaimer of JEREMIAS
(1965:108), the military and theophanic uses
of lightning are probably related (KUNTZ
1967:171 n.3). The two appear to be inte-
grated, for example, in Ps 77:19. The imme-
diate context (vy 16-20) envisions a battle
with-primordial, watery chaos (‘arrows’ in v
18); but other details (‘thunder’, ‘whirl-
wind’, ‘the earth trembled’) point to a theo-
phany.
In:a yet more demythologised usage
lightning describes the brightness of beings
from the heavenly world in late OT books
and in the NT (Ezek 1:14; Dan 10:6; Matt
28:3). The description is most likely derived
from the language of theophany, but in this
case the meteorological term does not func-
tion to designate the divine presence.
Rather, the focus is primarily on the element
of brightness itself, with the implication of
an other-worldly origin.
IV. Bibliography
J. Day, Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders
and Lightnings in Psalm xxix and Habakkuk
iii 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in
Isaiah vi, VT 29 (1979) 143-151; J. JERE-
MIAS, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alt-
testamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1965); J. KRECHER,
Góttersymbole und -Attribute, RLA (1971)
' 483-498; J. K. KuNrz, The Self-Revelation
of God (Philadelphia 1967); R. LAWTON,
Israelite Personal Names in Pre-cxilic
Hebrew Inscriptions, Bib 65 (1984) 332-
346; M. MARAQTEN, Die semitischen Per-
sonennamen in den alt- und reichsaramá-
ischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien (Texte
und Studien zur Orientalistik 5; Zurich/New
York 1988).
M. L. BARRÉ
LILITH n>"
I. The Heb term Jilit as a demon in
Isa 34:14 is connected by popular ctymol-
ogy with the word Jayld ‘night’. But it is
certainly to be considered a loan from Akk
lilitu, which is ultimately derived from Sum
lil.
II. The Mesopotamian evidence for this
demon reaches back to the 3rd millennium
BCE as we can see from the Sumerian epic
‘Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld’.
Here we find Inanna (->Ishtar) who plants a
tree later hoping to cut from its wood a
throne and a bed for herself. But as the tree
grows, a snake makes its nest at its roots,
Anzu settled in the top and in the trunk the
demon ki-sikil-lil-l4 makes her lair. Gilga-
mesh has to slay the snake. Anzu and the
demon fice so that he can cut down the tree
and give the timber to Inanna.
From the term Hil we can see that these
demons are related to stormy winds. In Akk
texts lilt, lilitu and (wjardat lilt? often occur
together as three closely related demons
whose dominion are the stormy winds. Thus
lilà can also be seen as the southwest wind,
lilitu can flee from a house through the win-
dow like the wind or people imagine that
she is able to fly like a bird.
Of greater importance, however, is the
sexual aspect of the—mainly—female
demons lilitu and (w)ardar lili. Thus the
texts refer to them as the ones who have no
husband, or as the ones who stroll about
searching for men in order to ensnare them
or to enter the house of a man through the
window (sec the references given by FAUTH
1982:60-61; LACKENBACHER 1971; HUTTER
1988:224-226). But their sexuality is not a
normal kind of sexuality because (wJardat
lili is a girl with whom a man does not sleep
in the same way as with his wife, as the
texts tell us. In this aspect we can compare
these demons with Ishtar who stands at the
window looking for a man in order to se-
duce him, love him and kill him. The fact
that Lilith's sexuality is not a regular kind
of sexuality is also illustrated by references
which show that she cannot bear children
and that she has no milk but only poison
when she gives her breast as a deceitful wet-
nurse to the baby. In all these aspects Lilith
has a character similar to that of Lamashtu.
Thus, since the Middle Babylonian period
Lilith and Lamashtu have been assimilated
520
LIM
to each other. This also led to the spreading
of Lilith from the Mesopotamian to the
Syrian area. The traditional reading of
Arslan Tash amulet I (ANET 658) suggests
that she was revered in Phoenicia. A
reconsideration of the original, however,
forces a reading ll wym ‘night and day’
instead of /iy[... ‘Lili[th ... (BUTTERWECK
TUAT I1/3:437). Aramaic magical texts and
the scriptures of the Mandaeans in southern
Mesopotamia have clear allusions to the
demon (FAUTH 1986). In conclusion we can
say that the female demon—Zilitu, (w)ardat
lili)—can be considered a young girl who
has not reached maturity and thus has to
stroll about ceaselessly in search of a male
companion. Sexually unfulfilled, she is the
perpetual seductress of men.
HI. The only reference to this demon in
the OT occurs in Isa 34:14. The whole
chapter describes the prophetic judgement
on -*Edom which will become waste land.
Then all kinds of demons will dwell there:
among them hyenas, tawny owls, vultures
and also Lilith. The different versions and
ancient translations of the OT are of some
interest in this case as we can see how they
interpreted ‘Lilith’. The LXX gives the
translation óvokévtavpog (cf. also LXX Isa
13:22; 34:11), Aquila's version has the
transliteration AM8, while Symmachos'
version gives the name of the Greek demon
^agia, which corresponds to Jerome's Vul-
gate (also Lamia) |n his commentary
Jerome says: "Lamia, who is called Lilith in
Hebrew. (...) And some of the Hebrews
believe her to be an “Epiwvus, i.e. fury”.
Sull, these translations and interpretations of
Lilith show her ancient connection to
Lamashtu. The onokentauros of the LXX
reminds us of those amulets where Lamash-
tu is standing upon a donkey. The Greek
name Lamia might ultimately derive from
Akkadian Lamashtu.
Although Isa 34 contains the only biblical
reference to Lilith, she occurs fairly often in
Jewish and Christian scriptures (KREBS
1975; Brit 1984). In the Talmud she is a
demon with long hair and wings (Erub.
100b; Nid. 24b), and Shab. 151b warns all
men not to sleep alone in a house lest Lilith
will overcome them. B. Bat. 73a makes her
the daughter of Ahreman, the opponent of
Ohrmizd in the Zoroastrian religion. Well
known is also the legend of Lilith who was
-*Adam's first wife but flew away from him
after a quarrel; since then she has been a
danger to little children and people have to
protect themselves against her by means of
amulets. Solomon in his great wisdom also
possessed might over demons and the
Liliths; in later Jewish legends one of the
two wives from 1 Kgs 3:16-28 was ident-
ified with Lilith; so was the Queen of Sheba
(1 Kgs 10).
Such legends spread until the Middle
Ages. In popular belief Lilith became not
only the grandmother of the —*devil or the
devil himself, but also the arch-mother of
witchcraft and witches.
IV. Bibliography
J. BRIL, Lilith ou la Mère obscure (Paris
1984): W. FARBER, (W)ardat-lili(m), ZA 79
(1989) 14-35; W. Fautn, Lilitu und die
Eulen von Pylos, Serta Indogermanica.
Festschrift für Günter Neumann (ed. J.
Tischler; Innsbruck 1982) 53-64; FaurH,
Lilits und Astarten in aramiischen, mandi-
ischen und syrischen Zaubertexten, WO 17
(1986) 66-94; M. Hutter, Diimonen und
Zauberzungen. Aspekte der Magie im Alten
Vorderasien, Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft
37 (1988) 215-230; W. Kress, Lilith -
Adams erste Frau, ZRGG 27 (1975) 141-
152; S. LACKENBACHER, Note sur l'ardat
lilt, RA 65 (1971) 119-154; P. P. VÉRTESAL-
Jl, "La déesse nue élamite" und der Kreis
der babylonischen "Lili"-Dámonen, Iranica
Antiqua 26 (1991) 101-148.
M. HUTTER
LIM
I. Lim occurs as a theophoric element
in numerous personal names, primarily from
northern Syria in the second millennium
BCE. Attestations of Lim as a divine name in
the Bible, though suggested, are highly
dubious.
II. Among the bearers of Lim-namces are
Ti-3a/3e-Li-im, who is identified in an Ebla-
ite text as "the queen of Emar" (MEE 2.
521
LIM
351), /-bi-it-Li-im, an Eblaite king (MAIS
[1967-1968]. Il. 2.9.26), ni-$i-Li-im, an Ensi
from Tuttul in the Ur III-period (AfO 19
[1959-60] 120:18), and several individuals
of the Lim-Dynasty at Mari (GELB 1980).
Despite the presence of Hurrian elements in
a few examples and a twice-attested name
from the Neo-Assyrian period containing an
Akkadian element (see KREBERNIK 1990), it
seems clear that the bearers of Lim-names
belonged to the ethnic-cultural group known
as the "Amorites".
The names appear almost exclusively in
syllabic-logographic cunciform texts. Sig-
nificantly, Lim is ordinarily written without
the determinative for divinity, the only
exceptions being ya-ku-un-SLim | (OBTR,
259), GuR(itir)-“Lim (PRU IV, RS 17.
394:3), and zi-im-ri-dLim (PRU IV, RS
17.110:2.4.7.11). The only certain example
of a Lim-name written in alphabetic cunei-
form is yrgb lim mentioned in an Ugaritic
text (KTU 1.102:22). Among the Egyptian
Execration texts, the identification of the
personal name miim as mlklm z *malki-Lim
seems plausible (NoTH 1942), but not the
explanation of the place-name ;w£fumm as
nv§-Imm “the hill of Lim’”—with mimation!
(JirkU 1964).
The etymology of Lim is controverted.
The best explanation relates it to Akk
limwlimmu, which may stand for lim ilani
"the thousand gods" (DnuonME 1951). As
such, the word is cognate to Hebrew /®6m
and Ugaritic lim "people, nation". The lim
iláni "thousand gods" are frequently in-
voked as witnesses in Syro-Hittite treaties
and they are mentioned in an epistolary for-
mula attested at Ugarit (NAKATA 1974).
Thus, the deity Lim is thought to have been
a personification of the entire assembly of
the gods. Other scholars have suggested.
however, that since Akk Jimu/limmu is used
as a title for an Assyrian high official, and
since Heb /’mym is sometimes rendered in
the LXX as archontes, lim may have meant
"Prince", and the word is to be related to thc
root Ly "to be strong" (GRAY 1965, 1979).
The derivation of Lim from a [11-Weak root
L’y, as well as the relevance of the relatively
late and unique Assyrian institution of the
limu, are highly questionable. however. To
be rejected, too, is the explanation of Lim as
an Amorite translation of Sumerian Dagan
(^Dagon) by DossiN (1950)—an unlikely
proposition, since Dagan is a West-Semitic
word and the deity is foreign to the Sumer-
ian pantheon. The explanation of Lim as a
representation of the totality of the gods
remains the most attractive. The root is L'M,
which is attested in classical Arabic with the
meaning "fit together, assemble". It is prob-
able that Lim was considered a personal
god, an appropriate representative from
among the gods. Lim may have had the
same connotations as Arabic lm “fitting
one, companion”. This explains the name
Li-mi-S1iSKUR “My Lim (personal god) is
Hadad”.
Scholars have attempted to identify Lim
variously with Dagan, —Baal-Hadad,
—Shamash, and -*Anat. Most of the argu-
ments are extrapolations made on thc basis
of the traits of Lim suggested by the ono-
mastica. The evidence hardly allows one to
be so specific, however. Some names, like
Yabrug-Lim may suggest a storm god (al-
though brq is used of a lunar deity in Old
South Arabic inscriptions; -*Lightning), but
others, like Samsi-Lim may point to a solar
deity. Moreover, Lim occurs in kinship
names like "Abi-lim and 'Ahi-lim. Indeed,
the majority of the traits may be appropriate
for many, if not most, deities. The absence
of the determinative for divinity indicates
that the element Lim was originally a title,
rather than a proper name. The appellative
use of Lim is evident, too, where it occurs
with specific divine names: Li-ma-4Da-gan
(ARET 3, 290); SDagan-li-im (ARET 1,
238), Li-mi-SiSkuR (ARM XVI/I, 146), Li-
ma-a-du (Alt 322:7). In. each case, the
meaning of the name is simply, "DN is (my)
Lim". Thus, Lim may not have been the
same deity in every constituency and for
every individual.
Apart from the personal names, there are
no indisputable attestations of Lim as a di-
vine appellation. Scholars have called at-
tention to Anats epithet, ybmt limm (esp.
522
LIM
351), I-bi-it-Li-im, an Eblaite king (MAIS
[1967-1968], ll. 2.9.26), ni-si-Li-im, an Ensi
from Tuttul in the Ur IlJ-period (AfO 19
[1959-60] 120:18), and several individuals
of the Lim-Dynasty at Mari (GELB 1980).
Despite the presence of Hurrian elements in
a few examples and a twice-attested name
from the Neo-Assyrian period containing an
Akkadian element (see KREBERNIK 1990), it
seems clear that the bearers of Lim-names
belonged to the ethnic-cultural group known
as the "Amorites".
The.names appear almost exclusively in
sylabic-logographic cuneiform texts. Sig-
nificantly, Lim is ordinanly written without
the determinative for divinity, the only
exceptions being ya-ku-un-dLim (OBTR,
259) GuR(itir)-9Lim (PRU IV, RS 17.
394:3), and zi-im-ri-4Lim (PRU IV, RS
17.110:2.4.7.11). The only certain example
of a Lim-name written in alphabetic cunei-
form is yrgb lin mentioned in an Ugaritic
text (KTU 1.102:22). Among the Egyptian
Execration texts, the identification of the
persona] name m3k3m as mlklm = *malki-Lim
seems plausible (NOTH 1942), but not the
explanation of the place-name :wS3mm as
rws-lmm “the hill of Lim"—with mimation!
(JIRKU 1964).
The etymology -of Lim is controverted.
The best explanation relates it to Akk
limu/limmu, which may stand for lim ilani
“the thousand gods” (DHORME 1951). As
such, the word is cognate to Hebrew lë’ōm
and Ugaritic lim "people, nation". The lim
ani “thousand gods” are frequently in-
voked as witnesses in Syro-Hittite treaties
and they are mentioned in an epistolary for-
mula attested at Ugarit (NAKATA 1974).
Thus, the deity Lim is thought to have been
a personification of the entire assembly of
the gods. Other scholars have suggested,
however, that since Akk Jimu/limmu is used
as a title for an Assyrian high official, and
since Heb Pmym is sometimes rendered in
the LXX as archontes, lim may have meant
"Prince", and the word is to be related to the
root LY “to be strong" (Gray 1965, 1979).
The derivation of Lim from a III-Weak root
Ly, as wel] as the relevance of the relatively
522
m M.
late and unique Assyrian institution of the
līmu, are highly questionable, however. To
be rejected, too, is the explanation of Lim as
an Amorite translation of Sumerian Dagan
(2Dagon) by DossiN (1950)—an unlikely
proposition, since Dagan is a West-Semitic
word and the deity is foreign to the Sumer.
jan pantheon. The explanation of Lim as a
representation of the totality of the gods
remains the most attractive. The root is L'M,
which is attested in classical Arabic with the
meaning "fit together, assemble". Xt is prob-
able that Lim was considered a personal
god, an appropriate representative from
among the gods. Lim may have had the
same connotations as Arabic Pm “fitting
one, companion”. This explains the name
Li-mi-S8KUR “My Lim (personal god) is
Hadad”.
Scholars have attempted to identify Lim
variously with Dagan, -*Baal-Hadad,
—Shamash, and —4Anat. Most of the argu-
ments are extrapolations made on the basis
of the traits of Lim suggested by the ono-
mastica. The evidence hardly allows one to
be so specific, however. Some names, like
Yabrug-Lim may suggest a storm god (al-
though brg is used of a lunar deity in Old
South Arabic inscriptions; Lightning), but
others, like Samsi-Lim may point to a solar
deity. Moreover, Lim occurs in kinship
names like '"Abi-lim and *Ahi-lim. Indeed,
the majority of the traits may be appropriate
for many, if not most, deities. The absence
of the determinative for divinity indicates
that the element Lim was originally a ttle,
rather than a proper name. The appellative
use of Lim is evident, too, where it occurs
with specific divine names: Li-ma-4Da-gan
(ARET 3, 290); SDagan-li-im (ARET |,
238), Li-mi-di8kur (ARM XVVI, 146), Li-
ma-a-du (Alt 322:7). In each case, the
meaning of the name is simply, "DN is (my)
Lim". Thus, Lim may not have been tbe
same deity in every constituency and for
every individual. |
Apart from the personal names, there are
no indisputable attestations of Lim as a di
vine appellation. Scholars have calJed at:
tention to Anat’s epithet, ybmt limm (esp..
{Aen line eral
sss
LIONESS
very popular on Attic red-figure vases of the
earlier fifth century (BOARDMAN 1992) and
also the subject of various comedies (Alexis
fr. 140; Anaxandrides fr. 16) and a satyr
play (Achaeus TGrF 20 F 26). A later Theb-
an tradition told about his agon with Apollo,
who defeated and killed him (WEILER 1974:
63-66). The myth is clearly modelled on
other myths about musicians challenging the
gods, such as Marsyas and Apollo or Tha-
myris and the Muses (WEILER 1974:37-
100).
Before the end of the third century BC
Linos was listed as a sage and a cosmo-
gonical poem was ascribed to him, which
has only fragmentarily survived (WEST
1983:56-67). Later sources continuously
expanded his role in music by making him
the inventor of music instruments, rhythm,
song and, eventually, of music (KROLL
1927:716). Linos now could even become
the father of Eros (SEG 26.486). Linos did
not have a permanent cult, but he received a
preliminary sacrifice on Mount Helikon,
where Pausanias (9.29.5-6) saw his cult
relicf, before the one to the Muses, with
whom he was so closely connected (above;
add SEG 33.303).
HI. in the Bible the name Linos occurs
only once (2 Tim 4:21). The name is rare
before the Roman period and may point to
artistic pretentions of Linos’ father.
IV. Bibliography
J. BoarDMAN, Linos, L/A{C VI.1 (1992)
290; W. Burkert, Homo Necans (Berkeley/
Los Angeles/London 1983); P. CHANTRAINE,
Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
grecque (Paris 1968-80); H. GREVE, Linos,
ALGRM 2.2 (ed. W. H. Roscher, Leipzig
1894-1897) 2053-2063; A. HENRICHS,
Philodems “De Pietate” als mythographische
Quelle, Cronache Ercolanesi 5 (1975) 5-38;
HENRICHS, Ein neues Likymniosfragment
bei Philodem, ZPE 57 (1984) 53-57; W.
KROLL, Linos, PW 13 (1927) 715-717; I.
WEILER, Der Agon im Mythos (Darmstadt
1974); M. Scuwrpr, Linos, Eracle ed altri
ragazzi. Problemi di lettura, Modi e funzioni
del racconto mitico nella ceramica greca,
italiota ed etrusca dal vi al iv secolo a. C.
(Salemo 1995) 13-25; M. L. West, The
Orphic Poems (Oxford 1983); U. von
WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, KS V 2
(Berlin 1937) 108-113.
J. N. BREMMER
LIONESS r«22
I. Lb't (fem. of Ib?) occurs as a divine
name or as a theophoric element in Canaan-
ite personal names outside the Bible in the
2nd half of the 2nd millennium. The name
of the deity, as part of a theophoric name
*bdib't, is engraved on five arrowheads
found at el-Khadr, north-west of Bethlehem,
and dated around 1100 BCE, but two occur-
rences are wrongly engraved: *bdibt (II) and
*bdt (IV). It is found also on cuneiform
tablets of the LB II strata at Ugarit, ‘bdlbir
(see GORDON 1965:n° 321 III 38, p. 209 =
KTU 4.63). The cult of the lioness deity is
also attested in south-west Canaan for the
same period by a biblical toponym men-
tioned in Josh 15:32 and 19:6 as (byt) Ib^wt,
but with a secondary late Hebrew plural-
isation in the Bible against the accurate and
original Canaanite orthography and spelling.
The deity occurs also in Babylonian and
Assyrian personal names and in cunciform
texts in Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian, and
Standard Babylonian: Labbatu.
II. Given the evidence at present, it
appears that the lioness goddess is attested
in the West Semitic area mainly during the
2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE in
theophoric names at Ugarit and el-Khadr;
the origin of the biblical toponym is much
more difficult to establish. The editors of the
el-Khadr engraved arrow-heads have already
noticed some parallel anthroponyms on el-
Khadr and Ruweiseh javelins and in the lists
of military men at Ugarit (‘bdlbit, bn ‘nt,
‘ky), and suggested the existence of a mer-
cenary body of soldiers, mainly of bowmen,
in Syria-Palestine during the LB II - early
Iron I Periods. Thus, despite the migrations
and changes of ruling classes, the profession
survived because it was hereditary among
certain families (see also the toponym byt
‘nwt [wrongly spelled with plural fem.)
south of Bethlehem).
This evidence tells us something about
524
LOGOS
the identity, character and role of the deity
among the West Semites, although the lion-
ess could have been the animal of three
chief Canaanite goddesses: — —Asherah,
—Astarte and -*Anat. Under the epithet
Qudsu, Asherah is represented standing on a
lion on numerous Egyptian stelae dedicated
to her, together with -*Min and -*Resheph.
But Asherah is first of all a fertility goddess
and for the anthroponyms of bowmen fam-
ilies a war deity is rather to be expected.
Both goddesses Anat and Ashtoreth are
usually characterized as war goddesses in
the Canaanite and Egyptian texts and reprc-
sentations. They are the patronesses of
chariot-warriors; the interest of Anat in the
composite bow is well depicted in the Aqhat
epic. In later times in Egypt, [Start is fre-
quently represented as a lioness-headed
figure, or in the form of a sphinx. She is
assimilated to the goddess Sekhmet and con-
sidered as a healing deity (see DE Wit
1951:368 and notes).
In Mesopotamia, the association of the
goddess Ishtar with a lion(ess) is well docu-
mented by texts (e.g Nabonid, Stamboul
Stela III) as well as by representations like
the rocky reliefs of Maltaï (F. THUREAU-
Dancin, RA 21 [1924] 187,194-195), the
stele of Tell Ahmar (F. THUREAU-DANGIN
& M. DuNAND, Til Barsip [Paris 1936) PI
XIV 1) and by a number of cylinder-seals.
The goddess is sometimes qualified as, or
named, a lioness, for instance in the Old
Babylonian hymn of AguSaya: la-ba-tu [Star
(V. ScugiL, RA 15 [1918] 181, vili:24), or
designated in a hymnic passage as la-ab-bat
d/-gi-gi, “the lioness among the Igigi". Some
vocabularies from Nineveh mention a lion-
ess goddess (SLa-ba-tu) identified with Ish-
tar (CT XXIV 41:83; XXV 17 ii:22, see
THUREAU-DANGIN 1940:105). But in Akkad-
ian, Labbatu is attested only as epithet of
Ishtar (CAD, L [1973] 23). This must help
for the attribution of the animal to Astarte
also in the West Semitic area, a war deity as
well as the goddess of love. The lion(ess)
symbolizes the military character of the god-
dess Ishtar.
In conclusion, the cult of this epithet of
the Goddess seems to be fairly well docu-
mented in the Near East and peculiarly in
the West Semitic area in the second part of
the second millennium BCE, despite the lack
of abundant textual documentation.
III. The deity had a Canaanite cultic
place in the south-west of Judah, (byt) Ib^wt,
Josh 15:32 and 19:6.
IV. Bibliography
F. M. Cross, Newly Found Inscriptions in
Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,
BASOR 238 (1980) 1-20; C. Dre Wir, Le
róle et le sens du lion dans l'Egypte an-
cienne (Leiden 1951); C. H. Gorpon, Uga-
ritic Textbook (AnBib 38; Rome 1965); J. T.
Milik & F. M. Cross, Inscribed Javelin-
Heads from the Period of the Judges: A
Recent Discovery in Palestine, BASOR 134
(1954) 5-15; E. PuECH, Origine de l'alpha-
bet, RB 93 (1986) 161-213, esp. 163-167; F.
THUREAU-DANGIN, Une tablette bilingue de
Ras Shamra, RA 37 (1940) 97-118.
E. PuECH
LOGOS Aóyos
I. Logos (usually translated ‘Word’,
sometimes also 'Reason') plays a central
role in Greek thought, and is frequently
associated with divinity. In the LXX thc
phrase the ‘logos of -*God' or the ‘logos of
the Lorn’ occurs frequently, mainly in the
prophetic books. In Hellenistic-Jewish thought
there is much theological speculation on the
nature of God's Logos, whereby it is often
associated with -*Wisdom. In the NT the
Logos makes a dramatic appearance in the
Prologue to John’s Gospel, where it is once
called theos (1:1). Both Judaeo-Hellenistic
and Johannine Logos theology is further
developed in early Christian thought.
In order to come to terms with the wide
range of meaning associated with the per-
sonified or theologized Logos (on which the
treatment in this article concentrates), it is
necessary to look more closely at the word
itself. The Greek word is derived from the
root /eg-, meaning (1) to ‘gather’ or ‘count’
and (2) to ‘speak’. From the former the
noun comes to mean: ratio, proportion,
order; from the latter a wider spectrum of
meaning results: moving from concrete to
525
LOGOS
abstract we may mention: word, saying,
account, oracle, speech, conversation, dia-
logue, definition, argument, theory, reason
or rationality (see W. K. C. GUTHRIE, A
History of Greek Philosophy [Cambridge
1962-81] 1.419424, SrEAD 1991:81). The
meanings of the word most relevant to the
divine are ‘reason’ (i.e. divine thought),
‘speech’ (divine revelation), and ‘order’
(divine activity).
II. In the enigmatic fragments of Hera-
clitus (ca. 500 BCE) logos means in the first
place the account or explanation of the
philosopher (fr. 1-2, 50 Diels-Kranz). It is
claimed, however, that the account has a
universal validity: all is one in a dynamic
unity of opposites. The logos thus cor-
responds to the order or structure of the
world of experience. The unity of opposites
is predicated of a supreme deity: fr. 67, ‘the
god: day night summer winter war peace
satiety famine—all opposites...—and it
takes on various forms, such as fire’. It is
but a short step to regarding this world-
embracing immanent deity as the Logos.
Whether Heraclitus actually took this step is
debated, but the identification was certainly
made by later ancient interpreters (cf. KIRK,
RAVEN & SCHOFIELD 1983:187-200). In
Stoic thought logos is one of the most
important terms used to describe the active
principle, also known as -*Zeus, Reason,
—Pronoia, Fate etc. (cf. Diogenes Laertius
7.134, 136). God as the Logos is the cre-
ative principle that pervades the entire uni-
verse and is responsible for its rational
structure and ordered purposeful develop-
ment (PEPIN 1987; Topp 1978). In physical
terms it is identified with a special kind of
fire or later with pneuma (mixture of fire
and air). The creative principle is also
described as being present in the form of
spermatikoi logoi (seed or sperm principles)
in matter. The Logos is thus present at
various levels in the universe, including
most importantly the human soul. All these
levels form a unity in the active principle. In
the most famous extant text of Stoic piety,
Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, the Logos is twice
referred to (SVF 1.537): “with your thunder-
bolt you direct the common reason (logos)
which passes through all things” (12-13);
“you have welded all things together so
thoroughly into one, the good with the bad,
that they have all become one universal
everlasting reason (logos)" (20-21). The
Logos thus represents the cosmic activity of
the all-pervading deity identified with Zeus.
Earlier the concept of logos played an
important role in the philosophy of Plato
and Aristotle in the meaning of human or
divine reason, but was not used there as a
name or a description of a cosmological
principle. When outlining the reasoning ac-
tivity of the World-soul, Plato describes it as
‘true logos’ (Tim. 37b), but the World-soul
as such is not so called. In the Platonic re-
vival which begins at the turn of the era,
there is a tendency to describe the activity
of the cosmic soul in terms that are highly
reminiscent of Stoic doctrine, with the
important difference that Soul, though spa-
tially distended, never has a material compo-
sition. For example, Atticus “identifies Pro-
vidence, Nature and the World Soul, and,
although the Logos is not directly men-
tioned, it is that in fact that is the unifying
concept” (DILLON 1977:252 on fr. 8). Char-
acteristic of Middle Platonism is a two-level
theology. The highest god is Nous (mind),
fully transcendent and engaged in pure (i.e.
intuitive) thought. At a lower level is the
World-soul, whose intelligence is directed
towards Nous, so that it can effortlessly
order and administer the cosmos. This is the
level of logos, i.e. discursive reasoning. The
Neopythagorean philosopher Numenius (ca.
150 ce) explicitly distinguished between a
first god and a second god. In Plutarch
Platonist ideas are used to expound the
Egyptian -*Isis and ~Osins myth. Oriris as
masculine ordering principle is equated with
the Logos (Mor. 371B, 373B, but in the lat-
ter text somewhat confusingly —Hermes is
also aligned with the Logos). Isis the female
receptive principle yearns for him (372E-F).
The soul of Osiris is said to remain eternal,
whereas his body is torn to pieces by
—Typhon (373A). The Logos here has a
transcendent aspect (reason focused on the
526
LOGOS
transcendent realm) as well as an immanent
aspect (reason as ordering principle in the
material world). The most systematic use of
the concept of Logos by a Platonist philos-
opher is found in Plotinus. He denies that it
is an independent hypostasis like Nous or
Soul, but uses it as a metaphysical principle
to describe the activity or productivity of an
hypostasis at a lower level, and especially of
Soul operating as Nature in the material
realm (cf. R. T. Watuis, Neoplatonism
[London 1972] 68). Middle Platonist ‘Logos
theology’. though not well developed, was
important for early Christian thinkers, who
were able to exploit it in their reflections on
the cosmic role of -*Christ the Logos (cf.
LiLLA 1971: DiLLON 1989).
A number of gods in Greek and Hellen-
istic religion are associated with /ogos
(LEISEGANG 1926:1061-69). Chief among
them is Hermes, of whom Comutus in his
first century CE theological handbook says
(§16): “Hermes represents the Logos, whom
the gods sent down to us from heaven, when
they made man alone of all living beings on
earth a rational creature, a characteristic
which they themselves regard as superior to
all others.” Hermes’ allegorical association
with logos is also encouraged by the fact
that he is the messenger of the gods (logos
also means 'speech'). In Egypt, Hermes was
identified with the god -*Thoth. In the Cor-
pus Hermeticum philosophical speculation
on the Logos is combined in a remarkable
way with Greek and Egyptian religious
doctrines. The Logos is both a creative prin-
ciple that proceeds forth in matter from the
highest principle Mind (Nous) and also an
instrument of revelation (cf. KroLL 1914:
55-62, KLEINKNECHT 1967:88). In the Poi-
mandres (CH 1) the Logos is also called
‘son of God’. It is possible that this treatise
is influenced by Jewish Logos speculation
(C. H. Dopp, The Bible and the Greeks
{London 1954?}).
Although the Logos has a rich history in
Greek thought as a philosophical principle
and is often associated with the divine
(whether in general or with specific deities),
it is not personified as an independent deity,
and is not the object of cultic worship in the
form of statues or altars (in contrast to per-
sonified gods such as -Diké, Moira,
—Tyché, Heimarmené, -*Pronoia). The rea-
son for this may be the generality and ab-
stract nature of Logos as rational or creative
principle. In the meaning of word or speech
it can be less abstract, e.g. in the revelation
of a mystery (cf. examples in KLEINKNECHT
86), but in this case it is always associated
with a particular deity or religious tradition.
III. In the biblical tradition logos first
occurs in the LXX, where it is frequently
(but not exclusively) used to translate dabar
in the Hebrew Bible (more details in TOBIN
1992:349). The expression ‘word of God’
(logos tou theou) is comparatively rare (7x),
but the phrase ‘word of the Lord' (logos tou
kyriou) is very frequent (179x). Both are
almost always used in a prophetic context,
where logos receives a more dynamic con-
notation than is customary in Greek thought
(e.g. Isa 2:3 “And the Word of the Lord
shall go forth from Jerusalem..."). An iso-
lated but significant text is found at Ps
32:4-6 [MT 33:4—-6]: "For the logos of the
Lord is straight, and all his works are done
in faithfulness... By the logos of the Lord
the heavens were established, and all their
power is in the breath of his mouth.” Here
there seems to be a direct reference to the
repeated use of ‘and God said’ in the cre-
ation account of Genesis 1. God's logos is
associated with action rather than rationality
(cf. also Ps 147:4, 7 (MT 15,18)), and is in
no way yet regarded as in any way inde-
pendent from God himself.
The theme is continued in the Wisdom
literature. In a number of texts Sirach asso-
ciates God's /ogos with the creation and
maintainance of the creational order (39:17,
31; 43:10, 26). Logos is linked with the
more prominent theme of Wisdom (Sophia).
who is regarded as God’s instrument in cre-
ation (Prov 8:22-31, Sir 24). In Wisdom
theology a clear separation is made between
God and his Wisdom: Prov 8:22 "God
established me as beginning (arché) of his
ways to brings about his works;" 8:30 “I
was beside him bringing things together,
527
LOGOS
and I was the one in whom he delighted”
(translation of LXX text). Wisdom thus
becomes an hypostasis (a self-subsistent
entity), independent of God, but remaining
very closely associated with Him (cf. PÉPIN
1987:10-11).
In the intertestamental period God's
Logos becomes a central theme in Helle-
nistic Judaism. Unfortunately most of this
literature is lost, so that it is difficult to fol-
low its development. Aristobulus (2nd cen-
tury BCE) affirms that according to Moses
the entire genesis of the cosmos represents
the words (logoi) of God because he writes
in each case “and God said, and it came to
pass” (Gen 1 passim). In the Wisdom of
Solomon (first century BCE) creation of the
world and of man is attributed mainly to
God's wisdom but also to God’s logos (esp.
9:1—2). But the concept of the divine Logos
achieves the greatest prominence in the
writings of Philo of Alexandria (ca. 15 BCE
— 50 cE). Because he is well versed in
Greek thought, Philo is able to exploit the
various philosophical connotations of the
concept in his exegesis of Mosaic scripture
(Wrss 1966; WiNsTOoN 1985; RuNIA
1986). It is clear, however, that he also
makes use of earlier Alexandrian exegetical
traditions, which make it difficult to disti] a
systematic and consistent Logos doctrine
from his works (cf. ToBIN 1983:57-77). The
following main characteristics of the divine
Logos can be listed (important texts in
WINSTON 1981:87-102). (1) The Logos
contains or is the divine intelligible plan of
the cosmos (cf. Opif. 16-25). (2) The Logos
represents God's activity in the cosmos and
embraces God's two chief powers of good-
ness and justice (cf. Cher. 27-30). (3) The
Logos is God's instrument in creation (cf.
Leg. All. 3.96; at Her. 134, 140 described as
the Logos-cutter). (4) The Logos is the bond
of the universe, providentially maintaining
its order (Plant. 8-10). (5) Through his rea-
son man is related to God as the image of
God's Logos (Opif. 25, 69, Her. 231, exe-
gesis of Gen. 1:26-27), and on account of
this relationship can attain to the knowledge
and vision of God (though not of His es-
sence). It cannot be denied that Philo perso-
nifies the Logos when talking about him, but
it remains difficult to interpret the extent to
which he accords him separate existence. In
many texts the Logos represents God's pres-
ence or activity in the world, so that thc dis-
tinction between God and Logos is more
conceptual than real. There are other texts,
however, in which the Logos is presented as
an hypostasis separate from and ontological-
ly inferior to God Himself. The Logos is
God's chief messenger (-*archangelos).
standing on the borderline between creator
and creation, himself neither created nor
uncreated but intermediate (Her. 205-6). In
other texts he is called ‘first-born —son of
God' (Conf. 146, Somn. 1.215) or ‘Man of
God’ (Conf. 41, 63, 146) or ‘second to God’
(Leg. All. 2.86). These texts were avidly sei-
zed upon by later Christian readers (RUNIA
1993). It is significant, however, that Philo
generally refrains from describing the Logos
as a ‘second God’ (exception at QG 2.62),
thus avoiding a hierarchical theology such
as was developed in Middle Platonism. Al-
though personified to a greater extent than in
Greek thought, the Logos remains primarily
a conceptual and theological construct.
In the NT the term logos is very frequent
in the sense of ‘word’ or ‘revelation’ of God
as made manifest in the words and deeds of
—Jesus Christ (e.g. Luke 1:2). For Paul this
logos becomes the ‘logos of the cross’
which for those who are saved is the power
(-*dynamis) of God (1 Cor 1:18). At Col
1:25 he describes his task as ‘to make
known the logos of God, the mystery hidden
from ages and generations, but now revealed
to the saints’. But in the personalized or
hypostasized sense the Logos is found only
in the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18),
to which reference is made in two sub-
sequent writings of the Johannine commu-
nity (1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13). The opening
sentence of the Prologue (1:1) reads: “In the
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos
was with (the) God, and the Logos was
God." The first phrase very clearly recollects
both the opening words of the Torah (Gen
1:1) and the description of the pre-existent
528
LOGOS
Wisdom of Prov 8:22. The second phrase
emphasizes the intimacy of the Logos’ re-
lation to God (cf. Prov 8:31, also John 1:18
“in the bosom of the —Father™). The third
phrase is climactic. “John intends that the
whole of his gospel shall be read in the light
of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus
are the deeds and words of God” (C. K.
BARRETT, The Gospel according to St. John
[London 19782] 156). The predicative use of
theos without the article is striking. “The
Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage
of "God" for the -*Son, but by omitting the
article it avoids any suggestion of personal
identifcation of the Word with the Father.
And for Gentile readers the line also avoids
any suggestion that the Word was a second
God in any Hellenistic sense" (R. E.
Brown, The Gospel according to John,
[New York 1966-70] 1.24). In v 3, “all
things were made through him", the cosmo-
logical aspect of Logos theology is made
explicit (already implied in v 1). In v 14 the
incarnation of the Logos is stated: "and the
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us,
and we observed his glory. glory as from the
only-begotten of the Father." In v 17 fol-
lows the final identification with Jesus
Christ. In v 18 the text is disputed: either
‘the only-begotten Son' (/iuios) or "the only-
begotten God’ (theos) has made the Father
known. In the case of the latter reading (pre-
ferred by Nestle-Aland), there is a second
reference to the deity of Christ the Logos.
There has been much debate on the
background to the Evangelist’s Logos doc-
trine. Attempts to demonstrate a Targumic
or a Gnostic origin do not convince. The
background is clearly to be located in Hel-
lenistic Jewish Wisdom and Logos specula-
tion (survey in ToBIN 1992:352-355, see
also Dopp 1965). A direct relation to Philo
is unlikely (vace WOLFSON), because John's
conception is theologically profound but
lacks philosophical resonance. Identified
with a man who 'dwelt among us' (1:14).
the Logos becomes personalized beyond
what had been developed in Jewish tradi-
tion. The mediatory role of the Logos, al-
ready present in Philo. is developed further.
As the Son of God, the Logos has revealed
God's glory (1:14) and made manifest the
way to eternal life with the Father (cf. |
John 1:2).
IV. In the Christian literature of the first
two centuries, John's Gospel plays at most a
minor role (STEAD 1991:8$6-8). The Apolo-
gist Justin Martyr (110-165 cE) is the first
Christian thinker to draw on Platonist and
Philonic conceptions in his Logos theology.
For Justin God is wholly transcendent. It is
the Logos, the pre-existent Christ, who
speaks whenever God appears in a theo-
phany in the Old Testament, Thus the words
“J am He who is, the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob” (Exod 3:14) are spoken by
the Logos, not the Father (Apol. 1.63.11-14).
Remarkably Justin argues that hitherto the
Logos was present among Greek philos-
ophers as seed of the Logos (spermata tou
logou), but after the coming of Christ the
Logos has appeared in the fullness of truth
(Apol. 2.8) (sce further CHADWICK 1967;
Ossorn 1973; WasziNK 1964). In Chris-
tian Gnosticism the Logos is also prominent,
esp. in the Valentinian school (LAYTON
1987:225, 256, 301). The decisive inter-
vention which results in a fully developed
Logos doctrine occurs in the Alexandrian
theology of Clement and Origen, beginning
with the lyrical description of the Logos as
the ‘new song’ in Clement’s Protrepticus
(1-10). In the Christological struggles of the
fourth. century the earlier. subordinationist
theology influenced by Middle Platonism is
gradually rejected in favour of a trinitarian
understanding of the Logos (GRILLMEIER
1975; WiLLiAMS 1987). In his Confessions
Augustine famously declares that in the
‘books of the Platonists' he found that ‘in
the beginning was the Word', but not that
"the Word became flesh' (7.9.13-14). As
man Christ is mediator, but as Word he is
not midway (medius), for the Word is ‘equal
to God’ (Phil 2:6), ‘God with God’ (John
1:1), and at the same time there is only
—^One God (10.43.68). Fully personalized,
the Logos is incorporated in Christian
orthodoxy as the second Person of the Trin-
ity, and as such is the object of devotion and
529
LOGOS
veneration. There remains, however, plenty
of scope for theological debate, as the long
history of Christian dogma will show.
V. Bibliography
A. AALL, Geschichte der Logosidee in der
griechischen Philosophie, 2 vols. (Leipzig
1896-99); *K. BorMANN, Die Ideen- und
Logoslehre Philons von Alexandrien: eine
Auscinandersetzung mit H. A. Wolfson
(inaug. diss. Köln 1955); H. CHADWICK,
Philo and the Beginnings of Christian
Thought, The Cambridge History of Later
Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (ed.
A. H. Armstrong; Cambridge 1967)
158-166; J. DiıLLON, The Middle Platonists:
a Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220
(London 1977); *J. M. DILLON, Logos and
Trinity: Patterns of Platonist influence on
Early Christianity, The Philosophy in Chris-
tianity (ed. G. Vesey; Cambridge 1989)
1-13; C. H. Dopp, The Interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 19652) 263-285;
*H. Dorrie, Logos-Religion? oder Nous-
Theologic?: die Hauptaspekte des kaiserzeit-
lichen Platonismus, Kephalaion: Studies in
Greek Philosophy and its Continuation
offered to Prof. C. J. de Vogel (ed. J. Mans-
feld & L. M. de Rijk; Assen 1975) 115-136;
*F, G. DowninG, Ontological Asymmetry
in Philo and Christological Realism in Paul,
Hebrews and John, JTS 41 (1990) 423-440;
*J, D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making
(London 1980) 213-251; A. GRILLMEIER,
Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. | From
the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (ET
London/Oxford 19752); *H. HEGERMANN,
Die Vorstellung vom Schdpfungsmittler im
hellenistischen Judentum und Urchristentum
(TU 82; Berlin 1961); M. Heinze, Die
Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen
Philosophie (Oldenburg 1872); *P. Hor-
RICHTER, /n Anfang war der "Johannes-
Prolog": das urchristliche Logosbekenntnis
— die Basis neutestamentlicher und gnos-
tischer Theologie (Biblische Untersuchun-
gen 17; Regensburg 1986); W. KELBER, Die
Logoslehre von Heraklit bis Origenes (Stutt-
gart 19762); G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven & M.
SCHOFIELD, The Presocratic Philosophers:
a Critical History with a Selection of Texts
(Cambridge 19832); H. M. KLEINKNECHT,
G. KITTEL et al., Aéyo, Aóyog x1À.. TDNT 4
(1967) 69-143: J. KROLL, Die Lehren des
Hermes Trismegistos (Münster 1914) 55-71;
H. J. KRÄMER, Der Ursprung der Geist-
metaphysik: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
des Platonismus zwischen Platon und Plotin
(Amsterdam 1964) 264-292; E. Kurtz,
Interpretation zt den Logos-Fragmenten
Heraklits (Spoudasmata 17; Hildesheim
1971); B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures
(Garden City N.Y. 1987); H. LEISEGANG,
Logos, PW xiii.1 (1926) 1035-1081; S. R.
C. Lita, Clement of Alexandria: a Study in
Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford
1971) 199-212; E. F. Osporn, Justin
Martyr (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
47; Tübingen 1973) 28-43; J. Pépin, Logos,
ER 9 (1987) 9-15 [& lit.]; D. T. RUNIA,
Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of
Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden
1986) 204—208, 446-451; RuN1A, Philo in
Early Christian Literature: a Survey
(CRINT 3.3; Assen/Minneapolis 1993); G.
SELLIN, Gotteserkentniss und Gotteserfah-
rung bei Philo von Alexandrien, Monotheis-
mus und Christologie: zur Gottesfrage im
hellenistischen Judentum und im Urchristen-
tum (ed. H. J. Klauck; Freiburg 1992) 12-
40; G. C. SrEAD, Logos, TRE 21 (1991)
432-444 [& lit.]; *M. THEOBALD, Gott,
Logos und Pneuma: Trinitarische Rede von
Gott im Johannesevangelium, Monotheismus
und Christologie: zur Gottesfrage im helle-
nistischen Judentum und im Urchristentum
(ed. H. J. Klauck; Freiburg 1992) 41-87; T.
H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and
the History of Interpretation (CBQ Mono-
graph Series 14: Washington 1983);
*TosBIN, The Prologue of John and Hellen-
istic Jewish Speculation, CBQ 52 (1990)
252-269; Torin, Logos, ABD 4 (1992)
348-356 [& lit.]; R. B. Topp, Monism and
Immanence, The Stoics (ed. J. M. Rist;
Berkeley 1978) 137-160; J. H. WASZINK,
Bemerkungen zu Justins Lehre vom Logos
Spermatikos, Mullus: Festschrift für
Theodor Klauser (Münster 1964) 380-390;
reprinted in his Opuscula Selecta (Leiden
1979) 317-327; H. F. Weiss, Untersuchun-
530
LORD
gen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und
aldstinischen Judentums (TU 97; Berlin
1966) 216-282; R. WILLIAMS, Arius: Her-
esy and Tradition (London 1987); D. WIN-
sTON, Philo of Alexandria: The Contempla-
tive Life, The Giants and Selections (The
Classics of Western Spirituality; New
York/Toronto 1981); Winston, Logos and
Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria
(Cincinatti 1985); H. A. WorrsoN, The
Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith,
Trinity, Incarnation (Cambridge Mass.
19703) 177-286; Worrson, Philo: Founda-
tions of Religious Philosophy in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, Mass.
19684) 1.226-294.
D. T. RUNIA
LORD |Vi5, ‘278, 870
Y. The title °Gdén, Aramaic mara’,
‘Jord’, is used of men and of gods and de-
notes one’s authority (not: ownership; this
notion is more attributed to the word
Baal) Usually it concerns the relation
between a lord and his subordinates. Its ety-
mology is uncertain (see for a survey of the
many options JENNI 1971:31). Most likely
‘seems to be a connection with Ugaritic ad,
‘father’ (EISSFELDT 1973:63; DLU, 1, 8-9).
; Heb "ádónay exclusively denotes the god
of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the
OT, especially in Ezekiel (more than 200
times), usually with the name — Yahweh
(see for exact figures JENNI 1971:32).
“Gdéndy is usually translated as ‘my Lord’,
‘assuming a plural form (pluralis majestatis)
‘of "adón, but with a different vocalisation of
3the last syllable (gamés in stead of patah, as
‘in Gen 19:2). The use in the context of a
prayer in the first person plural in Ps 44:23-
24 suggests that at least here the poet no
donger had this suggested original meaning
dn mind. Otherwise, he would have said
Padonén&, ‘our lord’. The same phenomenon
di attested in the use of "ádonf addressed to
uman beings (Gen 44:7, Num 32:25, 2 Kgs
22:19. We have to assume that the word
Lüdönäy received its special form to distin-
Buish it from the secular use of "adón. With
B
Ka
S
A21
Nc
the rise of monotheism this epithet of the
god of Israel] as a mode of address became
more and more a name in itself. In Judaism
(presumably from the third century BCE
onwards) it replaced the holy name Yahweh.
Being used as a name its original meaning
must have receded into the background.
It is difficult to trace precisely this de-
velopment from the use of "ádónay as a title
to its use as a name, because it cannot be
excluded that.the Hebrew text of the OT
was edited according to new theological and
liturgical insights. In the transmission of the
text the final form of this name may have
been used to replace older forms.
According to EISSFELDT it is also poss-
ible to regard the ending of ’ddéndy as a
postpositive element which is also attested
in Ugaritic writing (1973:72) and which was
problably meant to give emphasis. But his
examples of this phenomenon in Ugaritic
suggesting in his opinion a relation to Heb
'üdónay are open to debate. The first is
taken from a part of the myth of Baa]
describing the struggle between -*Yam and
Baal: lars ypl ulny wl ‘pr *zmny (KTU? 12
iv:5), “The strength of the two of us fell to
the earth, the power of the two of us to the
dust". EISSFELDT translates uiny with 'Voll-
máchtige' and 'zmny with *Vollstarke'. But
it seems more appropriate to assume a dual
suffix pertaining to Baal and his helper
(probably this is the goddess — Athtart, who
is mentioned in line 28; ARTU 39; DLU, I,
25, 96).
The letter KTU? 2.11 offers a better
example of the use of the ending -(n)y: hnny
‘mny (...) tmny *m adtny (10-15), ‘here with
us (...) there with our mistress’. LoRETZ
(1980:291) adds to these examples the word
n‘my, ‘happiness’, consisting of n*m and y as
used in KTU? 1.5 vi:6 and 1.6 ii:19. Instead
of interpreting it as a ‘Kosewort fiir Baal’,
however, it is more likely to be one the eu-
phemisms for the dreaded world of the dead
(ARTU 79).
II. The title ‘lord’ for a god can be
found in most religions. The word '"adón,
however, is only known in the Canaanite
languages. The most relevant parallels to the
E 531
LORD
god of Israel being called 'àdón are found in
the literature of Ugarit. It appears that very
few gods received this title. -*El is called
adn ilm, ‘lord of the gods’ (KTU? 1.3 v:9;
ARTU 16) and it is addressed to Yam, when
he is at the height of his power: at adn ip‘r,
“you are proclaimed lord (of the gods)”
(KTU? 1.1 iv:17). Clearly the title adn is
ascribed to them to denote their exceptional,
superior place among the other gods. This
can be compared to what is said to >Mar-
duk in the Mesopotamian creation epic
Entima elif. He is said to be ‘the most
honoured of the great gods’ and the other
gods say to him: “Lord, thy decree is first
among gods” (iv 21).
In KTU2 1.16 i:44 and 1.124:1-2 the title
adn seems to have been ascribed to Baal.
This is a matter of dispute; because Baal is
not explicitly mentioned in these passages.
The interpretation of adn ilm rbm, ‘lord of
the great gods’ in KTU2 1.124:1-2 decides
the question. For a survey of the many
different proposed identifications of the adn
see DIETRICH & Loretz (1990:207-216).
They have retracted their earlier opinion that
it was a title of Baal and now translate as
‘der Meister über die ‘Großen Göttlichen”’,
assuming that this was a human being per-
forming the necromancy. VAN DER TOORN,
again, states that this adn ilm rbm having to
make a journey to the netherworld is hardly
a human functionary. He argues that the
most likely candidates are the chthonic dei-
ties Milku. Yarikh, Yaqar, and possibly also
El (1991:60-61).
In the background of this discussion there
is the question of the relation between Ugar-
itic adn and the god —Adonis. Because adn
in KTU? 1.16 i:44 and 1.124:1-2 is used
absolutely, it can be interpreted as a first
step towards using this word as the name of
some deity. Moreover, it is tempting to re-
late Adonis to Baal as we know him from
Ugaritic mythology, their stories and cults
having so much in common (EISSFELDT
1973:64; Loretz 1980:292: ARTU 89-90).
Finally, it should be noted that it was not
unusual in the ancient Near East to refer to a
god by a title only and that this title event-
ually replaced the original name. The best
known examples of this are the Mesopot-
amian Bel for Marduk and the Canaanite
Baal for ->Hadad.
IH. The use in the Old Testament of
'ádón to denote the god of Israel resembles
the use of adn in Ugaritic literature as out-
lined above. It means that this one god is
singled out and is superior to the other gods.
There is no need to assume here some kind
of dependance, because the use of this title
is so widespread. But texts like Deut 10:17
"Yahweh your God, is the God of gods and
the Lord of lords", indicate that the writer
had these other religions in mind (cf. also
Pss 135:5 and 136:2-3). And a name like
Adoniah, ‘Yahweh is lord’ or ‘my lord is
Yahweh’, is a confession of faith over
against others ascribing this title to El, Yam,
or possibly Baal.
When Yahweh is called 'ádón it empha-
sizes his power over the whole carth (Josh
3:13; Mic 4:13; Zech 4:14; 6:5; Pss 97:5;
114:7; cf. also Isa 10:33) and over all people
(Exod 34:23-24; Isa 1:24; 3:1: and 19:4).
It is quite normal for the Israelite believer
to address his god as ‘(my) lord’. The rea-
son why this is written ’ddénay instead of
the normal 'adón, "adóni, or 'ádónay may
have bcen to distinguish Yahweh from other
gods and from human lords. Whether this
special title was formed by simply changing
the vocalisation of the word ?ádónay or by
using some kind of archaic ending. cannot
be decided with certainty, nor when it was
used for the first time. The attempt by Eiss-
FELDT to prove the carly origin of this word
is not convincing. We have to reckon with
the possibility mentioned above of editors
changing the original text, e.g. its vocals,
according to later principles. EISSFELDT
points to the fact that ’édénay and Yahweh
are used separately in parallel poetic lines
(cf. Exod 15:17; Isa 3:17). He compares this
to the phenomenon attested in Ugaritic texts
that the double name of some deities could
be split likewise (1973:73-74). He fails to
notice, however, that in Uganritic these
double names are always connected by the
conjunctive w. And with none of these
532
LORDSHIP — LYRE
double names does the first part show signs
of having first been the title of a deity.
It seems logical to assume that *Gdonay
developed from a title used to address
Yahweh to a name gradually replacing the
holy tetragram. This development must have
been furthered by the fact that it fitted
Yahwism very wel], as it is symbolic for a
belief accepting no other lords, be they di-
vine or human, than Yahweh.
IV. Bibliography
M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, Mantik in
Ugarit. Keilaphabetische Texte der Opfer-
schau — Omensammlungen — Nekromantie
(ALASP 3; Münster 1990); O. EISSFELDT,
'üddón, TWAT 1 (1973) 62-78 [& lit]; E.
VARTRSTINSUNUWIEDW4eNe &3078 eat Nt
ser
4,
mr
BAUR RECENCY INE EG OE
JENNI, THAT 1 (1971) 31-38; O. LORETZ,
Vom Baal-Epitheton ADN zu Adonis und
Adonaj UF 12 (1980) 287-292; LORETZ,
ADN come epiteto di Baal e i suoi rapporti
con Adonis e Adonai, Adonis: Relazione del
Colloquio di Roma, Maggio 1981 (Roma
1983) 25-33; K. VAN DER Toorn, Funerary
Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic
Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48 (1991) 40-
66.
K. SPRONK
LORDSHIP > DOMINION
LYRE > KINNARU
533
MA -* CYBELE
MA'AT
I. The association of PTS and APTS
(‘righteousness’) with the base of the king’s
throne in Ps 89:15; 97:2; Prov 16:12 and
(after emendation) 20:28 has been compared
with the hieroglyphic representation of the
important Egyptian concept of ‘order’: m3‘t.
The hieroglyph for m3‘t shows that the ori-
ginal meaning of the word must have been
‘base’, to wit the base of the divine throne
connected with the Primeval Mound. But
the hicroglyph was not used as a designation
for ‘base’ but for m3‘t, An etymological
connection of this noun with the verb m3‘
(‘to lead, guide, direct’) is plausible (cf. the
Hebrew stem “, ‘to be straight, right,
righteous’). The concept already existed in
the carliest period of Egyptian history. In
the Third Dynasty, Horus is called *Lord of
the Order’ (nb m3*‘r). This title was transfer-
red to Re and later also to other gods (Ptah,
Thoth and Osiris). The ideological concept
of m3*‘t was moreover personified into a
divine being. Re's daughter Ma‘at. The god-
dess Ma‘at was depicted as a woman
wearing a large feather on her head. But the
feather alone could also represent her. Pro-
bably, the feather expressed the association
of Maʻat with frec air and breath (ASSMANN
1990).
II. The original concept of m3‘t designa-
ted the cosmological order, the opposite of
disorder and chaos (jsft). According to
ancient Egyptian conceptions, this order
dates back from the time of the creation; it
is everlasting and changeless. At the begin-
ning of times, Rc has put m3't in the place
of chaos. The wise Ptahhotep states: “Ma‘at
has not been disturbed since the day of its
creator”. The connection between m3‘t and
the god Re is also evident from the fact that
the goddess Ma‘at is depicted as one of the
crew of the solar barque. Through her nat-
ure, she is the ideal guide for her father
during his daily journcy.
In a similar way to Re's achievement, the
Pharaoh replaces disorder with the immuta-
ble order represented by Ma'at When
Tutankhamen restored the Egyptian tradition
after the untraditional reign of Akhenaten, it
is said: “His Majesty drove out disorder
(jsft) from the Two Lands so that order
(m3*'t) was again established in its place; he
made disorder an abomination; the land was
as at ‘the first time’ [= the creation} (Urk.
IV 2026). There is a close connection
between the Pharaoh and Ma‘at expressed in
the saying that the Pharaoh united himself or
fraternized with her. He is also the chicf
upholder of m3‘t, Like the gods, he lives
from m3't, he is happy in m3‘t, he loves
m3‘t, he does m3*t, he even eats and drinks
m3't in the same way as the gods do. The
Pharaoh is often depicted presenting a statu-
ette of the seated goddess to other gods like
Amun as a symbol of his successes in kee-
ping disorder out of Egypt.
But m3't is not only a cosmological and
political concept, it has also ethical as well
as metaphysical implications: m3't can like-
wise be rendered as ‘truth’, ‘righteousness’
or ‘justice’. It "is manifest in nature in the
normalcy of phenomena; it is manifest in
society as justice; and it is manifest in an
individual’s life as truth" (FRANKFORT
1948). This means that the principle of cos-
mic order has a bearing not only on thc Pha-
raoh's reign but also on the life of a private
person. Every human being is able to do
Ma*'at's sake and therefore should do it.
In this way, Ma‘at has an important role
in the judgement of the dead as depicted in
Egyptian illustrated texts related to the
Netherworld. This judgement takes place in
534
MAGOG
the ‘Hall of the Two Ma‘ats’. The heart of
the deceased is placed on one pan of a
balance, a statue of Ma‘at (or her feather
alone) on the other. The balance is surmoun-
ted by another statue of the goddess. If the
scales balance, the heart of the deceased is
said to be justified. His or her righteousness
has been established, since righteousness is
‘to do m3*r'.
In the royal administration, there was a
special devotion to the goddess Ma‘at. The
vizier received the title ‘Prophet of Ma‘at’
and later he carried a little statue of Ma‘at
around his neck. This is understandable
because the main task of the vizier and his
officials was to say and to do m3't. "The
power of an official lies in his m3't doing."
The Egyptian judges, with the vizier at their
head, are considered to be Ma‘at’s priests.
Having become a goddess, Ma‘at could
play an active role in establishing the cos-
mic order herself. Therefore, she was identi-
fied with the Uraeus and with the goddess
Tefnut.
But the veneration for the goddess Ma‘at
remained somewhat different from that of
other gods. There were no temples dedicated
to her during the Old and Middle Kingdom.
Also in myths, this goddess did not play an
important role and no other gods were iden-
tified with her. It appears that the original
concept of 3‘t as ‘order’ prevailed over the
goddess with the same name. Note however
that during the New Kingdom an important
Ma‘at temple was built in Karnak and also
other sanctuaries were dedicated to her.
From the Ramesside Period and later,
Ma'at was still revered but in the Wisdom
literature we see an important shift in the
conceptualization of mJ3'r. No longer, one
could trust that m3‘t was automatically pro-
vided by the Egyptians gods and that the
Pharaoh was the obvious person to uphold
m3‘t. The gods have their own free will and
bestow m3*t upon their pious adherents. In
the Teaching of Amenope, it is formulated
in this way: “ma‘at is a great gift of god; he
gives it to whom he wishes.”
III. The Pharaoh’s throne is often depic-
ted with a base which is similar to the hiero-
glyph for m3‘t. For this reason, BRUNNER
saw a connection with four passages mentio-
ned above associating HP7S with the base
of the king’s throne (1958). He suggested
that Solomon’s throne was a copy of an
Egyptian prototype including the m3‘t-like
base and that the Hebrew designation for
that base was Mp TS, being a rendering of
the Egyptian m3‘t. The suggestion is, how-
ever, less likely than appears. In the above
mentioned texts from Psalms and Proverbs,
there is only one passage where we find
Mp 1S mentioned separately (Prov 16:12). In
the other texts, PTS is combined with rela-
ted concepts (CD08, TION and NTN). For
instance Ps 97:2 “PTS and CD0O are the
foundation of your throne.” For this reason,
it is more probable that we are dealing here
with common metaphors for just kingship.
In that case, there is no direct connection
between the Hebrew concept of OPTS and
the Egyptian m3*t.
The suggestion that the goddess Ma‘at
would have been an equivalent of, or model
for, the biblical concept of Lady Wisdom,
has to be rejected.
IV. Bibliography
J. ASSMANN, Maat, l'Egypte pharaonique et
l'idée de justice sociale (s.l. 1989);
ASSMANN, Maʻat. Gerechtigkeit und Unster-
blichkeit im alten Agypten (Miinchen 1990)
[& lit]; H. BoNNET, RÄRG, 430-434; H.
BRUNNER, Gerechtigkeit als Fundament des
Thrones, VT 8 (1958) 426-428; H. FRANK-
FORT, Ancient Egyptian Religion (New York
1948); R. GRIESHAMMER, Maat und Şädäq.
Zum Kulturzusammenhang zwischen Ägyp-
ten und Kanaan, GM 55 (1982) 35-42;
W. Herck, Maat, LA Ill, 1110-1119;
S. Morenz, Agyptische Religion (RdM 8,
Stuttgart 1960).
K. A. D. SMELIK
MAGOG 3132
I. Magog (mágóg) is known from the
Bible only (Gen 10:2; Ezek 38-39; | Chr 1:5).
Together with -*Gog. Magog came to be
used in traditions harking back to Ezek 38-
39 as a symbol of the superhuman adversaries
535
MAGOG
of God and his people at the end of time.
Il. The etymology of Magog is uncer-
tain. The word is almost certainly related to,
and maybe derived from, Gog. The ma at
the beginning of the word may be under-
stood as representing the Assyrian deter-
minative mat (status constructus of matu,
‘country’), indicating that the following
word is a country, e.g. *M3!Gaga (usually
transliterated as **“'Gaga) or it may be seen
as an abbreviation of Heb min (‘from’), or
as a mem-locale, indicating a land. The
interpretation of Magog is intimately con-
nected with that of Gog, then.
A derivation of Gog from Sumerian gug
(‘black spot’, 'cornelian', or ‘shining’, de-
pending on the identification of the root) has
been proposed (A. vAN HOONACKER, Elé-
ments sumériens dans le livre d’Ezéchiel?,
ZA 28 [1914] 333-336, esp. 336), but is
highly implausible. The connection with a
hypothetical deity ‘Gaga’, mentioned in Ee
Ill 3 as the vizier of Anshar (-*Assur), the
father of the gods, must be abandoned since
the name of the deity in question is to be
pronounced Kaka (D. O. Epzarp, RLA 5
[1976-80] 288; see also E. REINER, Surpu,
59 ad VIII 30 on the reading 4Ga-a-gi). No
particular significance seems to have been
attached to the literal meaning of the name
Gog; the same would hold for Magog, if the
latter is derived from the former. If Gog
were a Hebrew calque on the name of the
Lydian king Gyges (Akk Gugu), then
Magog might mean ‘Land of Gyges’.
Alternatively, Gog may be a derivation of
Magog. The latter may refer to the Magi
living in the neighborhood of Cappadocia
and Media, or it may refer to Babylon: Mgg
could be a cryptogram for Babel. Writing
33 backwards (C33) and substituting for
each letter the one preceding it in the
Hebrew alphabet, one obtains 722, i.e.
Babylon. Compare Jer 25:26; 51:41 where
the enigmatic Sheshach (TOÀ) can be read
as Babel (222) by means of 'atbas, a pro-
cess whereby the alphabet is folded in the
middle as it were, so that the first letter
coincides with the last, and the others are
similarly matched (BROWNLEE 1983:107).
The major problem with this interpretation
is that it overlooks the vocal w in mgwy. For
a full survey of a large variety of interpreta-
tions sec AALDERS (1951:10-49). AALDERS'
own views, unfortunately, are heavily in-
fluenced by his dogmatic convictions.
III. Magog is mentioned in the table of
nations in Gen 10:2, and in | Chr 1:5, as
one of the seven sons of -*Japheth. Three of
these sons occur in Ezekiel's Gog section as
three countries or nations over which Gog is
lording (Gomer, Tubal, Meshech: 38:3.6;
39:1). In Gen 10:3, Togarmah is listed as a
son of Gomer. His name returns in Ezek 38:
6 as Beth-togarmah alongside with Gomer.
In Ezek 38:5 three other nations are said to
be with Gog: Persia, Cush, and Put. The lat-
ter two occur in Gen 10:6 as sons of Ham.
Only Persia (pdras) is absent from the list in
Genesis.
In cuneiform texts the inhabitants of
Gomer are known as the Gimirray, and in
classical Greek literature as the Cimmerians.
Originally they lived north of the Black Sea
(Krim; see Homer, Od. 11:14). Later they
defeated Gyges of Lydia and settled in Cap-
padocia, which is called Gamir by the
Armenians. Tubal and Meshech are also in
Asia Minor, in or around Cappadocia. Cush
is the land south of Egypt, ie. Ethiopia,
whilst Put is Lybia, west of Egypt. Since
Josephus (Ant. 1,6,1) Magog is usually
identified with the Scythians who lived
north of the Black Sea.
In Ezek 38:2 (cf. 39:6) the land of Gog is
called Magog. or, perhaps more accurately,
Gog is identified with the land of the
Magog. In 38:2 ‘Gog’ is loosely followed
by ‘land of the Magog’. It is probably a note
of an editor who wished to identify Gog
with Magog as one and the same nation, or
as a person symbolizing that nation. This
may be confirmed by the LXX, in which the
use of the particle epi suggests that both
Gog and Magog were understood as a coun-
try. The Greek rendering paved the way for
the later view, according to which Gog and
Magog were the names of two persons (see
Rev 20:8). The LXX rendering of Ezek 39:6
has Gog for MT's Magog. This also seems
536
MAKEDON
to confirm that the names Gog and Magog
were interchangeable.
IV. Bibliography
J. G. AALDERS, Gog en Magog (Kampen
1951); R. AHRONI, The Gog Prophecy and
the Book of Ezekiel, HAR 1 (1977) 1-27; R.
H. ALEXANDER, A Fresh Look at Ezekiel
38 and 39, JETS 17 (1974) 157-169; M. C.
ASTOUR, Ezekicl's Prophecy of Gog and the
Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin, JBL 95
(1976) 567-579; D. I. BLock, Gog and the
Pouring out of the Spirit, VT 37 (1987) 257-
270; A. VAN DEN Born, Etude sur quelques
toponymes bibliques. Le pays du Magog,
OTS 10 (1954) 197-201; J. W. H. Brown-
LEE, ‘Son of Man Set Your Face,’ Ezekiel
the Refugee Prophet, HUCA 54 (1983) 45-
110, esp. 107-108; E. DHORME, Les peuples
issus de Japhet d'après le chapitre X de la
Genèse, Syria 13 (1932) 28-49 = Etudes
bibliques et orientales (Paris 1951) 167-189;
G. GERLEMAN, Ezckielsboken Gog, SEA 12
(1947) 132-146; W. GRONKOWSKI, Le mes-
sianisme d'Ezéchiel (Paris 1930) 129-173;
F. HossrELD. Untersuchungen zu Komposi-
tion und Theologie des Ezechielbuches
(Würzburg 1977) 402-509; *B. OTZEN,
Gog, TWAT 1 (1973) 958-965 [& lit]; H. L.
STRACK & P. BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum
NT aus Talmud und Midrasch 3 (München
1926) 831-840; W. ZiMMERLI Ezechiel
(BKAT XIII/2; Neukirchen 1969) 933-948.
J. Lusr
MAKEDON Maxedav
I. Makedon (‘Macedonian’) is the epon-
ymous hero of the inhabitants of Mace-
donia in northern Greece. Macedonia and
Macedonians figure in both Apocrypha and
NT.
II. Macedonians particularly need an
eponym (—Thessalos), as Macedonia had
only marginal claims to Greek status before
the conquests of Philip II (359-336) and
Alexander the Great (336-323). Their speech
seems to have been intermediate in status
between a dialect of Greek and a closely
related language (Indo-European *bi gives
b not ph: hence the names Berenike and
Bilippos not Pherenike and Philippos).
Makedon first appears in the Hesiodic
Catalogue of Women (fr. 7 MERKELBACH &
WEsT, perhaps around 625 BCE), a work of
systematic gencalogy. His epithet, ‘rejoicing
in horses’, though banal, reflects well the
interests of Macedonian aristocrats. His
parents are ->Zeus (a regular source of king-
ship) and ‘Thyia’, a daughter of Deukalion
—who re-established humanity after the
flood (implications: DowpEN 1992:142),
therefore making a good grandfather for the
eponym of the current culture (in Thucy-
dides 1 3.2. he is the father of Hellen
'Greek'). The term "Thyia' otherwise looks
more like an eponym for the Thyiads—
Maenads in the ecstatic cult of Dionysos
(certainly practised in Macedonia)—and this
rare name is later corrupted from kai Thyia
(‘and Thyia’) to kai Aithria and kai Aithyia
(Scholiasts on Homer, /liad 14, 226). His
brother Magnes is the eponym of Magnesia
(the castern coast of Thessaly and peninsula
adjacent to Macedonia)—appropriately if the
name of the tribe Magnetes is a pre-Greek
ethnic name in some way related to Make-
dones. Usually, however, Makedon is taken
as an ablaut variant of makednos, a word
meaning ‘tall, slender’ associated with the
Greek makros (‘long’) and with words in
other languages meaning ‘thin’ (Latin macer,
Old High German magar, Dutch mager).
Elsewhere, Makedon is ‘earth-born’ (Ps-
Skymnos, Periegesis 620 of c. 110 BcE—
like Deukalion’s sown men), or a son of
Lykaon (Aclian, de Natura Animalium 10,
48; Apollodoros, 3 8,1, calling him 'Maked-
nos"), another figure who lives in thc interim
period just before our society. Lykaon is son
of Pelasgos, eponym of the Pelasgians, the
mythical predecessors of Greek civilisation
(DowneN 1992:75, 80-85, 110-112). Other-
wisc, Makedon is enrolled into the Acolian
division of the Grecks (contrasting with the
Ionian and the Dorian), becoming one of the
10 sons of Aiolos (Hellanikos, FGH 4F74
Jacoby).
Makedon’s myth is to give the name
‘Macedonia’ to the former ‘Emathia’ (‘Sandy’-
land), a real enough label for lower, coastal
537
MALAK MELIS — MALIK
Macedonia found in Homer (had 14,226)
and jn severa) (archaizing?) authors. His
sons account for a random selection from
the landscape and its settlements, suggesting
that later geographers improvised in areas
left untouched by early genealogists with no
interest in the detail of marginal Macedonia.
Atintan exists to claim Atintania (an area of
N.W. Epeiros which later came under Mace-
donian control), Europos to name Europos
(a fortified city in Emathia on the River
Axios). The strategic and agricultural centre
Beroia (in Emathia) is explained by Beroia
daughter of the son Beres, who also
accounts for an alleged ‘city in Thrace’
(though we only know another Beroia there,
not a Beres). All this is enshrined from
antiquity in Stephanus of Byzantium's
Ethnika (a 6th century CE, or later, compila-
tion), which adds a city Oropos with homo-
nymous founder, by confusion with Euro-
pos. Makednos' son Pindos names the river
(Aelian l.c., an alternative name of the upper
Peneios), and Homer’s mention of Pieria
(around Mt Olympus) and ‘lovely Emathia’
may be explained (Scholiast bT to Homer,
Hiad 14, 226) by ' Amathos' (reimposing the
name the father was invented to displace!)
and ‘Pieros’, who also serves the conveni-
ence of Pausanias (9, 29,3) by introducing
the. .cult .of the nine (Pierian) Muses at
Thespiai in Boiotta. It is a sign of the mar-
ginality of this area that Pausanias’ Peri-
egesis of Greece does not bother with Thes-
saly or Macedonia.
Another Makedon is a companion of
—Osins in his conquest of Europe (Dio-
doros 1,18, 20), a curious instance of the
reversal of the polarity of Alexander's con-
quest of Egypt (also visible in the Alexan-
der-Romance, where Alexander is a-son of
the exiled Egyptian king Nektanebos, not of
Philip). In this incarnation, Makedon dresses
as a wolf, whilst his other companion
Anubis is dressed as a dog. This oddity
reflects (BURTON 1972:83, 254) the Greek
perception of the recumbent jackal Anubis
as a dog and the standing jackal Wepwawet
as a wolf (as worshipped at Siut, the Greek
Lykopolis).
538
IIi. The name Makedon is uncommon,
with only 7 bearers in FRASER-MATTHEWS.
(1987) (Thessalos=29, Jason=183). Use as
an ethnic label, with no reference to the
mythology, seems sufficient to account for
this (contrast Thessalos). The Greek king-
dom of Macedonia and the Macedonians
appear at Add Esth 16:10.14; 1 Macc 1:1;
6:2; 8:5; 2 Macc 8:20. In Acts and the NT
Epistles the reference is usually to the
Roman province of Macedonia (coupled,
e.g. with Achaea at 1 Thess 1:7), though
occasionally ‘Macedonian’ is used of ethnic
origin.
IV. Bibliography
A. Burton, Diodorus Siculus: Book 1: A
Commentary (EPRO 29; Leiden 1972); K.
Dowpen, The Uses of Greek Mythology
(London. 1992); P. M. FmasER & E.
MATTHEWS (eds), The Aegean Islands,
Cyprus, Cyrenaica, A Lexicon of Greek Per-
sonal Names I (Oxford 1987); H. W.
STOLL, Makedon, ALGRM ii (1890-1897)
2291-2292; S. ErrreM, PW 14.1 (1928)
636-637.
K. DowDEN
MAL'AK MELIS -MEDIATOR 1
MAL’AK YAHWEH > ANGEL OF
YAHWEH |
MALIK 7D >Milcom, ~Molech
l The divine name Malik, once prob-
ably the absolute state of Mal(i)kum, must
originally have been an epithet meaning
‘prince, king’ or ‘advisor, counsellor’, sig-
nifying an aspect of another god, perhaps
—Dagan, the chief god of Ebla and of the
old North-Sernites. Consequently, we find it
in cuneiform script with and without deter-
minative, the latter especially when it 1s à
theophoric element of a persona] name.
Since Old Babylonian times, Malik and.
Malku(m) were used with case endings and
in the plural forms Maliki and Malki, The’.
character of the formation as an absolute.
state has been forgotten or superseded by 2 :
new consciousness of its appellative mean-
E
E
E
MALIK
ing which is now connected with his/their
funeral or underworld character. Mutuk,
which occurs in the local name //um-Muluk
(ARM XVI/1,17) beside /-Iu-ma-li-ka-wi*
(G. DossiN, RA 35 [1938] 178 n.1) and in
the personal name J-tar-mu-luk. (CT. 33,
29:15). may be a mere phonctic variant of
'Malik'. In Ugaritic, we find mlk, with -mil-
ku, -@ima-lik, and -mu-lik as theophoric el-
ements in personal names, and the plural
mlkm. In Phoenician, there are the theopho-
ric elements ml/k- resp. ™mil-ki- or -mil-ki,
HIAK- or padx-, and Milc(h)- or Malc(h)- in
personal names and the divine names
mlk'strt and. mlqrt (-*Melqart). In Hebrew,
we find the theophoric element malk(i)- and
-melek in several personal names, but per-
haps in the merely appellative meaning of
‘king’ as an epithet of Yahweh and other
theonyms, not as divine name in a proper
sense. The Hebrew personal name malliik
(cf. Palmyrene mlyk’), however, is obvious-
ly a gattil intensive formation used as a
predicate (‘royal, kingly’) from which the
theophoric element has been dropped; com-
pare Akkadian Ba-(^-Jal-ma-lu-ku and Phoc-
nician b'limlk. Outside personal names, the
theonym Malik is to be supposed only
behind Masoretic melek in Isa 57:9. Instead
of lammelek in Isa. 30:33, ImlK *as a sacri-
fice’ should be read; but this phrase gam-hi??
Imlk may be a gloss (cf. BHS).
No divine name underlies Masoretic
lémolek, lammólek and hammoólek; because
(I)mlk is, rather, a Canaanite term for a sacri-
fice (EISSFELDY 1935). Masoretic lémdlek (
Kgs 11:7, but see below [III.]), instead of
lémólek « la-mawlik, for which (Phoenician
and) Punic mlk(t)/mP?’k resp. the Latin trans-
literation molc(h) in the Ngaus inscriptions
for child-sacnfices can be compared, is a
causative nominal formation according to
maqtil(at) from the root jlk (< wik) ‘to go’
well known from Phoenician as well as
Punic. Since a causative (hiph'il/ jiph'il) of
(lk (= hlk) means ‘to present, offer’, the
noun '(le-)móléK' resp. mlk(t) molc(h) is
best translated by ‘(as a) presentation, offe-
ring’, while Imik signifies 'as a sacrifice
(scil. for Yahweh [cf. Judg 11:30-40])', the
expression as being used in /é'ólá 'as a
burnt-offering' Gen 22:2 or lé'áiám ‘as a
guilt-offering' Lev 5:18. The misinterpreta-
tion of Hebrew mik as a divine name which,
in view of the story in Gen 22, is meant to
liberate YHWH from the odium of requiring
child-sacrifices, occurs in the phrase zdnd
'aháré hammålek ‘to commit whoredom
with the Molech’, Ley 20:5, which is possi-
bly a gloss [M. Nom. ATD 6 (1962) 128-
129] or part of a later stratum [K. ELLIGER,
HAT I 4, 269]. The misinterpretation is also
implied in the Masorctic determinated form
lammélek Lev 18:21; 20:2-4; 2 Kgs 23:10;
Jer 32:35, both styled according to ltabboset
‘the shame’: already /émdlek is really not in
ample agreement with a supposed original
pronunciation like ‘/é-mdlék’. In earlier parts
of the LXX like Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; 1 Kgs
11:7, mlk has been interpreted as the appel-
lative noun ‘king’. The formations
hammólek and lammólek are followed by ó
Modoy in later parts of the LXX (2 Kgs
23:10; Jer 32:35, cf. Am 5:26), in Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion, by mwlk in b.
Sanh. 64a.b, by MoAwy in the Suda, a
Byzantine dictionary from the lOth century
cE, and by Moloch in the Vg. For details
and particularly for the abundant (Phoeni-
cian and) Punic evidence see MOLLER
(1984; 1997:240-24] [& lit]: thereafter
IsRAEL 1990).
An identification of a Mélek with Malik is
rejected by EissrELDT 1935 and many
others (see MÜLLER 1984; 1997:240-24] [&
lit]; ISRAEL 1990); but it is accepted by HEI-
DER (1985) and Day (1989). EDELMAN
(1987) adopts an intermediate position. For
the feminine mikr, especially from Mozia,
see inter alios AMabDasi-Guzzo (1987),
who excludes a derivation from Malik.
Il. In. Ebla, Malik—spelled @)Afa-lik,
with the variant Ma-li-gii—is often found as
a theophoric clement in personal names;
and, moreover, in the geographic name t-
ma-li-gii, But family religion as the source
of name-giving is far from the specifications
allotted to divine figures by the official cult.
The frequency of names formed with Malik
may prove the high age of the god, family
539
MALIK
religion being always of a conservative
character. As for Akkadian, a god Malik
may already occur in the Presargonic ono-
masticon where the noun can still figure as
an adjective, e.g. Isumalik ‘his God is
king/advisor’ (cf. ROBERTS 1972:105 n.338);
but we do not know in what sense a predi-
cate 'king/advisor' is used, whether eu-
phemistically or in earnest. In the Drehem
texts from the later Ur III period, offerings
(DMa-al-ku-um/kum-SE ‘for Malkum’ are
mentioned. From the Old-Babylonian period
we know the—euphemistic (?)—expression
dMa-lik u Sa.MA liballitüka ‘Malik and A.MÀ
may give you life’ (CAD s.v. Malku B b]2’).
The singular Malik is quite often found in
personal names from Mari (ARM XYY,
265; cf. HUFFMON 1965). According to
EBELING 1931, p. 12:20, 4Malik is a mythic
‘King of Mari’ (Sarru 3a Ma-riX). In eco-
nomic and administrative texts from Mari,
the plural Maliki is attested for numinous
figures who receive cereal-offerings, among
other materials such as oil which can be
found in connexion with gifts in the cult of
dead kings. In other Mari texts such as
ARM IX 89:7-12, we hear about an ‘offer-
ing for (the) dead kings’ (Kispum Sa
farrüánim€9 consisting of victuals and oil
together with small quantities of the same
material ana Maliki ‘for the Maliku’ (for the
kispum ceremony cf. TsuKIMOTO 1985). Are
these Maliku dead princes or kings resp.
counsellors, or are we to think of particular
deities of an underworld character?
Jn the omen CT 3, 3:41 ‘the hand (might)
of the Maliku and of a spirit’ is mentioned.
Obviously the Maliku are to be distin-
guished from the spirit, though they belong
to the same sphere. From a Jiterary text, we
may quote an uttering such as: “I gave pres-
ents to the Maliku, the Anunnaku and to the
gods living in the earth” (EBELING 193], p.
58 1:19-21), showing that the Maliku belong
to deities, not to dead people. The difference
between both will not have been clear-cut;
because underworld deities and dead men
are nourished by the same offering ma-
terials. In ceremonies of purification per-
formed with refined oil (cf. ARM VII 8:1-
540
9), people want, as far as we know, to cle-
anse themselves from contact with both the
dead and the underworid gods. Are the
Maliki the product of a theomorphic sub-
limation of the deceased? Has an older god
Malik been multiplied to that end?
Another argument in favour of the subter.
ranean character of Malik is the fact that he
is identified with -—Nergal in several
Assyrian texts (Tdakultu 102 [no.135]; E,
EBELING, Or NS 24 [1955] 11). Has the
appellative notion ‘prince, king; counsellor’
remained euphemistic until now? But per-
haps the meaningful consistency of an
Oriental god wandering from age to age and
from one culture to another who, moreover,
is named by an appellative noun of a
somewhat common meaning at least in
Northwest-Semitic languages, is easily over-
estimated. The title of - ‘prince, king’ or
suchlike is claimed by many Semitic deities
and, of course, by humans.
Ugaritic mik appears in compounds such
as mik ‘ttrt RS 1986.2235:17, milk.‘ttrth KTU
1.100:41 and mik.b'ttrt KTU 1.107:17. In
*ttrth and b'ttrt, the -h and b- have a locative
function (‘Mlk in "trt") which also seems to
be the case in mlk ‘ttre RS 1986.2235:17.
mik ‘tirt is paralleled by Phoenician mlk‘strt,
this name, however, being comparable with
°>§mn ‘Sirt where an interpretation of "trt as
a locative element may not be convincing.
The localization here has become rather an
identification: the local name being changed
into the feminine theonym from which it
was once derived. In KTU 1.108:1 1-3, rpu
for a netherworld god or ghost is connected
with the apposition mik ‘Im ‘eternal king’
and combined with the epithet [iJ "gr
‘strong god’. It is uncertain whether this
‘Eterna) King’ is the same as Malik. .
In KTU 1.47:33 = 118:32, as in two al-
most identical lists of Ugaritic divine names,
we find the plural mlkm with which Akkad-
ian Maliki may be compared, while, in the
following line, we recognize, in contrast to
the sequence in KTU 1.100 and 1.107, the
divine name šim. To mikm // šim the Akkad-
ian-Ugaritic equations 4ina-lik™e’: miki I.
dsa-li-mu: lm in the two corresponding lists.
MALIK
of divine names RS 20.24: RS 1929, no.17
(Ug V, 45:32-33) can be compared. (For
connexions with -lk-, -dma-lik, -mu-lik and
similar personal names cf. GRONDAHL
1967:79, 157-158; Ug V, 60.) The uncertain
meaning of gd mlk (‘sanctuary of the
king’?) in KTU 1.123:20 is not really rel-
evant here.
The Phoenician divine name migrt CIS 1
122:1 (Melqart) for the chief god of Tyre,
j.e. 4Mi-il-gar-tu in Asarhaddon’s treaty
with King Baal of Tyre, has been derived
from an epithet (‘King of the city’) for an-
other god, probably —Baal of Tyre. The
worship of Melqart was known all over the
Mediterranian countries, perhaps because of
his identification with the young Herakles
by Greeks (Herodotus IY 44) and Romans
(cf. BONNET 1988).
The above-mentioned Phoenician divine
name mlk‘Strt—a combination of a male and
a female theonym for a god who, according
to ’dn ‘to the Lord’ and I‘bd-m ‘to his ser-
‘yants’ KA] 71:1,2-3, was of male gender—is
often attested in Umm al-'Awàmid near Tyre
during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE
(MAGNANINI 1973:16-22). It is also attested
in Carthage (CIS I 250:5), Leptis Magna
:(KAI 119) and. Cádiz (KAI 71). CIS 1 8:1
-(MAGNANINI 1973:16-17) and other pas-
sages show that milk‘strt is ‘the god of Ham-
mon’ (= Umm al-‘Awamid?, cf. Josin 19:28)
i (cf. KAT 19:4) and as such probably the pre-
decessor of —^Baal Hammon of Sam'al (KAI
24: 16), Malta (KAI 61:3-4), Carthage and
“Africa, if the latter is not to be identified
‘with the Hurrian 4Ha-ma-ni Bo.8328:3 or
chmn is not yet merely a sacred object
(XELLA 1991). The character of mik‘Strt stil]
-Temains obscure. That the Ugaritic milk
Uh) RS 1986.2235:17; KTU 1.100:41
“resp. mlk b 'ttrt KTU 1.107:17 should be
‘localized in Transjordan because of KTU
11108:1- 3 (M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, UF
2 [1990] 55-56) is hardly consistent with
@ Phoenician evidence on mlk‘Strt.
ut III. There is only one uncontested attes-
sation of a god Mik (Masoretic melek) ìn the
FHebrew Bible, i.e. Isa 57:9. According to
Wis verse, oil and spices are offered Imik
‘for Mik’. The mythical conception asso-
ciated with these sacrifices is that mes-
sengers from the worshipping congregation
have to descend far down into the under-
world. Oil offerings and their netherworld
character remind us of the Maliku from
Mari. It is well known that the community
which Trito-Isaiah is addressing had a
Strong tendency to religious atavisms and in
particular to funeral cults (cf. 65:4). —That
‘the treaty with death’ of Isa 28:15.18 or the
reference to a ‘King of terrors’ in Job 18:
14 had Mik in mind (Day 1989:55, 58-64),
cannot be proved.
For matk(i)- and -melek in personal
names, see above (I.} and J. D. Fow er,
(Theophoric Names in Ancient Hebrew
[JSOT, Suppi.Ser. 49; Sheffield 1988] 50-53
[& Lt]. The professional name Ebed-
Melech, ‘servant of king’ (Jer 38:7-12;
39:16) can be compared with cuneiform Ab-
di-mil-ki (K. L. TALLqurst, Assyrian Per-
sonal Names [Helsingfors 1914] 3), which is
obviously Canaanite (cf. Ug ‘bdmlk and
Phoen 'bdmliki).
Canaanite ‘milk’, as we find it in the
theophoric element ‘Milk’ of Phoenician
personal names, together with either -dm > -
6m (as in Heb Hírám resp. Phoen "Ahíróm)
or with -um may be the origin of the Mas-
oretic divine name Milkóm resp. Milkom as
the god of the Ammonites (1 Kgs 11:5.33; 2
Kgs 23:13). In 1 Kgs 11:7, we should read
Milkóm instead of Masoretic mélek (accord-
ing to LXX LucRec and vv 5.33 MT; cf. 2
Kgs 23:13 and emendations to 2 Sam 12:30;
Jer 49:1.3; Zeph 1:5). It is not impossible
that the theonym -*Adrammelech in 2 Kgs
17:31 (cf. the same lexeme as anthroponym
in 2 Kgs 19:37; Isa 37:38) is connected with
the Phoenician personal name MadAkavipos,
Plutarch, de side 15, in the sense of ‘Malk-
^addir ‘“Mai(i)k is mighty/magnificent’ (J.
EpacH & U. RUTERSWORDEN, UF 11
[1979] 219-226) The formation —Anam-
melech, following Adrammelech in 2 Kgs
17:31, may then mean —‘Anath of MIk’ (cf.
‘Yahweh and his ->Ashera’ from Kuntillet
"Agrüd and Hirbat al-Qóm).
Postbiblical evidence for Malik is Thamu-
541
MAMMON
dic and Nabatean milk together with Pal-
myrene milk’; cf. HÓFNER. In Sure 43:77/8 of
the Qur'an, an -*angel of hell is adressed as
ja-Máliku.
IV. Bibliography
M. G. AMADASI-GUZ2ZO, La documentazio-
ne epigrafica dal rofer di Mozia e il proble-
ma del sacrificio molk, Studia Phoenicia IV
(Collection d'études classiques 1; eds. C.
Bonnet, E. Lipinski & P. Marchetti; Namur
1986) 189-207; C. BoNNET, Melqart. Cultes
et mythes de l'Héraclés tyrien en méditer-
ranée (Studia Phoenicia VII; Leuven &
Namur 1988); P. BoRDREUIL, A propos de
Milcou, Milgart et Milk‘ashtart, Maarav 5/6
(1990) 11-21: A. Caquor, Le dieu
Milk'ashtart et les inscriptions de Umm el
*Amed, Sem 15 (1965) 29-33; J. Dav,
Molech. A God of Human Sacrifice in the
Old Testament (UCOP 41; Cambridge
1989): E. EBELING, Tod und Leben nach den
Vorstellungen der Babylonier | (Berlin -
Leipzig 1931); D. EDELMAN, Biblical Molek
reassessed, JAOS 107 (1987) 727-731; O.
EissrELDT, Molk als Opferbegriff im Puni-
schen und Hebráüischen und das Ende des
Gottes Moloch (Beiträge zur Religionsge-
schichte des Altertums 3; Halle 1935); F.
GRÖNDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte
aus Ugarit (Rome 1967) 79, 157-158; G. C.
HEIDER, The Cult of Molek. A Reassessment
(JSOT Suppl.Ser. 43; Sheffield 1985); M.
HÓrNER, Malik, Malka, WbMyth 1/1 453; H.
B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in
the Mari Texts (Baltimore 1965) 230-231; F.
ISRAEL, Materiali per “Moloch”, RSF 18
(1990) 151-155; P. MAGNANINI, Le iscrizio-
ni fenicie dell'oriente (Rome 1973); H.-P.
. MÜLLER, Religionsgeschichtliche Beobach-
tungen zu den Texten von Ebla, ZDPV 96
(1980) 1-19, esp. 11-14: H.-P. MÜLLER,
12h molek, TWAT 4 8/9 (1984) 957-968 [&
lit); MÜLLER, Genesis 22 und das mlk-
Opfer, BZ 41 (1997) 237-246; S. RIBICHINI
& P. XELLA, Milk'astart, Mlk(m) e la tradi-
zione siropalestinese sui refaim, RSF 7
(1979) 145-158; J. J. M. ROBERTS, The
Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of the
Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia
before Ur lli (Baltimore & London 1972);
K. A. D. SMELIK, Moloch, Molekh and
Molk-Sacrifice, SJOT 9 (1995) 133-142; A.
TSUKIMOTO, Untersuchungen zur Toten-
pflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien
(AOAT 216; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985) 65-
69; P. XELLA, l testi rituali di Ugarit |
(Rome 1981) 224-250; XELLA, Baal Ham-
mon (Collezione di studi fenici 32; Rome
1991).
H.-P. MOLLER
MAMMON papovac
I. Mammon (Aram. status emphaticus
mamo6na’), the etymology of which is not
completely certain, probably is a maqtàl
form of the root ’mn with the meaning of
‘that in which one puts trust’, with ‘money,
riches’ as a derivative meaning (J. A. Fitz-
MYER, The Gospel according to Luke |
[New York 1985] 1109; for other etymol-
ogies sce HAuck 1942:390 n. 2 and RÜGER
1973:127-131; on problems of spelling see
MasriN 1984). It occurs in both Hebrew
and Aramaic texts of the post-biblical period
(Hauck 1942:391; BAGD s.v.; BALz 1981:
942; SoKOLoFF 1990:311; its occurrence in
a 7th cent. BCE Aramaic inscription is very
uncertain, see LipiNsk! 1975); in Greek
transcription (wapwvag = mamdénd’) it is
found only in four synoptic passages (Lk
16:9.11.13//Mt 6:24). Although a neutral
term in itself, in later Jewish usage (esp. the
Targumim) the word develops a predomi-
nantly negative meaning with connotations
of the improper, the dishonest, the sinful
aspect of wealth (HAUCK 1942: 391).
II. In the NT the word occurs only on
the lips of Jesus. In the Q saying Lk 16:13
// Mt 6:24 he seems to regard Mammon as
an enslaving force or even as a god that one
can serve: "No slave can serve two masters;
for a slave will either hate the one and love
the other, or be devoted to the one and des-
pise the other. You cannot serve God and
Mammon". Here Mammon is personified as
an evil and superhuman power that stands in
competition to ~God and by possessing
people can even keep them from being
devoted to God and make them hate Him.
542
MAN ~- MARDUK
—
The two other texts, Lk 6:9.11 (also from
the pericope immediately following upon
the parable of the unjust steward) speak
about ‘unrighteous wealth’ (6 pop@vas tic
&ówiag and ó G81x0g Hapwvdc, the second
expression being the graecized form of the
semitizing onginal that reflects Aramaic
“pw yur) and they imply that believers
may learn from the unjust steward to use
wealth (in the sense of ‘dispose of it’) in the
service of love for others, i.e. in the service
of God (SCHMIDT 1987: 153-155). If the
etymology suggested above is correct, there
may be a wordplay with the root ’mn in Lk
16:11: “If you have not been faithful
(motoi) in the unrighteous mamon, who
will entrust (motevoet) to you the true
(GAn801vóv) riches?" (four words perhaps
deriving from that root). That wealth can
exercise an overwhelming power over
people and enslave them is an insight well-
known also among Greeks and Romans as is
evident from the much-quoted sentence that
love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim
6:10; cf. for its variants P. W. van der
Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides
{Leiden 1978) 142-143; K. S. FRANK, Hab-
sucht, RAC XIII [1986] 226-247). In some
Jater Christian sources Mamonas is depicted
‘as a demon, ‘wealth’ being personified ap-
-parently on the basis of the fact that Luke
16:13 opposes mamonas to God and calls
‘both God and Mammon -kyrioi (see E.
PETERSON, Engel- und Personennamen,
RhMus NF 75 [1926] 406-69).
TL Bibliography
:H. Barz, pap@vac, EWNT II (1981) 941-
:942; J. M. BassLER, God and Mammon.
‘Asking for Money in the NT (Nashville
1991); F. Hauck, nopovác TWNT IV
14942) 390-392; E. LIPIŃSKI, An Assyrian
Decree Law in Aramaic, Studies in Aramaic
Jnscriptions and Onomastics (Louvain 1975)
lind the Semitic Languages: A False Trail
“and a Suggestion, Bib 65 (1984) 87-90; H.
ip. RÜGER, uauovàc, ZNW 64 (1973) 127-
iat; T. E, Scumipt, Hostility to Wealth in
the Synoptic Gospels (JSNTSS 15; Sheffield
4987); M. Soxororr, A Dictionary of
Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine
Period, Ramat Gan 1990.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
MAN > ANTHROPOS
MARDUK 7773
I. Marduk was the god of Babylon and
the supreme ruler of the Mesopotamian uni-
verse. Normally, the name Marduk is writ-
ten 44Mar.UD. The name has been treated
by some as pre-Sumerian and the writing
understood as a folk-etymology, whereby an
unintelligible name is rendered understand-
able in Sumerian. Jt seems better, however,
to treat the name as an original Sumerian
name: amar.uda.ak. This agrees with the
fact that the name possesses a long form:
(A)marut/duk (= MT: Mérédak, LXX:
Maródak) in addition to its short form Mar-
duk. While the name is usually interpreted
as ‘calf/son of the sun’, the interpretation
‘calf of the storm’ is to be preferred, espe-
cially since Marduk is not a solar deity.
There are other ancient interpretations of the
name (e.g. Enima Elish 1 101-102).
With his exaltation, Marduk assumed the
name —Bel (2 —^'Lord', from the title bélu;
cf. Canaanite —Ba'al as well as Heb "Ádónáy
= Gk ~Kurios) as his proper name.
II. Marduk's earliest beginnings seem to
be as the local god and patron of Babylon.
Already in the Old Babylonian period, he
was incorporated into the Mesopotamian
pantheon and considered to be the son of
Enki/Ea and a member of the Eridu circle. It
has been argued that Marduk became the
son of —Ea because both he and Asalluhe
were gods of exorcism. Especially since
Asalluhe seems originally to have been the
messenger of Ea and not a god of exorcism
as such, it is more reasonable to assume that
the connection with Ea arose from the desire
to link Babylon and Marduk with Eridu, its
traditions, and its god Ea. Continuing the
tradition of the kings of Isin-Larsa who also
had a special relationship to Eridu, the
priests of Babylon were thus able to link
Marduk to a major god other than Enlil and
543
MARDUK
a venerable tradition other than Nippur. The
subsequent identification of Marduk with
Asalluhe came about because both Marduk
and Asalluhe were associated with rain
clouds and water and, as sons of Ea, both
functioned as his messengers, agents, and
executors. Eventually, Asalluhe/Marduk in-
deed became an exorcist, perhaps because
the human asipu, who was the messenger of
Ea and identified with Asalluhe, preferred to
assume an identification with a divine exor-
cist rather than remaining only a messenger,
thus enhancing his power. (This develop-
ment was part of the expanding role and
status of this class of exorcists.)
As Babylon developed and grew in sig-
nificance, Marduk’s natural features were
overlaid by characteristics and roles he as-
sumed as the god of the city, and he himself
incorporated features and identities of other
gods (e.g. Tutu of Borsippa), Marduk is
often treated as if he were a political con-
struct lacking in natural features. This ap-
proach is understandable, given that, on the
one hand, we have no early mythic materials
which present him as a natura) force or as a
developed personality, and that, on the other
hand, texts that provide a detailed picture
seem to reflect a time when as the supreme
god he had taken over many roles and
identities. Still, it-seems preferable to follow .
JACOBSEN’s aSsessment and to treat Marduk
as a god who was originally associated with
thunderstorms and brought natural abun-
dance by means of water. Accordingly, we
should not explain all of Marduk’s asso-
ciations with water and vegetation as simply
having been taken over from Ea and his
circle. Note, especially, the identification of
Marduk with Enbilulu in En&ma Elish VII
and the emphasis in hymns and prayers
upon Marduk’s power to bring water and
nourishment in abundance (sometimes in
conjunction with the rendering of decisions
and determination of destinies at the New
Year). See, for example, A. LIVINGSTONE,
SAA 3 (1989) 7-8; 21-23 and BMS, no, 12
(and dupls.):24-31. Also suited to (or de-
rived from) his natural character are some of
the storm-like (and hence war-like) features
544
and deeds attributed to him in his fight
against — Tiamat in Enima Elish and the
use there of —Ninurta traditions. In texts
from the first millennium, Marduk’s astra]
identification is especially with Jupiter.
The history of the god is of importance
for an understanding of Mesopotamian re-
ligion and thought. We turn now, therefore,
to that topic. Marduk has a more textured
personality than simply that of the god of
the expanded Babylon, and his full character
and deeds should not be seen only as a pro-
jection of political developments. Still, his
ascension to the head of the pantheon and
the expansion of his powers are surely re-
lated to the gradual elevation of Babylon to
pre-eminence.
Although mentioned as early as the Early
Dynastic period (perhaps even ED JJ), it is
only during the Old Babylonian period
under Hammurapi—who for the first time
made Babylon an important city and the
capita] of an extended state—that Marduk
emerges as a significant god and a member
of the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon. Thus the
Code of Hammurapi begins: “When lofty
~ Anum, king of the Anunnaki, (and) Enlil,
lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of
the destinies of the land, determined for
Marduk, the first-born of Enki, the Enlil
functions over all mankind, made him great
among the Igigt, called Babylon by its
exalted name, made it supreme in the world,
established for him in its midst an enduring
kingship, whose foundations are as firm as
—heaven and earth—” (Codex Hammurapi I
1-21 [ANET?}). Even here, Marduk’s elec-
tion is still the continuation of an older Mes-
opotamian tradition. In that tradition, the
god of the politically dominant city ruled the
land, but the central meeting place or assem-
bly of the gods remains Nippur and ultimate
power resides with the divine assembly and
its leaders. One difference, however, from
some earlier formulations seems to be the
treatment of Marduk’s kingship in Babylon
as eternal. All the same, Marduk in the Old.
Babylonian period seems to be no more than
a junior member of the pantheon; he 1s 4.
local god but he is now a permanent mem
EARS Ed Seu
MARDUK
ber of the pantheon and god of a city that
has become a permanent part of the ideo-
logical landscape.
As Babylon developed, so did the god.
Beginning as the local god and patron of
Babylon, Marduk became the god and
master of the Babylonian national state and
fhe supreme god and absolute ruler of the
universe. However, during most of the
second millennium, Marduk seems. neither
to have replaced the high gods of Babylonia
nor to have ascended to the head of the pan-
tbeon. Only late in the second millennium
does he take on many of Enlil's roles and
become not only lord of the land but also
king of the gods.
. While there are indications that Marduk
was emerging as supreme ruler already
during the Kassite period (cf. e.g. the events
associated with Adad-shuma-usur m A. K.
GRAYSON, Babylonian Historical-Literary
Texts [Toronto 1975] 56-77 [but note that
this text contains anachronisms and was
probably composed well after that reign])
and early in the second Isin period, his elev-
ation seems to have been first publicly ar-
ticulated only during the reign of Nebuchad-
:mezzar I (1125-1104). This king defeated the
‘Elamites and restored the plundered statue
-of Marduk to Babylon. Now, in addition to
.Marduk's rule over the city of Babylon,
"there was an open claim for Marduk’s do-
‘minion over the gods and over the whole
‘land. He takes on some of the roles of Emi}
-and occasionally even replaces him. Gener-
‘ally speaking, however, the other major
:gods are not replaced or made simply sub-
*servient to Marduk (especially in texts from
-Gities other than Babylon). Rather, Marduk,
:no longer a junior, is now ranked with the
supreme gods of the pantheon.
By the end of the second millennium, a
“Babylonian nation-state seems to have been
;greated with the city Babylon as its centre
sand Marduk as its god. As mentioned above,
larduk is now even referred to occasionally
pas. king of the gods, but it is only during the
Sst millennium, culminating in the Neo-
«Babylonian empire, that we find this idea
yStematically carried through to its logical
conclusion. This is evident from first-millen-
nium documents describing the Akitu-New
Year festival; for at that season, the gods all
assembled in Babylon, where Marduk was
declared king and where destinies for the
New Year were determined. Certainly,
during the Neo-Babylonian empire, Marduk
was the supreme god of a universal empire
ruled from Babylon.
The date of the elevation of Marduk has
occasioned a variety of scholarly opinions.
The problem is a knotty one and requires a
nuanced approach. It is likely that the per-
ception of Marduk as head of the pantheon
was already developing even before the time
of Nebuchadnezzar I. Already in the Kassite
period, Babylonia became a national state
with Babylon as its capital. But the con-
ception of Marduk as king of the gods in the
form known to us, for example, from Enima
Elish, could not be fully articulated until at
least two conditions were met: 1) Babylon
had to replace Nippur as the divine locus of
power upon which the world, the nation, and
the monarchy were based, and 2) a new
model of world organization had to be
available.
1) Nippur/Babyton: Even though the Kas-
site kings ruled the country from Babylon,
they followed the older Nippur-Anu-Enlil
construction of government and, in addition
to being kings of Babylon, were kings of
Sumer and Akkad. The nation, in accord-
ance with the traditional cosmology, was
imagined as being governed by the divine
assembly in Nippur under Enlil. The
nation/country of Babylonia and the city of
Babylon were kept conceptually separate,
with the kingdom of ‘Sumer and Akkad'—
not the royal capital—being perceived as the
primary unit of government and source of
power. Marduk was god of the city of Baby-
lon, the capital, and god of the royal family,
but Enli) remained lord of the land.
Naturally, as the god of Babylon and of
the royal family, Marduk’s position con-
tinued to evolve. For residents of Babylon,
for its priests and theologians, and even for
the kings ìn their role of rulers of Babylon,
Marduk might have been perceived as king
545
MARDUK
of the gods even before Nebuchadnezzar 1.
However, as long as the Nippurian con-
ception of governance of the Mesopotamian
cosmos and territory remained operative, the
concept of the nation and the role of Enlil
would remain the same, and developments
in Babylon would not initially have affected
them. Thus, until the replacement of the
political framework that had Nippur as its
centre by a different framework centering on
Babylon, Marduk’s supremacy would not be
expressed in political documents. Official
recognition of Babylon as the permanent
capital and source of legitimacy was a pre-
condition to the public, official exaltation of
Marduk as the supreme god.
2) World organization: But more was re-
quired than just the replacement of Nippur
with Babylon to bring about such a change
in the conception of Marduk. The recog-
nition of Marduk as the supreme god was a
new religious idea that depended upon a
radical shift in thinking about the state.
What was required was not only a different
centre, but also a new conception of the cos-
mic and political world as a world-empire
revolving around one central city. In this
divine empire, everything revolves around
the god of the central city; at home in their
own cities, the other gods pay homage to the
supreme god and also journey to the centre
to do obeisance; their relationship to the
supreme god defines the character of the
divine world and their role within it. Such a
conception depends not only on the exist-
ence of absolute kingship, but even more
upon an imperial form of government. It is
for this reason that Marduk's elevation to
full divine supremacy could only take place
in the first millennium at a time of world
empire. (Compare, perhaps, Marduk's re-
placement of the divine assembly with
developments in Egypt under Akhnaton.)
But regardless of how one assesses the
evidence from/about the latter half of the
second millennium and what one concludes
regarding the date of Marduk’s elevation, it
is clear that in the first millennium the new
image of Marduk as world ruler dominated
Babylonian thinking. Marduk and Babylon
have become the primordial god and city;
the Erra poem can present Marduk as the
god who ruled before the Flood and whose
temporary absence brought about the Flood,
and in this new antediluvian tradition,
Marduk replaces the older gods Enlil and
Ea. Nevertheless, despite the new suprem-
acy of Marduk and the apparent existence of
henotheistic tendencies, Mesopotamia re-
mained polytheistic, with its several cities
maintaining the cults of their gods.
Marduk's cult spread to Assyria before
the Sargonids, but it was especially in the 8-
7th centuries, when Assyria attempted to
control Babylon, that interesting. develop-
ments and conflicts surrounding Marduk and
Babylon arose. The Assyrians had difficulty
assimilating the Marduk cult or even
defining an efficacious and stable relation-
ship with Marduk and his city. An extreme
form of the conflict is attested during the
reign of Sennacherib when, alternatively,
—Ashshur was cast in the role of Marduk
and assumed his deeds or Marduk was made
to function at the behest of Ashshur/Anshar.
During the late 7th and first half of the
6th century, under the Neo-Babylonian
kings, Marduk was regarded as the principal
god of the empire. Apparent threats to the
prerogatives of the Marduk cult led the
priests of Babylon to welcome and justify
Cyrus's conquest.
Apparently. the events of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar | —especially the return of
the statue of Marduk—occasioned the com-
position of literary works revolving around
Marduk, his experiences and deeds, and his
new exalted position of power and rank. In
such texts as the Marduk Suilla BMS 9 obv.
(and dupls.), Marduk is shown outgrowing
the role of son of Enki and young prince of
Eridu (a role in which he was comparable to
Ninurta as son of Enlil and young prince in
Nippur) and assuming the role of master of
Babylon and of the whole land. While
recognizing that Babylon is the centre of the
world, this text does not focus only on the
city. Rather, it uses Babylon as a stepping-
off point to the rest of the world. BMS 9
obv. is to be dated, I believe, to the afore-
mentioned reign.
A somewhat different situation obtains,
546
MARDUK
however, in Entima Elish, for in addition to
describing Marduk’s ascendancy to the king-
ship of the gods, it focuses narrowly on
Babylon, on its creation as the first city and
designation as the centre of the world of the
gods, and thus also displays an inward turn-
ing. For other reasons as well, Enima Elish
should perhaps not be dated to the time of
Nebuchadnezzar I. We should now, there-
fore, discuss this document.
Eniina Elish (“When On High’), a seven
tablet work, is certainly the most important
document defining Marduk’s elevation. It
describes his rise to permanent and absolute
kingship over the gods. His ascendancy is
expressed not only by the recognition of his
kingship over the gods but also by the
naming of his fifty names, for by this
naming many gods are identified with
Marduk or are made aspects of him. In this
work, the idea of an assembly ruled by
Marduk from the Esagila in Babylon is
clearly envisaged and worked out, and the
earlier structure of a national assembly of
the gods in Nippur (led by Enlil and Anu)
is, by implication, replaced.
While various documents composed
under Nebuchadnezzar | reflected the as-
cendancy of Marduk, it may be a mistake to
include Eniima Elish among them. The date
of composition of Eniima Elish is not with-
out historical significance; moreover, the
date has a bearing on the interpretation of
the work and its relationship to other litera-
tures. In the course of the last 60-70 years,
various dates have been suggested for
Enüma Elish. In the first flush of redis-
covery of the Old Babylonian period and the
Code of Hammurapi, the composition of
Enüma Elish was dated to that period. (Such
passages as the above-quoted passage from
the prologue to Codex Hammurapi were
used to support this notion.) More recently,
dates in the latter half of the second millen-
nium have been proposed. While W. von
Soden suggests a date of composition
around 1400, LAMBERT (1964) argues for
the composition of Enüma Elish during the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar I as a work cel-
ebraling Marduk's official elevation to
leadership of the pantheon. JACOBSEN
(1976), on the other hand, introduces a
number of subtle distinctions and argues that
the work dealt with issues surrounding
Babylonia’s re-conquest of the Sealand and
national unification and should be dated sub-
sequent to that event (after Ulamburiash) in
the early part of the second half of the
second millennium.
Previous attempts at dating and interpre-
tation have assumed that the work reflects a
period of ascendancy of the city Babylon
and the Babylonian kingdom. If this were
the case, we would expect our text to evi-
dence characteristics of a work written
either by temple circles or by palace circles
and to support the interests of one or the
other. Rather, it exhibits a mixed set of
features with regard to temple and palace.
This mixture can be explained if we assume
that Eniima Elish was written not at a time
of ascendancy, but rather at a time when the
interests of temple and palace had coalesced
because the seat of power had shifted else-
where and it had become necessary to re-
assert the central importance of the god, his
temple, and his city. Thus, rather than view-
ing Entima Elish as a work composed during
a period of Babylonian political ascendancy
and as a reflection of the city’s attainment of
increasing power, I would suggest that we
instead view Enūma Elish as having been
composed at a time when it was necessary
to preserve the memory of Babylon’s as-
cendancy and to assert its claim to be a
world capital on the grounds that it had been
so since the beginning of time. It was com-
posed some time during the early first mil-
lennium in a period of weakness of the city
Babylon and served to bolster the city’s
claim to cultural prestige and privilege at a
time when it was coping with the loss of
political power and centrality. While sup-
porting political aspirations, the work
reflects even more the needs of a major
temple organization to preserve its religious
and cultural significance and may well have
been composed in temple circles.
Thus, while BMS 9 obv. (and dupls.) is a
more natural example of increasing strength,
Entima Elish is a conservative attempt to
preserve something that was threatened with
547
MARDUK
loss. The emphases and approach of Entima
Elish would agree with composition in the
first millennium at a point when Babylon’s
ascendancy was threatened either by the
Aramaeans or the Assyrians. Certainly,
Eniima Elish exhibits a pronounced baroque
style characteristic of late periods.
Moreover, while the universalistic world-
view implicit in Enūma Elish is not con-
sonant with the second millennium when the
concept of world-empire had not yet become
parn of the Mesopotamian political and re-
ligious imagination, it does fit with the
thought and experiences of the first millen-
nium. Entima Elish is rooted in the notion of
Marduk as king of the gods; while the
earlier period may have already articulated
this idea, the vision of Entima Elish reflects
a radical extension of it, perhaps in reaction
to the Assyrians and under the influence of
the model provided by the Assyrian world-
empire. It reflects the cultural needs of first
millennium Babylon. For the time being,
then, Entana Elish should not be called upon
to give testimony to the ascendancy of Mar-
duk at the end of the second millennium.
Marduk’s main sanctuary was located in
the centre of Babylon and comprised a
group of buildings, most notably the low
temple Esagila and the temple tower (zig-
gurat) Etemenanki. Between these two com-
plexes ran the main processional street.
Esagila contained the major shrines of Mar-
duk and his wife Sarpanitu as well as a
number of chapels dedicated to other gods.
On the top of the ziggurat, which was lo-
cated within an enclosure, stood the high
temple of Marduk, with rooms of worship
for other gods. Among the gods who had
chapels in these complexes special mention
should be made of Marduk's son -*Nabàü,
the scribe of the gods and god of Borsippa.
Nabá, too, eventually attains high eminence
among the gods alongside his father Mar-
duk.
The New Year's festival in Babylon
(usually referred to as the Akitu festival)
was based in Marduk's temple complex and
centered on his cult. Comprising several
separate strands which were joined together
over time, the rites of the festival, which
took place in the spring during the first
twelve days of the first month (Nisannu),
centre upon the god, city, and king of
Babylon. But although the Akitu festival
had several originally independent dimen-
sions (natural, cosmological, and political),
it nevertheless remains true that Enünma
Elish gives expression to some of the same
basic issues and narrative themes as the late
festival and corresponds to several of its
major ritual enactments. Enma Elish (prob-
ably our text, but possibly some other ver-
sion or re-telling of the story) was recited
before Marduk on the fourth day of the
month (it may wcll have been recited in
other months as well). Principal among the
ritual events that should be mentioned here
are: prayers for Babylon; divesting and re-
investing the king before Marduk; ingather-
ing of the gods from various cities to
Babylon; gathering of the gods in assembly
on two separate occasions in the shrine of
destinies of the Nabû sanctuary for the pur-
pose of determining destinies (parallel to the
two assemblies in Entima Elish, before and
after the battle respectively); procession of
Marduk and the other gods (with the king
taking Marduk’s hand) by way of the pro-
cessional way and -*Ishtar’s gate, and travel
on the river to the Akitu house, where a
banquet takes place. Sitting down in the
Akitu house has been taken as representing
the victorious battle over ->Tiamat, though
this battle may be equally or better repre-
sented by the sailing on the river to the
Akitu house. Thus, evidently battle, en-
thronement, and determining destinies are
among the many acts that are celebrated
during the Akitu festival.
III. Merodach is mentioned in Jer 50:2,
where he is the god of Babylon and is re-
ferred to also under the name Bel. As Bel he
occurs also in Jer 51:44 and Is 46:1; in the
latter passage he appears together with his
son Nebo = Nabû. For Bel in the OT Apoc-
rypha, see Letter of Jeremiah (= Baruch
6):40 and Bel and the Dragon (= addition
to the Greek Daniel, Ch. 14): 3-22. All
biblical references allude to the Marduk cult
548
MARY
of the Neo-Babylonian period. Several
Babylonian names with Marduk as the
theophoric clement appear in the Bible:
Evil-merodach, Merodach-baladan, and
perhaps Mordechai. (D. J. A. CLINES,
Mordechai, ABD 4 [1992] 902-904, esp.
902; C. A. MOORE, Esther, Book of, ABD 2
[1992] 633-643, esp. 633).
IV. Bibliography
T. ABuscH, The Form and Meaning of a
Babylonian Prayer to Marduk, JAOS 103
(1983) 3-15; J. A. Black, The New Year
Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: “Taking
Bel by the Hand’ and a Cultic Picnic, Re-
ligion 11 (1981) 39-59; M. J. GELLER,
Forerunners to UDUG-YUL (FAOS 12; Stutt-
gar 1985) 12-15; T. JacoBsEN, Babylonia
and Assyria, Part V. Religion, Encylopedia
Britannica (1963) 2, 972-978, esp. 977 =
Mesopotamian Gods and Pantheons, Toward
the Image of Tammuz (ed. W. L. Moran;
HSS 21; Cambridge Mass. 1970) 16-38, esp.
35-36; JACOBSEN, The Battle between Mar-
duk and Tiamat, JAOS 88 (1968) 104-108;
JACOBSEN, Religious Drama in Ancient
Mesopotamia, Unity and Diversity (ed. H.
Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore/
London 1975) 65-97, esp. 72-76; JACOBSEN,
The Treasures of Darkness (New Haven/
London 1976) 167-191; W. G. LAMBERT,
The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian
Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akitu
House, /raq 25 (1963) 189-190; LAMBERT,
The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning
Point in the History of Ancient Mesopot-
amian Religion, The Seed of Wisdom:
Essays...T. J. Meek (ed. W. S. McCullough;
Toronto 1964) 3-13; LAMBERT, Studies in
Marduk, BSOAS 47 (1984) 1-9; LAMBERT,
Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic
of Creation, Keilinschriftliche Literaturen
(ed. K. Hecker & W. Sommerfeld BBVO 6;
Berlin 1986) 55-60; J. J. M. Roberts,
Nebuchadnezzar I's Elamite Crisis in Theo-
logical Perspective, Essays on the Ancient
Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkel-
stein (ed. M. de J. Ellis; Hamden, Conn.
1977) 183-187; J. Z. Sim, Imagining
Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chi-
cago & London 1982) 90-96; W. SoMMER-
rELD, Der Aufstieg Marduks (AOAT 213;
Neukirchen-Viuyn 1982); W. SOMMERFELD,
Marduk, RLA 7, 5/6 (1989) 360-370.
T. ABUSCH
MARY
I. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is men-
tioned by name only in the four Gospels and
once in the Acts of the Apostles. The name,
which occurs as Maria or Mariam in the
Greek NT, and as Mariamme in Josephus,
Ant. 3,54, corresponds with the Heb name
Miriam (ct. Exod 15:20; Num 26:59).
Because of Mary's symbolic role in the
ascetic, dogmatic (especially christological)
and ecclesiological reflection of the Church,
mariology was developed in patristic times,
which in its turn prepared the way for fur-
ther developments in the Middle Ages and
afterwards.
II. The earliest NT author, Paul, does
not mention Mary, although he does refer to
the birth of Jesus in Rom 1:3-4; Gal 4:4, 29
and Phil 2:6-7. The earliest references to
Mary are Mark 3:31-35 and 6:1-6. In Mark
3, the mother and the brothers and sisters of
Jesus, his physical family, are said to have
no advantage in relationship to him; only
those who do the will of -*God are truly
"his family." In 3:21-35, the suggestion is
that what counts is the ‘eschatological’ fam-
ily alone (BROWN et alii 1978:52-58). Mark
6:3 (par. Matt 13:55) lists Mary (this is the
first time she is mentioned by name) and
four brothers of Jesus. Some scholars also
identify the Mary of Mark 15:40 (par. Matt
27:56), 15:47 (par. Matt 27:61) and 16:1
(par. Matt 28:1) with Mary the mother of
Jesus. In view of the later doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary, which cannot be
found in the NT, other scholars hold the
brothers and sisters of Jesus to be more dis-
tant relatives, or sons of Joseph from an
earlier marriage (cf. Hilary of Poitiers,
Comm. Matt. 1,4).
Matthew mentions Mary in the narrative
of the birth of Jesus in chaps. | and 2. In the
genealogy (1:1-17), we have the unusual
appearance of five women of which Mary is
549
MARY
the last. All five are marked by real (or
apparent) irregularities in their marital
unions, yet they, and last but not least Mary
herself, were vehicles of God's messianic
design (BROWN ef alli 1978:81-83). The
conception narative (1:18-25) reinforces
and specifies the exceptional nature of
Mary’s pregnancy: what appeared like adul-
tery was in fact the work of the —Holy
Spirit and part of God’s plan to save his
people, Matt 1:22-23 interprets this plan as
announced in Isa 7:14. Matt 12:46-50 paral-
lels Mark 3, but the suggestion is not, as in
Mark, that the eschatological family has
replaced the physical family. The same goes
for Matt 13:53-58 which parallels Mark 6
(BROWN et alii 1978:98 etc.).
Of aJ) NT writers, Luke has most to say
about Mary. The infancy narrative serves the
christologica] purpose to retroject the belief
of the Church concerning Jesus' ministry
and resurrection to his conception, birth and
early youth (cf. Luke 1:35 with Rom 1:3-4;
BROWN ef alii 1978: 118-119). Only before
the conception is Mary’s virginity explicitly
attested (cf. 1:27 with 1:31). As such, the
birth from the Holy Spirit need not imply
the absence of a human father, witness the
*overshadowing" of men in 9:34 and Paul's
reference to Isaac as "born according to the
Spirit" in Gal 4:29; cf. Rom 9:8). Neverthe-
less, Luke may bave intended to describe a
virginal conception. Even more positive than
Matthew's is Luke's attitude towards Jesus'
physical family. His mother, who is praised
in 1:38.42.45; 2:19.51 and 11:27-28 firmly
remains ‘his own’. In Acts 1:14, Mary is
mentioned once more to show that she was
part of those who waited for the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (BRown er alii 1978:119-
177).
The Gospel of John features Mary as the
“mother of Jesus” or refers to her implicitly.
The dominant motif of the story of the wed-
ding at Cana (2:1-11) is christological, but
the mother of Jesus does have an important
role in the events Jeading up to the sign
(BROWN et alii 1978:187). Though this
scene seems to suggest imperfect belief on
-Mary's part, her faith as implied in 19:25-27
can be contrasted to the lack of it on the
part of Jesus’ brothers in 7:1-10: the natural
family disqualifies itself but Jesus’ natural
mother and the beloved disciple are taken up
into the eschatological family because of
their faith (BROWN ef alit 1978:213).
In Rev 12 a woman “clothed with the
sun” appears. The description echoes vari-
ous OT passages referring to messianic per-
sons and their work. The woman symbolizes
the people of God, Israel, the Church. Thus
Rev 12 does not intend to refer to Mary, but
aims to assure its readers of ultimate victory
in times of persecution (BROWN ef alii
1978:230-231). Yet from the fourth century
onwards the woman was often taken to
stand for Mary, since the description was
interpreted as concerning the mother of the
— Messiah.
IIl. After the NT, biblical themes are
taken up, or reinterpreted to refer to Mary
and new elements appear. Ignatius calls the
virginity of Mary and her giving birth "mys-
teries worth shouting out" (Ep. 9,1). Justin
still knows people who do acknowledge
Jesus as the Messiah, but also believe he
was conceived naturally. He and most Chris-
tians, however, believe in the virginal con-
ception (Dial. 48,4). For Irenaeus, the “sign
of the virgin," based on the LXX text of
Isa 7:14, stands over against the—in his
opinion—false translations of the term ‘almd
as “young woman” by Theodotion and
Aquila, who were followed by the Ebionites
in their conviction that Joseph was Jesus’
father (Adv. Haer. 11,21,1). Like Justin and
Irenaeus, Tertullian adduces the virgin birth
as a real birth worthy of God, as a proof of
the true humanity of Jesus, over against
gnostic docetism (De carne Christi).
After the demise of gnosticism, patristic
interest in Mary is rekindled by the rise of
asceticism. Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
VI1,16) paraphrases, and Origen (In Matt
X,17) mentions, the Protevangelium of
James, the first writing to express belief in
Mary's perpetual virginity. In the fourth
century, this motif came to be hotly debated
during the Arian struggle. The word aet
parthenos, first attested as an epithet of
550
MARY
Mary early in the fourth century in Peter of
Alexandria, is used against the Arians by
Athanasius, is found in Epiphanius,
Didymus and others (LAMPE 1961) and then
becomes most common in Greek theological
and liturgical usage. At the level of ecu-
menical councils, Mary’s virginity was con-
fessed at Constantinople in 381 and her per-
petual virginity in 553. In the Syrian East,
Ephrem's Hymni De Nativitate Domini and
others show Marian devotion; the probably
spurious Hymni de Beata Maria Virgine are
more explicit on issues like Mary's perpet-
ual virginity.
In the West, Mary's virginity is first em-
phatically defended by Hilary of Poitiers
(Comm.Matt. 1,3) and after the adoption of
the monastic ideal of virginity from the
East, upheld against opponents of that ideal
by Jerome (Adversus Helvidium, Adversus
Jovinianum) and especially Ambrose, who
has an exceptional interest in Mary as a
person (De virginibus, De virginitate, De
institutione virginis). Augustine has little
specific interest in Mary herself, but insists
on her perpetual virginity for christological
reasons, adopting Zeno of Verona’s phrase
(I 54, 11.5): virgo concepit, virgo peperit,
virgo permansit on many occasions (e.g.
Sermons 51, 170, 196, 231 etc.). The same
Zeno (I 3, X.19) also introduced the idea of
the conception through Mary’s ear; this idea
became popular in the Middle Ages (JoNES
1951).
The clauses concerning the Virgin Birth
in the Old Roman (‘Apostolic’) and the
Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed have a
purely christological intention. That the
main scope of Marian devotion in patristic
times was in fact a christological one, be-
comes quite clear through the debate on the
use of the word t/ieotokos (*God-bearing"),
first attested probably not in Hippolytus, but
in the works of Alexandrians like Origen,
Alexander and Athanasius, then in Epiphan-
ius. It is insisted upon by the Cappadocians
(Gregory of Nazianzus in Epistula 101: “If
someone does not accept holy Mary as God-
bearing, he is outside the Godhead”), and
became a subject of controversy in the fifth
century christological debate between Cyril
of Alexandria and Nestorius. The latter pro-
posed the term christotokos (‘Christ-
bearing’) as a compromise between theo-
tokos and anthrópotokos ('man-bearing', a
fourth century Antiochene term) but the
term theotokos won, first at the council of
Ephesus (431) and then at Chalcedon (451)
(Lampe 1961; Benxo 1993:250).
Latin theology put forward the thesis that
Jesus had to be conceived by a virgin be-
cause the transmission of original sin was
related to the sexual nature of human propa-
gation. Thus, the virginal conception almost
becomes a theologoumenon of Jesus’ sin-
lessness. The idea appears in a fragment on
Ps 22(23) ascribed to Hippolytus by Thco-
doret (Eranistes Florilegium I, 88; BROWN
1973:41) but is not developed until Ambrose
(e.g. Exp. Luc. 11 56 and in his commentary
on Isaiah, known through quotations by
Augustine, Contra duas epistulas Pelagia-
norum IV 29) and Augustine (especially in
the. Pelagian controversy, c.g. De nuptiis et
concupiscentia 1l 15; Opus imperfectum
contra Julianum IV 88). As a sequence to
this theologoumenon, that of Mary's own
immaculate conception arose. In the East, it
was advocated from Photius onwards; in the
West it was not articulated theologically
until Paschasius Radbertus and Anselm of
Canterbury (SóLL 1978:137, 150, 165). The
typology -Eve-Mary, first found in Justin
Martyr (Dial. 4-5) and [Irenaeus (e.g.
Adv.Haer. Ill, 22, 4), contrasts the dis-
obedience of Eve with Mary's obedience.
Irenaeus calls Mary Eve's advocate
(Adv.Haer. V, 19, 1). It stimulated the con-
viction that Mary was frce from original sin.
In the works of Ephrem the Syrian, this
typology acquired ecclesiological signifi-
cance (Murray 1971). Further thoughts on
the connection between Mary and thc
Church were developed by fathers such as
Cyprian, Augustine and others (SEYBOLD
1985:89, BENKO 1993:229).
Further Marian typologies were devel-
oped in the West on the basis of several OT
passages, leading to many more epithets for
Mary as found e.g. in the Carmen in laudem
551
MARY
sanctae Mariae ascribed to Venantius Fortu-
natus. Generally speaking, it was the alle-
gorical or ‘spiritual’ interpretation of Bibli-
cal texts, rather than the literal, which
provided opportunities to lay a Biblical basis
for mariological developments (SEYBOLD
1985:48). While the first Christian examples
of the use of this exegetical method are to
be found in the synoptic Gospels, it was first
extensively developed by Origen and the
School of Alexandria and eventually also
made fruitful for the elaboration of mariol-
ogy. Finally, Mary devotion in the West
took a new turn at the end of the patristic
period with fathers such as Leander and
Isidore of Sevilla and Ildephonse of Toledo;
the latter desired to serve Mary with a view
to serving Christ (De virginitate beatae
Mariae XII, 167, 10-19).
In the first five centuries of the Christian
era, there is no absolutely clear and explicit
testimony which gives support to the Roman
Catholic dogma of Mary's assumption, for-
mulated in 1950 (JuciE 1945:101); the first
hints come in 377 in Epiphanius, Pan. 78.
10,11,23 (BENKO 1993:241). In the fifth and
sixth centuries, apocryphal Transitus Mariae
are written which survive in a complex
cycle of texts in different ancient languages.
MiMouUNr's thesis is, that the origins of both
the traditions concerning Mary's nativity
and concerning her death must be situated in
monophysite circles in late fifth century
Jerusalem (MImMOUNI 1995). Here Mary's
death, funeral and bodily assumption into
Paradise are described. This, and the convic-
tion that the immaculacy of the Virgin
required a bodily assumption into heaven, is
the basis for the elaboration of more details
conceming the circumstances of Mary’s pas-
sing away in later tradition.
Parallels between Mary and pre-Christian
goddesses impose themselves but cannot be
traced historically. Thus it is striking that
several goddesses like Mary are called
—‘queen of heaven’ (BENKO 1993:15, 21,
51, 112, 217; the argument however hinges
on a mariological interpretation of Rev 12),
and since 323 Mary has been identified with
Virgil’s virgin (Fourth Eclogue, cf. BENKO
1993:114). Iconographic parallels between
the picture of ->Isis and -*Horus with that
of Mary and the child Jesus have also bcen
suggested (BENKO 1993:52), but all these
parallels are more phenomenological than
historically verifiable.
IV. Bibliography
S. ALVAREZ Campos, Corpus Marianum
Patristicum, 1-V] (Burgos 1970-1981); W.
BEINERT & H. Perret (eds.), Handbuch der
Marienkunde, vol. 1 (Regensburg 21996); S.
BENKO, The Virgin Goddess. Studies in the
Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology
(Leiden 1993); R. E. Brown, The Virginal
Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
(London/Dublin 1973); R. E. Brown, K. P.
DONFRIED, J. A. FITZMYER & J. REUMANN
(ed.), Mary in the New Testament (Phil-
adelphia/New York/Ramsey/Toronto 1978;
H. F. voN CAMPENHAUSEN, Die Jung-
frauengeburt in der Theologie der alten
Kirche (Heidelberg 1962); W. DeLuius,
Texte zur Geschichte der Marienverehrung
und Marienverkiindigung in der alten Kir-
che (Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und
Ubungen 178; Berlin 1956); D. Gasa-
GRANDE, Enchiridion Patristicum Biblicum
Marianum (Rome 1974); P. GnaELor, D.
FERNANDEZ, T. KOEHLER, S. DE Fiores &
R. LaunENTIN, Marie (Vierge) I-VI, Dict-
ionnaire de Spiritualité 10 (Paris 1980) col.
409-440; E. JoNEs, The Madonna's Con-
ception Through the Ear, Essays in Applied
Psychoanalysis 2 (London 1951) 266-357;
M. JucitE, La mort et l'assomption de la
Sainte Vierge. Etude historico-doctrinale
(Studi e Testi 114; Citta del Vaticano 1945);
G. W. H. Lamps, A Patristic Greek Lexi-
con, S.v. aeipartheneuó, aeiparthenia, aei-
parthenos, | anthropotokos, | christotokos,
theotokos (Oxford 1961); E. LA VERDIERE,
Mary, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity
(ed. E. Ferguson; New York/London 21997)
2.733-736; F. A. voN LEHNER, Die Marien-
verehrung in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten
(Stuttgart 1881); S. C. Mimount, Donnition
et assomption de Marie. Histoire des tradi-
tions anciennes (Pans 1995); R. MURRAY,
Mary the Second Eve in the Early Syriac
Fathers, Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971)
372-384; Murray, Symbols of Church and
Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition
552
MASHHIT — MASTEMAH
(Cambridge 1975) 144-150. 329-335; M.
O'CangoLL, Theotokos. A Theological
Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary
(Wilmington 1983); H. RAISANEN, H.
GRorE, R. FRigELING, F. CouRTH & C.
NAUERTH, Maria/ Marienfrómmigkcit I-VI,
TRE (Berlin/New York 1992) 115-161; M.
SEYBOLD (cd.), Maria im Glauben der Kir-
che (Eichstátu Wien 1985); G. SÓLL, Hand-
buch der Dogmengeschichte 1I1,4: Mariolo-
gie (Freiburg/ Basel/Wien 1978); G. SóLL,
E. PERETIO & M. ManINONE, Mary, Ency-
clopedia of the Early Church (eds. A. di
Berardino & W. H. C. Frend; Cambridge
1992) 537-540; A. WENGER, L'assomption
de la S.Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du
Vle au Xe siècle (Archives de l'Orient Chré-
tien 2; Paris 1955).
M. F. G. PARMENTIER
MASHHIT -> DESTROYER
MASTEMAH man
I. Mastemah appears as a noun mean-
ing ‘hostility’ in OT (Hos 9:7-8) and Qum-
ran writings. In Qumran literature the word
is mostly connected with an evil angel
(7*Belial) and in Jub. Mastemah is always a
proper name for the leader of the evil
angels.
II. Ma$stémá originates from the Hebrew
root STM, a by-form of $TN (WANKE 1976:
821-822; [-'Satan] cf. the noun TAD in
1QM 14:9), and occurs also in Ethiopic. It is
probable that the semantic evolution of
Mastemah is like that of "Abaddón: a noun
for a certain concept is first connected with
an -'angel whose role is linked up with the
concept and afterwards becomes the proper
name for this angel (-^Abaddon). The Qum-
ran writings form the intermediary stagc
betwecn OT and Jub. where the proper
name occurs frequently. According to MACH
(1992:81, 96) Maśtēmâ as the prince of the
demons developed from the -*Angel of
Yahweh who had to execute the punishment
of the Lord (cf. Masorah and ancient
versions of Exod 4:24 and Jub. 49:2). He
assumes that changing views of theodicy led
to the independence and demonization of
this angel. A similar reasoning may account
for the group of the Angels of Hostilities
which appears in 4Q 385-389 4-6 line 13
and 4Q 390 1 1:11; 2 1:7.
III. In the only two instances in the OT,
Hos 9:7-8, the word means ‘hostility’. In
Qumran literature mastémd occurs ten times,
sometimes in connection to Belial. In 1QS
3:23 and 4Q 286 10 2:2 the word has a pro-
nominal suffix and cannot be a proper name
(KoBELsK! 1981:45). In the dualistic col-
umns of IQS an antithesis is described
between the Prince of Light and the Angel
of Darkness (2 Belial, VoN DER OSTEN-
SACKEN 1969:116. 198). who rules all
children of falsehood, leads all children of
righteousness astray and causes their unlaw-
ful deeds (3:20-25; cf. IQM 13:10-12). 4Q
286 10 2:2 belongs to a passage with curses
against Belial and his associates. 1QM 13:4
contains an almost verbal parallel to 4Q 286
10 2:2. In these three passages mastémd
indicates the hostile scheming and activities
of Belial against the children of light in the
present (cf. IQM 14:9/4QM? 7 in the con-
text of the eschatological war). In CD 16:5
and 1QM 13:11 the phrase Mal’ak (ham-)
mastémd (‘{the] Angel of Hostility’ occurs;
KoBELsKi 1981:45 and BERGER 1981:379
suggest ‘Angel Mastemah’ as an alternative
translation in 1QM). In 1QM 13 the phrase
is clearly a designation for Belial, who is
created by the Lord to bring destruction. In
4Q 385-389 4-6 line 13 and 4Q 390 1 1:11;
2 L7 the plural Mal’aké hammastémot
occurs and these angels also seem to act
destructively during a period when the Lord
hides his face from his disobedient people
(EISENMAN & WisE 1993:54-55, 60, 62).
CD 16:5 is preceded by a reference to Jub.
according to several scholars (CD 16:2-4a).
but VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN (1969:198-
199) considers CD 16:2-4a an interpolation
and claims that CD 16:5 must be earlier
than Jub., where a more elaborate picture of
Mastemah appears. In any case the tenor of
the tradition in CD 16:4b-6 is similar to Jub.
15:32f.: every Israelite who obeys the Law
of -*Moses and is circumcised will not
suffer from the Angel of Hostility (Jub. the
evil angels). Finally the small fragment of
553
MATTER — MEDIATOR I
6Q18 9 (DJD HI p. 135) contains hardly
more than the word magstémd, which allows
for the translation ‘hostility’ as well as
'(Angel) Mastemah' (cf. also hammastéma
in 4Q 525 4 5:4).
In Jub. Mastemah is the Prince of the evil
spirits who menace mankind. He is
identified with Satan (cf. 10:8f. with 10:11;
also Acta Philippi 18; Bousset & Gress-
MANN 1926:333; BERGER 1981:379). He
saves a tenth of the demons from being
bound underground in the place of judg-
ment, in order to exercise his authority
among mankind. His evil spirits led the sons
of —Noah astray so that they committed sin,
pollution and idolatry (Jub. 11:3-7; cf.
19:28). Mastemah also urged the Lord to put
-*Abraham to the test and sacrifice Isaac
(Jub. 17:16) and helped the Egyptians in
trying to destroy Moses and his people (Jub.
48). Concerning Mastemah in the magical
papyri see BERGER (1981:379-380).
IV. Bibliography
W. BAUMGARTNER, review of P. Wemberg-
Moller, The Manual of Discipline (Leiden
1957) JSS 4 (1959) 398-399; K. BERGER,
Das Buch der Jubiläen (JSHRZ 11:3; Güters-
loh 1981) 273-575; W. Bousset & H.
GRESSMANN, Die Religion des Judentums im
späthellenistischen Zeitalter HNT 27;
Tübingen 1926) 332-334; R. H. EISENMAN
& M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Un-
covered. The First Complete Translation
and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents
Withheld for Over 35 Years (New York
1993); P. J. KoBELSKI, Melchizedek and
Melchirega‘ (CBQMS 10; Washington 1981);
M. MacH, Entwicklungsstadien des jü-
dischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer
Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tübingen 1992); J. T. MiLiK.
Milki-sedeq et Milki-reSa‘ dans les anciens
écrits juifs et chrétiens, JJS 23 (1972) 130-
135; P. voN DER OSTEN-SACKEN, Gott und
Belial. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchun-
gen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qum-
ran (SUNT 6; Góttingen 1969); G. WANKE,
300 sätān Widersacher, THAT I 1/821-823.
J. W. VAN HENTEN
MATTER —> HYLE
MAZZALOTH — CONSTELLATIONS
MEDIATOR I yn S872
I. The two Hebrew words appearing
together only in Job 33:23 are not in a con-
struct or genitive relationship (as is true of
mal'ak yhwh, -*Angel of Yahweh), for they
are either in apposition, function as poetic
parallels, or the first noun is modified by the
second adjectival participle. Mal’ak means
simply messenger or -*angel. On the other
hand, considerable difficulty has hindered
the reconciliation of the negative connota-
tions of the root Lws/Lys (‘scoff, scorn,
mock’; cf. Ps 119:51; Prov 3:34; 9:12) with
the positive interpretations of the five bibli-
cal appearances of the Aiphil participle
(‘interpreter’, Gen 42:23; ‘ambassador’ 2
Chr 32:31; ‘spokesman’ Isa 43:27; ‘medi-
ator’ Job 33:23; Job 16:20 continues to be
interpreted cither positively or negatively).
Two different roots may be present, but if
one accepts a general significance of ‘talk
freely, talk at length’, it is possible that a
single root has developed these quite distinct
meanings. Apart from Phoenician, which
depends upon Hebrew for its interpretation
in this case with its even less helpful evi-
dence (cf. KA/ 26 1.8; 49.17: CIS 1 44.12),
no other semitic language preserves the root
(pace HALAT 503 and AHW 539, lásgu is not
a loanword in Akkadian; see CAD S/1 370
Sanágu). The term designates some type of
civil office in Phoenician and Sir 10:2 (in
the latter it is subordinate to a city’s ‘judge’,
Swpt). 1QH records several occasions where
the noun is in a construct expression
(variously translated as ‘interpreter of,
spokesman of, preacher of, babbler of) with
words such as -*‘falsehood’ (2.31; 4.9),
‘error’ (2.14), ‘knowledge’ (2.6.13), and
‘deception’ (4.7,10). Because of the poor
cognate data and the few and quite diverse
contexts in which the noun appears, focus-
ing its meaning must be admitted to be an
unresolved problem.
II. If this creature’s primary duty is to
show solicitous concern for a particular
554
MEDIATOR I
human being and to intervene between a
human and ->God, Sumerian and Akkadian
sources (textual and iconographic) abundant-
ly document the central role of each
human's personal god in this capacity.
However, the Mesopotamian personal god is
not an altogether comfortable counterpart to
the figure in Job 33:23 where not every
person can be expected to encounter this
figure ("if there is..."), who here functions
as the apparent last hope of an individual in
extremis, and who takes some initiative in
communicating with humans. The personal
god in Mesopotamia, on the other hand, is
frequently the first god presumed to be petu-
lantly angry and frustrated into silence with
an individual's behaviour and one to whom
the worshipper must send other placating
deities of higher rank.
If the words of intercession in Job 33:24
are to be attributed to the mal'ak melts of v
23, it may reflect the common appearance of
lower ranking—but still quite respectable
(often a god's spouse or vizier)—Akkadian
deities, who approach higher ranking gods
to speak on behalf of a human ('to inter-
cede', abbüra sabàtu, CAD S 24-25; A/2
50). But unlike these Akkadian intercessory
deities who are typically invoked by the
human petitioner because of their particular-
ly intimate relationship with the high god in
question, in Job 33:23-24 the initiative is
entirely in the divine realm (the afflicted
man does not ask for help) and the relation-
ship of the malak mélis to God is
undefined. More appropriate to the Job con-
text, therefore, might be those deities who
on their own initiative intercede for humans,
e.g. Ishum, ‘the intercessor’ (¢nukil abbutti),
petitions the king of the underworld not to
kill a man (SAA 3 [1989] no. 32 r. 16).
However, the closest counterpart in the
ancient Near East to the activities of the
maPak mélis in Job 33:23 occurs in Ludlul
Bél Némegi, a text whose genre shows some
overlap with the book of Job. There, the
person whom -*Marduk has afflicted (cf.
Job 33:19-22 with Ludlul 11 88-96) sees four
dreams (cf. Job 33:15). In these dreams,
gods (among them Marduk) and individuals
otherwise unidentifiable send priests and
perhaps supernatural beings (-*Sons of God)
to speak to the sufferer of his impending
recovery (Ludlul 11] 9-45). As in Job 33:26-
28, the afflicted one recovers and before
men praises the god who healed him.
HI. Angelic intercession for man before
God is extremely rare in the OT (Job 5:1;
Zech 1:12), a situation that dramatically
contrasts with its frequency in later Jewish
and Christian literature (e.g. Rev 8:3-4; Tob
12:15; 7 Enoch 15:2; 39:5; 40:6; T. Levi 3:5;
T. Dan 6:2). The infrequency of angelic
intercession in the OT, where God and
humans usually converse directly with each
other, is a crucial contrast between Israelite
and Mesopotamian religion (where appeals
to interceding deities are frequent), en-
couraging caution in drawing parallels with
the personal god in the latter.
The unique appearance of the combi-
nation ma?ak mélis in Job 33:23 is made
even more problematic by its presence in a
context where there is no agreement upon
how the various characters relate to one
another. What is beyond dispute about this
figure in the text as it now stands can be
briefly summarized. 1) Because the words
maak mélis have no definite article, they
refer to an unspecified figure (‘a mal’ak, a
mélis’) whose role here could be filled by a
number of candidates; 2) Not every human
encounters such a mal’ak mélis, for a condi-
tional clause introduces his presence: “/f he
has a mal'àk mélig..."; 3) The task of a
maPak mélis at minimum encompasses the
conveyance of information about proper
conduct to humans (“to tell his uprightness
to mankind/a man”, v 23). Because of these
central facts, many comparisons commonly
made between this figure and characters
mentioned elsewhere in Job who are not so
characterized (5:1; 16:19-22; 19:25-27) must
be acknowledged to be tenuous.
Because the pronominal referents are
imprecise in this passage, it must be under-
scored that God is the primary actor in
33:13-30 (see v 29) who deals with humans
on the brink of death (‘the pit’, Sahar, vv 18,
22, 24, 28, 30): God with great forbearance
555
MEDIATOR I
wants to preserve the individual whose
recalcitrance is jeopardizing his own life.
For this reason, any comparisons are in-
appropriate that identify either ancient Near
Eastern deities who placate and intercede
with a wrathful high god for humanity’s
sake (e.g. Ishum in the Erra Epic), ox the
numerous deities who plead on behalf of
other deities held against their wil or inca-
pacitated in the underworld (InwIN 1962).
No interceding figure is needed in this pas-
sage to shield man from God's anger, for
God is not depicted as angry.
This text may contain as many as five
different clusters of participants: God, the
afflicted man, a mal'àk mélis, —angels of
death (mémitim v 22), and a group of a
thousand individuals from whom the mal’ak
mélis emerges (v 23). The thousand may
reflect a common allusion to the numerous
gods in 2nd millennium BCE texts in the Hit-
tite sphere (GEVIRTZ 1990); here of course,
they would be creatures subordinated to
God. There is no way of resolving whether
or not one is to imply the difficulty of
finding a malak mélis (i.e. only one out of a
thousand appears; cf. Tg. Jonathan; b.Shab.
32a) or the ease in finding a mal’ak mélis
Ge. only one is needed and there are so
-many -from which. to. choose). The. closest.
parallel to the passage yet identified (Ludlul
noted above) presents both humans and di-
vine beings in the role of a messenger sent
to an afflicted man, an ambiguity also in-
herent in the Heb mal’ak. Indeed, Elihu is
implicitly presenting himself as just such a
messenger from God enlightening Job.
The major problem in defining the role of
the maPàk mélís is that the speaker and the
addressee of v 24 cannot be determined with
confidence, Is it the maPak melis (as the
most recently identified actor, v 23) or God
(as the primary actor throughout the pas-
sage) who says, "Deliver him from going
down into the Pit; J] have found a ransom”
(v 24; NRSV)? And who is spoken to as the
one who should ‘deliver him’: God? the
maPak mélis? one of the angels of death (v
22)? Most scholars would like to see these
words spoken by the mal’adk mélis, in spite
of the fact that such an address to God
requires a complete reversal of the envoy's
responsibility directed toward man depicted
in v 23. Regardless of whether or not the
term. mal'ák preserves its significance of
‘messenger’ or ts a generic term for super-
natural beings, in v 23 it can only be an
envoy from God to man, not man to God,
further undermining any significant parallel
between this figure and the personal god of
Mesopotamia. In addition, it is irrelevant
whether a mal’ak-envoy is gracious or not
toward a human, for an envoy is obligated
to behave and carry out his commission as
his sender (God) has ordered. Consequently,
the first word of v 24 (“he is gracious”)—
the key to identifying the speaker of the
verse—most comfortably applies to God, the
injtiating agent throughout this passage.
It is often claimed that this figure “‘inter-
prets suffering" (e.g. Ross 1975:42)..How-
ever, nowhere does this creature interpret
anything (it informs) and any association of
mélis with the notions ‘interpret’ or ‘trans-
late’ should be avoided. Translation from
one Janguage to another is broadly and from
great antiquity attested in the Semitic lan-
guages by the quadriliteral root TRGM (GELS
1968).
IV. Although some rely upon the 7g.
Jonathan to define mélis (TDNT 5, 809), ihe
Targum's rendering of mélis by prgly?
(from Gk paraklétos, ‘advocate in court, one
pleading another’s case’) introduces later
notions into the text that are not demon-
strably there. The fact that a foreign, non-
Semitic word is used to translate the Hebrew
should alert one to the possibility that the
prqly? is an institution foreign to the OT.
The Johannine description of the —Holy
Spirit (John 16:7-11) and —Jesus (1 John
2:1) each as such a paraklétos may reflect
an interpretation of Job 33:23 along these
lines, but the quite different Hellenistic cul-
tura] milieu of the NT appears several cen-
turies too late to assist in defining what the
text of Job originally meant.
V. Bibliography
M. A. Canney, The Hebrew yn, AJSL 40
(1923-24) 135-137; R. Dr Viro, Studies n
556
MEDIATOR II
Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian
Onomastics: The Designation and Con-
ception of the Personal God (Harvard 1986);
I. J. GELB, The Word for Dragoman in the
Ancient Near East, Glossa 2 (1968) 93-104;
S. Gevirtz, Phoenician wébrt mlsm and Job
33:23, Maaray 5-6 (1990) 145-158; W. A.
IRWIN, Job’s Redeemer, JBL 81 (1962) 217-
229; H. N. RICHARDSON, Some Notes on
r? and its Derivatives, VT 5 (1955) 163-
179; RICHARDSON, Two Addenda to “Some
Notes on r^? and its Derivatives", VT 5
(1955) 434-436; J. F. Ross, Job 33:14-30:
The Phenomenology of Lament, JBL 94
(1975) 38-46; H. VoRLANDER, Mein Gott.
Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im
Alten Orient und im Alten Testament
(AOAT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975).
S. A. MEIER
MEDIATOR II pecite
I. The term mesités originates from
Hellenistic legal terminology and was usual-
ly a technical term for a mediator or inter-
mediary between two or more parties, such
as the peace negotiator, the arbitrator
between two legal parties, the witnesses in a
legal transaction, the neutral party with
whom a disputed object could be deposited,
or the guarantor (sec SCHULTESS 1931 and
OEPKE 1942). Especially in the Hellenistic-
Jewish sphere mesités is also used figurat-
ively for the mediator between people (cf.
Josephus, Ant 16,24), and between mankind
and -*God.
In the NT mesités occurs 6 times, twice
(Gal 3:19-20) in reference to -*Moses as a
mediator of the law, and four times to
—'Christ as mediator between mankind and
God (1 Tim 2:5) or as mediator of the new
or better covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).
II. ‘Mediators’ occur in various religious
contexts. In the Ancient Near Eastern con-
text of Israel, both the sacral Kingdom and
the priesthood were mediators between the
divine world and mankind. If we are pri-
marily concerned here with the connection
between mankind and gods, then the subdi-
vince mediating powers such as -*demons,
gods of the —heavens and -*stars, and other
lower gods also frequently have an ordering
function in the cosmos.
The significance of mediators is above all
reflected explicitly where the great dis-
tance—or even the contrast—between the
mortal world and the divine sphere makes it
seem necessary to bridge the gap. In this
respect, the demonic in Plato's Symp 203a,
for example, is just such a necessary mediat-
ing being (metaxy esti) between gods and
mankind, since God and man had no direct
contact (tieos de anthrópói ou meignytai).
The daimonion conveys to the gods the
prayers and sacrifices of mankind and in
turn passes on to mankind the gods' com-
mands and the benefits they give in return
for the sacrifices "so that the universe is
bound together” (Symp. 202c). Plato particu-
larly stresses that there are many such inter-
mediary demons. The idea of only one
specific mediator does not occur until very
late in classical antiquity, and then relatively
rarely. Its prerequisite is probably the ‘spiit-
antike Drang zum Monotheismus' (NILSSON
1974:577), advocated by philosophy and, at
least equally strongly, by the political entity
of the imperial monarch. The ~one God,
increasingly regarded as transcendent, be-
came inaccessible for the everyday problems
of mankind; correspondingly, the need grew
for a mediator to be the side of godhood that
was accessible to the world. Pagan refer-
ences to such a divine mediator can be
found, for example, in inscriptions in Asia
Minor, in which the highest god was as-
signed a second god as theios, theios
-angelos or theios angelikos (see NILSSON
1963).
Significantly, however, the term mesités
has hardly come down to us at all in this
context. The earliest example is to be found
in Plutarch’s /s et Os 46 (369c), where the
Persian Mithras is called rnesires. Plutarch
explains this as meaning that Mithras stands
between the good god Ahura Mazda and the
evil god Ahriman (meson d' amphoin). This
probably is a reference to the celestial god's
cosmic role as mediator between the op-
posing powers. Further details, however,
557
MEDIATOR II
about Mithras teaching mankind the appro-
priate way to deal with these gods, suggest
that, at least in Plutarch, Mithras is seen also
as a mediator between the mortal and the
divine spheres. At the same time, Mithras ìs
the god of amicable ties among mankind, as
indeed his name implies ('contract). This
last, almost legal sense is applied to the
(love) god in Ps-Lucian, Amor 47, as
mesites, 1e. as guarantor and covenanter of
the mutual passion felt by Pylades and
Orestes. It is even more clearly applicable in
Diodorus Siculus 4,54,7, where, after the
murder of her children, Medea encumbers
~Heracles with being the guarantor of a
contract (mesités tōn homologión). ln this
respect, in early Judaism, too, God can be
called mesités, as a guarantor and coven-
anter of an oath or a contract (Josephus, Ant.
4,133; cf. also Philo, SpecLeg. 4,31).
HI. In the OT, too, there are figures who
function as mediators. In addition to a king
such as David, chosen by God, or a prophet
such as Jeremiah, there is of course
Moses, who conveys God’s will to the
Israelites and, in tom, appears before
—Yahweh on behalf of the people, and
intercedes for them (cf. Exod 20:19; Num
21:7; Deut 18:16).
But even though Moses' role as mediator
is repeatedly emphasised, the term 'medi-
ator’ is, significantly, not applied to him or
to any other figure in the OT. The only time
that the word mesites occurs in the LXX is
Job 9:33, and there it 1s to lament the very
Jack of a mesités as an arbitrator (mékiah)
between God and mankind.
Since the idea of a specific mediator
between the mortal and the divine world
suggests itself primarily in connection with
the concept of a monotheistic, transcendent
God, it is not surprising that the term
mesités occurs in this sense in the Hellen-
istic-Jewish sphere, where Israelite mono-
theism combines with Greek metaphysics.
Here, there is reference to a mesités in the
sense of a religious mediator, although also
relatively rarely. This designation is primari-
ly conferred on Moses. In Vir Mos 2,166,
Philo refers to him directly as mediator and
558
reconciler (mesités kat diallaktés) or as
protector and intercessor (kédemdn kai
paraitétés), when, on the mountain, he hears
of the apostasy of the people and thereupon
intercedes on this people’s behalf before
God. In Rer Div Her 205-206 the Alexan-
drian religious philosopher, calls God’s
Logos his chief messenger and —-arch-
angel (archangelos) who stands on the bor-
der and separates the creature from the
Creator. Thus standing ontologically and
physically between God and mankind, he is
guarantor for both with both, almost be.
coming the guarantor of the cosmic order:
he “is neither uncreated as God, nor created
as you, but midway between the two ex-
tremes (mesos t6n akron), a surety to both
sides; to the parent, pledging the creature
that it should never altogether rebel against
the rein and choose disorder rather than
order; to the child, warranting his hopes that
the merciful God wil] never forget His own
work. For I am the harbinger of peace to
creation from that God whose will is to
bring wars to an end, who is ever the guard-
ian of peace” (Rer Div Her 206). Philo is
not alone in his deification of Moses: in a
Greek fragment of Ass.Mos. 1:14, Moses
says of himself that even before the creation
of tbe world he was ordained by God to be
the mediator of his covenant, In Rabbinic
literature, too, Moses is repeatedly referred
to as sarsér (= mesités), although here the
mediating function is largely restricted to
the handing down of the ~Torah (see Str-B
3,556).
It is chiefly in Hellenistic Judaism. that
Moses as a mediator can become a super-
human, semi-godlike figure of salvation.
This position is also granted to angels (as,
indeed, when Philo once calls Moses
archangelos) |n Somn 1,142-13 Philo
twice uses the term mesités to refer to
angels as functionally mediating and onto-
logically ‘intermediate beings, needed by
mankind because it could not endure the
direct confrontation with God. The parallel
use of logoi to refer to these angels and the
comment that the other philosophers call
these angels demons (Somn 1,41) show that.
MEDIATOR II
the chief influence on Philo here is Plato.
Probably of greater significance for the early
Jewish concept of an angel as mediator is
TDan 6:2 (T.12 Patr.). The closing exhor-
tation of this testament calls for a tuming
(eggizein) towards God ‘and towards his
angel’. Here, then, is a second figure besides
God, characterised as a mediator between
God and mankind (mesités theou kai
anthrópón). This mediating function ex-
presses itself in two ways: on the one hand
this angel intercedes with God for Israel,
and on the other he fights for the ‘peace of
Israel’ against the ‘realm of the enemy’ and
strengthens God's people in times of crisis
(TDan 6:2-6). Here, too, it is a single,
unique mediator, standing between God and
mankind as the ‘angel of peace’ (7Dan 6:5)
and, by means of mediation, bringing about
shalom. It is particularly remarkable that this
mediator becomes the object of religious
worship alongside God.
By adopting the idea of a mediator,
Christianity is following in the footsteps of
Judaism. As far as Gal 3:19-20 is concerned,
by saying that Moses was a mediator for the
law, Paul was giving expression to a view
widely held at that time in Judaism. The
only new aspect is that Paul does not use
this idea of a mediator (or the involvement
of the angels) to increase the value of the
Torah, but instead to relativise it inasmuch
as the Torah thereby lacks the directness of
the promises made to Abraham by God
himself. The meaning of the ensuing sen-
tence (v 20) is a subject of dispute: “A
mediator, however, is not needed for one;
but God is one". The most likely explana-
tion of this sentence sees mesités here as a
representative of the (many) angels who,
according to 3:19, ordained the Torah. This
again underlines that the Torah does not have
its direct origin in God, because he is -*onc
and therefore does not need a mediator.
By contrast, there is a positive, christo-
logical application of the mediator concept
in 1 Tim 2:5-6 and Hebr 8:6; 9:15; 12:24. In
1 Tim 2:5-6, a liturgical piece, it says: “For
there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man -*Jesus -*Christ,
who gave himself as a ransom for all". This
clearly takes up the carly Jewish speculation
about mediators described above, specu-
lation which claimed that it was precisely
the relationship produced by the mediator
between God and mankind that bestowed
salvation. What is new is the reason for this
position as mediator: the atoning death of
Jesus, who despite his role as the bringer of
universal salvation (hyper pantdn) is here
pointedly called a ‘man’.
Half of all the New Testament references
to mesités are to be found in the Letter to
the Hebrews (Hebr 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), and
they are all in conjunction with diathéké in
the objective genitive. Just as the quali-
fication of this covenant emphasises that it is
a ‘better’ (8:6 cf. 7:22) or ‘new’ covenant
(9:15; 12:24), all three references anti-
thetically underline the superiority of the
covenant conveyed by the mesités Jesus
Christ over the hitherto covenant. The cor-
responding phrase in Heb 7:22, that Jesus is
a ‘surety (eggyos) of a better covenant’, sug-
gests that the term mesités in Heb should
also be assigned its original juridicial mean-
ing of ‘guarantor’ (cf. also Josephus Ant
4,133): the new covenant is at the same time
guaranteed by Jesus as the true high priest.
This interpretation of mesités is also corrob-
orated by the verb mesiteud (as a NT hapax
legomenon) in Hebr 6:17, where it says that
God “confirmed the immutability of his
counsel by an oath".
Irenaeus also takes up the Hellenistic-
Jewish idea of the mediator when in Ad.
Haer. 3, 18, 7 he makes the point that a
mediator between God and mankind is
required in order to make God known.
According to Clement of Alexandrina Paed
3,1, the logos is ‘mediator’ to both God and
mankind—as son and servant to God, and as
—saviour and teacher to mankind. On the
whole, however, it is noticeable that the
concept of mediator which had became so
important in later dogmatic theology is rela-
tively rarely used even in early Christianity.
Perhaps this is connected with the original
juridical character of the concept. But pre-
sumably the obvious association of a semi-
559
MELCHIZEDEK
divine, ontologically intermediate being with
regard to Christ was also felt to be some-
what problematic.
IV. Bibliography
K. GOLDAMMER & K. H. RENGSTORF, RGG?
4 1063-1065; R. MERKELBACH, Mithras
(Königstein/Ts. 1984) esp. 27; M. P. NILS-
SON, Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2
(München 19743) 576-578; M. P. NILSSON,
The High God and the Mediator, HTR 56
(1963) 101-120; A. OEPKE, TWNT 4 (1942)
602-629; D. SANGER, EWNT 2 (1981) 1010-
1012; J. SCHARBERT, Heilsmittler im AT und
im Alten Orient (Freiburg 1964) 82-02, 242-
244; F. J. Scnyerse, Mittler, Handbuch
theologischer Grundbegriffe 2 169-172;
SCHULTESS, Mesites, PW 15/1 (1931) 1097-
1099; C. Spica, Notes de Lexicographie
Néotestamentaire 2 (OBO 22,2; Fribourg/
Gdtttingen 1978) 549-552.
R. FELDMEIER
MELCHIZEDEK p7w2555 MeXyesek
J. The name of Melchizedek appears
twice in the OT, viz. Gen 14:18 and Ps
110:4, and eight times in the NT, viz.
Hebrews (where Ps 110:4 is quoted or al-
luded to five times). The meaning of the
name is either ‘my king is righteousness’ or
‘my king is 2Zedek'; probably ‘king’ refers
to a deity and ‘nghteousness’ is a divine
attribute or ‘Zedek’ is the name of the deity
(cf. malk?él, Gen 46:17; Num 26:45; 1 Chr
7:31; and malkiya, e.g. Jer 21:1). It is a
theophonc name. Outside the Bible the
name of Melchizedek plays an important
part in Jewish and Christian sources depend-
ing on the biblical data. The so-called
Melchizedekians regarded him as a divine
figure.
H. In Gen 14:8-20 the brief narrative of
—Abraham's meeting with Mclchizedek is
inserted in another story, viz. the meeting of
Abraham and the king of Sodom, and prob-
ably placed here in order to give a parallel
to that story. Melchizedek is introduced as
king of Salem, probably Jerusalem (cf. Ps
76:3; Josephus, Ant. Y 180) and as priest of
the god —Most High (72] *elyón, probably a
560
—
Canaanite deity), the creator of heaven
and earth (also a Canaanite epithet, see
WESTERMANN 1979:243). The combination
of kingship and priesthood is not unknown
in the ancient Near East. In a Phoenician in-
scription (KAZ 13) both Tabnit and Eshmv-
neser are presented as royal priests: “priest
of —Ashtarte and king of the Sidonians",
Melchizedek supported Abraham with food
and wine and conferred the blessing of his
god upon him. Abraham in his tum gave
Melchizedek a tithe of the booty. The story
reflects the encounter of the nomadic relig-
ion of the patriarchs with the established
cultic religion of the town and the recogni-
tion of the precedence of the latter. In the
present context the god Most High is identi-
fied with ^ Yahweh (cf. Gen 14:22) and the
story is understood as a sign of divine sup-
port and encouragement for Abraham.
Another occurrence of Melchizedek is
found in Ps 110:4. The psalm is a song for
the enthronement of a ruler, probably a king
(though the word 'king' is not used), in
Jerusalem (cf. ‘Zion’? in v 2). The text
abounds in textual and exegetical problems
(cf. Kraus 1960:752-764; Horton 1976:
23-34). Recent scholarship locates the psalm
in the time of the early Israelite kingship
(M. GILBERT & S. Pisano, Bib 61 (1980)
356). It contains two oracles in which the
king-to-be is directly addressed, probably by
a prophet, viz. in v 1 and v 4. The former is
the enthronement-formula which guarantees:
divine support for the new king, the latter,
introđuced by a divine oath, declares him to
be priest for ever as well. His priesthood is
defined as ‘in’ or ‘after the manner of
Melchizedek’ (‘al dibrat? malki-sedeq). The
exact meaning of this phrase is hard to
establish. It may mean ‘in the line of Mel-
chizedek’, i.e. inheriting the priesthood of
Melchizedek, ‘like Melchizedek’, or ‘on ac-
count of Melchizedek’. The common trans-
lation ‘order’ is due to the LXX where ‘al
dibráti is rendered kata tén taxin. Probably
the formula shows that the kings of Israel,
beginning with David, inherited the tradition
of the priest-king of pre-Israelite Jerusalem.
This connection between kingship and
VASA TU uius
MELCHIZEDEK
priesthood apparently did not last very long
since no king of Judah was called priest and
allusions to priestly conduct are limited to
David and Solomon (cf. 2 Sam 6:14.18;
24:17; 1 Kgs 8:14.56: Kraus 1960:760;
BERNHARDT 1992:416). The title ‘priest
forever’ is not found again until 1 Macc
14:41.
The only other reference to Melchizedek
in the Bible is in Heb 7. The very special
interpretation of Gen 14 and Ps 110 pre-
sented there cannot be understood without
taking into account contemporaneous Mel-
chizedek interpretations in Jewish sources,
viz. (a) Josephus, (b) Philo, and (c) Qumran.
Together with (d) Hebrews they present a
very composite picture of Melchizedek.
In Josephus, War V1 438 Melchizedek is
mentioned as a Canaanite chief (dynastés).
His Hebrew name is not mentioned but
translated into Greek as ‘righteous king’ and
this shows that Melchizedek is meant.
According to Josephus, Melchizedek was
the first one to build the temple and to act as
priest of »God. In Anz. I 179-181 the story
of Gen 14:18-20 is told with some minor
embellishments. The name of Melchizedek
is mentioned and again translated as
‘righteous king’. Josephus adds that by com-
mon consent this was what he was and that
for that reason Melchizedek was made priest
of God. In both places Melchizedek is
described as king and priest, i.e. as an his-
torical person.
Philo mentions Melchizedek in three
places: De Abr. 235, De Congr. 99, and Leg.
All. IH 79-82. In De Abr. 235 the story of
Gen 14:18-20 is retold and embellished.
Melchizedek is called ‘the great priest of the
Most High God’: thinking that Abraham's
success was due to divine wisdom and help,
he stretched his hands to heaven and hon-
oured him with prayers and offered
sacrifices on his behalf and entertained him
and his men lavishly. In the subsequent alle-
gorical interpretation of the story of Abra-
ham's warfare (Gen 14:1-24) Melchizedek
is not mentioned again: he acts as an histori-
cal person only. In De Congr. 99 Melchi-
zedek is mentioned in an excursus on the
number ten (89-120) with reference to the
fact that Abraham gave him one tenth of
everything (Gen 14:20). This is interpreted
metaphorically: ‘everything’ comprises the
things of sense, speech and thought. Melchi-
zedek is identified as the man who obtained
the self-learned and self-taught priesthood,
probably because no priest is mentioned
before him in the Bible and later priesthood
is not derived from him. In Leg. All. HI 79-
82 Melchizedek is presented as an example
of people who are honoured by God without
having done beforehand something to please
Him. He was made king by God and he was
the first to be worthy to be his priest. Philo
contrasts this king with a despot (tyrannos)
who is identified as ‘mind’ (nous) and
decrees things that cause hurt, pain, wicked-
ness and indulgence of passions. The king
does not decree but persuades and exhorts
people to let themselves be governed by the
king as the good pilot who is the ‘right rea-
son’ (orthos logos), at the same time a
moral principle and the principle of divine
wisdom. Melchizedek as the ‘righteous
king’ is the incorporation of the ‘right rea-
son’. He is the prince of peace and brings
bread and wine as food for the souls. The
wine serves to make them participants of
divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety
itself. The king-priest who is logos
(Logos), viz. ho orthos logos, has God as
his ‘lot’ (k/éros) and thinks highly and sub-
limely of Him and calls up a ‘picture’ or
‘image’ (emphasis) of the Most High. In
Philo's perspective Melchizedek as a king
and priest does not cease to be an historical
person but at the same time serves as the
embodiment of the divine orthos logos and
transcends history.
In the Qumran texts Melchizedek is men-
tioned twice. In 1QapGen 22 the story of
Gen 14:18-20 is translated more or less lit-
erally with some minor additions. Melchi-
zedek is represented as an historical person
without comment or interpretation of his
name. Far more important and intriguing is
1 1QMelch, consisting of 13 fragments. In it
Melchizedek plays a central role. The many
lacunae make a conclusive interpretation
561
MELCHIZEDEK
virtually impossible. The text has the form
of an eschatological midrash in which the
liberation prophesied in Isa 61:1-7 is de-
scribed in terms of the restoration of proper-
ty during the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:13).
The deliverer is Melchizedek. The ‘year of
the Lorp’s favour’ (Isa 61:2) is called ‘the
year of the favour of (or: for) Melchizedek’.
This liberation implies the judgment of the
nations according to Pss 7:8 and 82:1. In the
pesher of Ps 82:1 the opening word 'élóhím
is interpreted as referring to Melchizedek (l.
10) since the preceding ‘aldyw clearly refers
to him. ’éléhim is not understood as God but
as a divine being. Whether the second
’élohim in Ps 82:2 is interpreted as referring
to divine beings who belong to the court of
Melchizedek or to -^demonic beings who
are judged by him is not certain. The former
seems preferable. The ‘inheritance of Mel-
chizedek’ (1. 5) and ‘the men of the lot of
Melchizedek' (l. 8) probably refer to the
captives who will be liberated by Melchi-
zedek. This divine liberation is expected to
take place at the end of the tenth Jubilee (1.
7) on the Day of Atonement. The verb KPR
occurs in l. 8 and possibly also in l. 6 but in
neither place is it clear whether Melchizedek
is the priestly agent of atonement. In 1. 15-
16 Isa 52:7 (// Nah 2:2) is quoted and 'he
who brings good news' (mbá$r) is interpreted
as 'the anointed by the Spirit (mšyh rah).
This may be understood as an allusion to the
‘anointed prince’ of Dan 9:25 or to the
prophet upon whom the spirit of the LoRD
God is (Isa 61:1), probably the former.
Whether this ‘anointed one’ is identical with
Melchizedek is doubtful.
The early Christians made use of Psalm
110 for christological reasons. The hymn
was seen as the scriptural proof for the exal-
tation of -»Christ (cf. e.g. Mark 14:62 parr;
Acts 2:34-35; 1 Cor 15:25) but only in
Hebrews the reference to Melchizedek and
his priesthood are used as part of the ar-
gument concerning the highpriesthood of
Christ. Basically Melchizedek plays a her-
meneutical role in Hebrews in order to
establish the supremacy of that high priest-
hood over the priesthood of the tabernacle.
The description of Melchizedek in 7:1-3
consists of the following four sections: (1) A
summary of Gen 14:18-20 (v 1-2a): relevant
to the argument are the blessing of Abraham
by Melchizedek and the giving of one tenth
of everything to Melchizedek by Abraham,
since they show that Melchizedek was su-
perior to Abraham and, implicitly, to his
descendants Levi and the Levite priesthood.
Because of the relationship of Melchizedek
and the ~Son of God this superiority also
applies to Christ; (2) An interpretation of the
name as ‘king of righteousness’ and ‘king of
peace’ (v 2b): this resembles the interpre-
tation of Philo and Josephus and suggests a
common exegetical tradition but plays no
part in the argument. (3) A series of
qualifications in the negative (v 3a): "with-
out father, without mother, without geneal-
ogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life". They are not mentioned in Gen
14 or Ps 110 nor in Philo, Josephus and or
1!QMelch. Since nothing of this is trans-
parent in Gen 14 these qualifications may
have been deducted e silentio, according to
the rule quod non in Thora non in mundo.
In Greek sources apatór and amétór are
often used with reference to the non-human
origin of gods (G. SCHRENK, TWAT 5
[1954] 1021-1022; WiLLIAMSON 1970:20-
23). In the argument the qualifications serve
to establish the permanent nature of Melchi-
zedek’s priesthood (v 3c). Apart from that
they presuppose Melchizedek to be some
sort of a divine being. (4) A description of
the relationship between Melchizedek and
the Son of God by the participle
aphómoiómenos (v 3b) the introductory
particle de suggests that this statement
serves to qualify the preceding picture of
Melchizedek. He is not a divine being in his
own right but he is "made to be like the Son
of God" as described in 1:1-14. The Son of
God is the type and Melchizedek is the anti-
type. He appears on the one hand as a
human and historical king and on the other
hand as a more-than-human being re-
sembling, and in a sense representing, the
eternal Son of God. Over-all the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews combines the
562
MELQART
biblical traditions concerning Melchizedek
with a tradition of Melchizedek as a divine
being (perhaps similar to 11QMelch) to
serve his hermeneutical and theological pur-
ose.
P The traditions conceming Melchizedek
described so far have given rise to various
speculations both in Jewish and Christian
sources which testify to his deification. The
evidence for these Melchizedekian sects is
collected and interpreted in ATTRIDGE
(1989:194-195) and HorTon (1976:87-147).
III. Bibliography
H. W. ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (Philadelphia 1989) 186-197; K.
H. BERNHARDT, T. WILLI & H. Batz,
Melchisedek, TRE 22 (1992) 414-423 [&
lit]; *F. L. HORTON, The Melchizedek Tra-
dition (Cambridge 1976); M. DE JoNGE &
A. S. VAN DER WOUDE, 11Q Melchizedek
and the New Testament, NTS 12 (1972)
301-326; *P., J. KoBELSKI, Melchizedek and
MelchireSa‘ (Washington 1981); H. J.
Kraus, Psalmen (BKAT XV/2; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1960) 752-764; O. MICHEL,
Melchisedek, TWNT 4 (1942) 573-575; J. T.
MiLiX, Milgi-Sedeq et Milki-Resa dans les
anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens (D), JJS 23
(1972) 95-144; H. F. Weiss, Der Brief an
die Hebrder (Gottingen 1991) 371-387; C.
‘WESTERMANN, Genesis (BKAT 1/2; Neu-
kirchen- Vluyn 1977) 213-246; R. WILLIAM-
son, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Leiden 1970); A. S. VAN DER WOUDE,
Melchisedek als himmlische Erlósergestalt
in den neugefundenen eschatologischen
Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI, OTS 14
(1965) 354-373.
J. REILING
MELQART TN Jon ‘King of Tyre’
. l The meaning of the name Melgart is
‘generally acknowledged to be ‘King of the
City’. Since Melqart appears as the city god
‘of 1st millennium BCE Tyre, the ‘City’, grt,
jdn question is mostly identified as a desig-
nation of Tyre. However, in view of the
"Chtonic Character of Melqart (the deity is
quated with >Nergal, cf. RAAM 194-195),
B
S `
the ‘City’ could also be interpreted as a eu-
phemism of the underworld, called “the
great city”, iri.gal, Akk Jrkallu, in the Mes-
opotarnian tradition.
Melqart is usually identifed with the
Greek (or Roman) -Heracles (Hercules).
His character is that of a city god; his myths
portray him as a herós. The identification of
this god with the ‘king of Tyre’ mentioned
in Ezekiel’s prophecy against Tyre (Ezek
28:1-19) makes good sense. According to
some scholars, the ~Baal worshipped on the
Mount Carmel and mocked by — Elijah (1
Kgs 18:20-40) should be identified as the
Tyrian Melqart. References to the ‘Tyrian
Heracles’, finally, are found in 2 Macc 4:18-
20.
Melqart occurs several times outside the
Bible, in Semitic epigraphy, both as a divine
name and as theophoric element in personal
names. Besides, he is quoted by his title
‘Baal of Tyre’; it is from Greek and Latin
sources, however, that we derive the major
part of our knowledge concerning his cult
and his mythical stories.
IH. The god of Tyre, Melqart is men-
tioned for the first time in an Aramaic
inscription upon a stele from the ninth/
eighth century BCE found North of Aleppo
(KAT 201). On this stele dedicated by Bir
_ Hadad, king of Aram, ; Melgart has the insig-
nia of a warrior god. As 4Mi-il-ga-ar-tu he
js attested in the seventh century BCE treaty
between Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and
Baal, king of Tyre, as one of the divine
guarantors, together with the chief deity of
Sidon, ~Eshmun. These two deities will
punish the treaty breaker by destroying his
land, enslaving his people, and depriving
him of food, clothing and oil (SAA 2, 5
iv:14; ANET, 534). A ninth century BCE
treaty between Ashur-Nerari V and Matiel
of Arpad might be restored on the basis of
this Esarhaddon treaty as: ‘Ditto by M[elqart
and Esh]mun’ (SAA 2, 2 vi:22); if this res-
toration is correct, the text would contain
the oldest evidence of Melqart. In Phoenicia
he is attested as mlgrt bsr, ‘Melgart in Tyre’
(BorpDREUIL 1990:19). A bilingual inscrip-
tion from Malta (KAI 47; second century
563
MELQART
BCE), shows that Melqart/Heracles was
specifically considered the b'/ sr, 'Baal of
Tyre’, or, as the Greek has it, its Gpynyétng.
‘tutelary hero: eponymous ancestor’, of his
own city. Epigraphical, archaeological and
classical records prove also that Melqart had
a remarkable role in the religious ideology
of the commercial expansion of Tyrians
westward throughout the Mediterranean
world, and that his cult was very popular in
all Phoenician colonies, from Cyprus to
Malta. from Carthage to the whole of North
Africa, from Sardinia to Iberia (Cadiz esp.).
According to Cicero (Nar. deor. lll 42)
and Philo Byblius (in Eusebius, P.E. I 10,
27), Melqart is a descendant of Uranus, son
of —^Zcus Demarous and Asteria (the Phoen-
ician -*Astarte). Nonnos of Panopolis (Dio-
nys. XL 311-580) links him with the foun-
dation of Tyre, while Herodotus (II 44) says
that his sanctuary was founded at the same
time as the city. This historian gives also
some precious data on the cult of the Tyrian
Heracles (esp. about rites and the two pillars
in his temple), a personage to whom, Hero-
dotus says, the Tyrian people paid homage
as if to a hero, i.e. as if to one who had
died, onec who was originally mortal. An
important passage of Menander Ephesius
(quoted by Josephus, Ant. Jud. VIII 146)
informs us that Hiram, the king of Tyre con-
temporary with Solomon, pulled down the
ancient temples and erected new ones to
Heracles and Astarte; the same king was the
first to celebrate the ‘awakening’ (Gk
Éyepoig) of Heracles, in the month of
Peritios (February-March). Other references
in classical literature inform us about this
annual festival, which from many points of
view recalls analogous cultic situations in
honour of other dying and rising gods (cf.
-*Adonis and Eshmun). It was probably the
greatest festival of Melqart: the god, burnt
with fire, as the Greek hero, was brought to
life by means of a hierogamic rite with his
divine partner Astarte, through the partici-
pation of a particular celebrant, the mgm
"Im, ‘awakener of deity’ (cf. perhaps the
éyepoeims of the Greek inscriptions). The
myth runs parallel to this rite, describing the
god’s disappearance and return (Athenaeus
IX 392 D and Zenobius, Cent. V 56). Ac-
cording to these traditions Heracles/Melqart
was slain by the Libyan ->Typhon and re-
called to life by his friend Iolaos, who
caused him to smell a roasted quail. In this
connection one can also recall the gold
lamina from the fifth century BCE, found at
Santa Severa (Pyrgi, Southern Etruria) in a
sanctuary of the Etruscan goddess Uni; it
was dedicated to the Phoenician Astarte.
The inscription mentions “the day of the
burial of (an unnamed) deity”, ym gbr ’Im,
ie. perhaps, a ceremony of mourning for
Melgart (KA/ 277:8-9).
The evidence suggests that Melqart was
originally at home in the traditions about
deified kings and royal ancestors known
from Bronze Age Syria (-*Malik), gradually
evolving towards thc figure of a divinc foun-
der of towns and culture hero, then becom-
ing a cosmic Lord, who grants prosperity
(BONNET 1988).
HI. It is generally admitted that the figure
of Melqart and the forms of his cult are
reflected in Ezekiel’s oracle against the king
of Tyre (Ezek 28:1-19). This passage con-
sists of two different sections (vv I-10 and
11-19), both referring to the same per-
sonage. The ‘prince of Tyre’ is a self-styled
god who claims superior wisdom. The
prophet compares the situation of the Tyrian
king to that of the first man in the garden of
Eden, and his fall to the fall of Adam. The
king deserved his punishment because he
had aspirations to become the equal of God.
In the mythical context of Ezek 28, it is
quite legitimate to look for allusions to
Melqart, the divine 'King of the city’. The
prince lives in a garden, being "clothed with
all kind of precious stones" (v 12) this
reminds one of the clothes of the Tyrian
god, "brightly decorated with the stars",
according to Nonnos of Panopolis (Dionvs.
XL 367-369.408-423.578-579). The prince
is said to owe his riches to trade, which
appears to allude to Melqart's importance in
the Tyrian maritime trade and colonization.
The stones of fire in the midst of which he
walked (v 14), and the fire which - Yahweh
564
MENELAOS
brought forth from the midst of the prince,
to consume him (v 18), are perhaps an al-
lusion to the burial-service of the Phoenician
god, whom the Pseudo-Clementine Recogni-
tiones X 24 calls "burned and buned in
Tyre".
Most scholars agree that the ‘Baal’
honoured by Queen Jezebel, the Phoenician
wife of Ahab, and introduced mto Israel by
her (see 1 Kgs 16-18 and Josephus, Ant.
Jud. VIII 317), was in fact Melqart. On the
basis of this identification the cult of Baal
on Mt. Carmel, celebrated by his four hun-
dred and fifty prophets (1 Kgs 18:20-40), is
interpreted as a cult of Melqart. DE VAUX
(1971:238-251) interprets the rites and the
performances of the prophets m this narra-
tive, and even Elijah’s closing words of v 27
(“Perhaps he [= Baal] is asleep and must be
awakened”), as elements of and allusions to
the practice of the ‘awakening’ of Melqart.
But the question is still subject of debate
(BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1992), and other
scholars prefer to see here the ceremonies
for the god of Mt. Carmel, a local form of a
Storm-God or Sky-God, identified as Zeus
of Heliopolis/Baalbek by a Greek second
century CE inscription from this site
(?Carmel).
_ A trace of Melqart’s worship at Tyre may
also be found in 2 Macc 4:18-20, which tells
‘that during the second century BCE, every
five years games were celebrated in Tyre in
honour of the local Heracles, 1e. Melqart.
. Most probably the king was present at these
games and the rulers or heads of neighbour-
ing states, peoples and provinces sent repre-
‘sentatives bearing rich gifts; sacrifices were
-also offered to Heracles (MORGENSTERN
:1960:162-163; BONNET 1988:57-58).
"IV. Bibliography
PC. Bonnet, Melgart. Cultes et mythes de
Hl ‘Héraclés tyrien en Méditerranée (Studia
-Phoenicia 8; Namur/Leuven 1988) [& lit);
iP. BompmEum, A propos de Milkou,
t Milqart et Milk'ashtart, Maarav 5-6 (1990)
1-2]; F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Les rela-
nions entre les cités de la côte phénicienne
set les royaumes d'Israël et de Juda (Studia
“Phoenicia 12; Leuven 1992) 303-313 (& lit);
Xe.
R. pe Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient
Near East (Garden City 1971) 238-25]; J.
Dus, Melek Sér-Melqart? (Zur Interpreta-
tion von Ez 28,11-19), ArOr 26 (1958) 179-
185; H. J. KATZENSTEIN, Phoenician Deities
Worshipped in Israel and Judah During the
Time of the First Temple, Studia Phoenicia
XI. Phoenicia and the Bible (ed. E. Lipinski;
Leuven 1991) 187-191; J. MORGENSTERN,
The King-God among the Western Semites
and the Meaning of Epiphanes, VT 10
(1960) 138-197; H. H. RowLeEY, Men of
God. Studies in Old Testament History and
Prophecy (London-Edinburgh 1963) 37-65.
S. RIBICHINI
MENELAOS MevéAaoc
I. The name of Menelaos, the husband
of Helen, is borne by the emissary of the
hellenising high priest —Jason at 2 Macc
4:23 who supplanted him ca. 172/1 Bce. He
precanously maintained a successful rela-
tionship with Antiochos IV Epiphanes and
subsequently Antiochos V Eupator until
finally, around 163 BCE, the latter had him
executed (2 Macc 13:3-8). Menelaos’ name
is of a common Greek type: he who puts
*might' (uévoc) into the 'army' (Xaóc).
I. The story of Menelaos centres on the
Trojan War. He exists in order to have
Helen stolen from him by Paris and,
together with his brother Agamemnon, to
recover her having wreaked awful venge-
ance upon the Trojans. The recovery of a
maiden by her twin brothers/husbands ap-
pears to be an Indo-European myth for
which there are Sanskrit and Latvian paral-
lels, though this myth is more closely
instantiated in stories of the twin —Dios-
kouroi recovering Helen from e.g. Theseus
(Warp 1968: ch. ii; PUHVEL 1987:141-143;
WEST 1975:8-12).
Around this kernel, the picture of his life
is elaborated as follows. When Thyestes
kills their father Atreus and takes his king-
dom, Menelaos and Agamemnon are re-
stored by Tyndareus (Apollodoros, Epitome
2:15). He was the succesful wooer of Tyn-
dareus' daughter Helen (as was Agamemnon
565
MENI
of Helen's sister Clytaemestra). All the
suitors took an oath to protect Helen and her
husband from wrongdoing—standing on
pieces of a sacrificed horse, commemorated
in ‘Horse Tomb’ on the way from Sparta to
Arcadia (Pausanias 3, 20, 9). When the
Dioskouroi become gods, Tyndareus hands
Menclaos his kingdom, the kingdom of
Sparta (Apollodoros 3, 11, 2). Not unnat-
urally, Menelaos has a part in several
embassies to encourage participation in the
Trojan War and to seek restoration of Helen
(Apollodoros, Epitome 3:9; 3:28). In
Homer's Iliad he fights the duel with Paris
that one might have expected at the begin-
ning of the war (/liad 3:15-382). Paris is in
fact slaughtered by Philoktetes, according to
Lesches’ Little Iliad, which also told how
Menelaos mutilated his corpse (he mutilates
that of Paris’ successor, Deiphobos, accord-
ing to Virgil, Aeneid 6:494-529). The
curious story that only a phantom of Helen
went to Troy and that Menelaos recovered
the real Helen from Egypt at the end of
seven years’ wandering is owed to Stesi-
choros: in his Palinode he built this elabor-
ation on the prophecy to Menelaos that he
must go to Egypt before reaching home
(Odyssey 4:475-84). This Egyptian scene is
the setting for Euripides’ Helen. Euripides
(Orestes) also makes rather an unpleasant
character of Menelaos' daughter, Hermione,
whose main function in myth is apparently
to bear Teisamenos to Orestes (the king
driven out by the ‘returning’ Sons of
->Herakles). At the end of his travels, re-
united with Helen (whom Homer shows us
as the ideal hostess in Odyssey 4), he will
live until he is finally transported “to the
Elysian plain and the -*ends of the earth ...
because you have Helen and are the son-in-
law of Zeus" (Odyssey 4:563. 569), an ex-
ceptional fate as RoHDE (1898: I 80) stressed
long ago.
His tomb and Helen's were said to be in
his temple at Therapne in Spartan territory
(Pausanias 3. 19, 9, and other evidence in
WIDE 1893:340-6). It is hard to trace his
mythology to cult, if Helen is rightly under-
stood as originally a tree-goddess (WipE
1893:343) and if the myth to which he owes
his existence goes back to Indo-European
antiquity.
III. The extreme hostility of 2 Macc to
the high priest Menelaos is due partly to his
procuring the execution of the former high
priest Onias (4:34) and partly to his close
relationship with the régime of Antiochos
IV in particular, who notably attempted to
install hellenic paganism by force, for
instance by re-dedicating the Temple at
Jerusalem to Olympian Zeus (6:2). This hel-
lenising trait is reflected by the name
‘Menelaos’ itself (cf. Jason), which Jo-
sephus alleges, in a confused passage, was a
name he assumed instead of ‘Onias’ (Ant.
12:239, cf. KLETZEL 1924:783). FRASER-
MATTHEWS list 30 examples of the name
(Jason=183, Aeneas=35); it occurs also as
the name of an Egyptian Greck in the mid-
second century CE novel of Achilles Tatius
(2:33)—just as ‘Agamemnon’ had in the
Satyricon of Petronius (§1 - ca. 60 CE).
IV. Bibliography
J. BREMMER, ‘Effigies Dei’ in Ancient
Greece: Poseidon, Effigies Dei. Essays on
the History of Religions (ed. D. v.d. Plas;
Leiden 1987) 35-41; BREMMER. Greek Reli-
gion (Oxford 1994) 17-18; P. M. FRASER &
E. MarrHEWS (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek
Personal Names, vol. I, The Aegean Islands,
Cyprus, Cyrenaica (Oxford 1987); W.
KLETZEL, Jason (1a), PWSup 4 (1924) 783-
4; J. PUHVEL, Comparative Mythology (Bal-
timore 1987); E. RoHpE, Psyche: Seelen-
cult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube — der
Griechen (2nd ed.; Freiburg, Leipzig &
Tübingen 1898); E. SiwoN, LIMC VIII
(1994) 447-479; D. J. WARD, The Divine
Twins: An Indo-European myth in Germanic
tradition (Berkeley/ Los Angeles 1968); M.
L. WEST, Immortal Helen (London 1975);
S. WipE, Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig 1893)
304-325.
K. DOWDEN
MENI ^n ‘Fortune’
I. While many Near Eastern gods of
antiquity were credited with the ability to
566
MENI
determine destiny (AKkGE 222-223; WbMyth
1/1 592; SPERLING 1981:16-17), some were
specifically assigned that function. Two such
gods are collocated in Isa 65:11. The
Hebrew reads: wim ‘zby yhwh hskhym "t hr
qdsy h'rkym Igd slhn whmmPym Imny, “But
you who forsake Yahweh, who ignore my
holy mountain, who set a table for Luck
(Gad), and fill the drink (cf. the same
parallelism between ‘drink’ and ‘wine’ in
Prov 23:30) for Fortune (Meni)". The word-
ing of the verse makes clear that divine
rivals to --Yahweh are involved. Thus, the
verb 2I2, here translated ‘forsake’, is regu-
larly employed in contexts where Israel
leaves Yahweh for other gods (Judg 2:12,
13; 10:6; 1 Sam 8:8); as is the verb n29
here translated ‘ignore’ (Deut 8:14; Jer 13:
25; Hos 2:15). The setting of a table and the
preparation of a beverage are elsewhere in
the Bible (Ps 23:5; Prov 9:2) associated with
a banquet. Accordingly, we are concerned
here with a lavish cultic meal prepared for
the divinities. The passage is found in a con-
text which contrasts the lot of Yahweh's
chosen ones and servants (v 9), with those
who fail to support his temple cult but in-
stead treat Gad and Meni sumptuously.
Their appropriate punishment will be to
experience hunger and thirst while the faith-
ful eat and drink (v 13).
Il. Medieval Jewish commentaries
(Rashi, Kimchi, Ibn Ezra) speculated that
some astral divinity was involved and de-
rived its name from 23, meaning ‘count’,
‘apportion’, ‘assign’, in Hebrew and Ara-
maic. This speculation is confirmed by the
Akkadian verb mani having the same mean-
ing. Thus, Isa 65:11 puns on the connection
between the verb and the name of the
divinity in the phrase, 2507 COMS crew“
will assign you to the sword.” (Kimchi; Cf.
u nisiya imná ana karasi "and assigned my
people to destruction” [Gilg Xl 169]) As-
suming a Semitic etymology for Meni, the
medieval explanation of the name of the
divinity accords well with the LXX
identification of Meni with -*Tyche. In
biblical Hebrew one’s ‘portion’ in life was a
máná (Jer 13: 25 [//góràl; Ps 11:6; of
Menat in 16:5 {an Aramaism in hendiadys
with /ieleg]), while the Arabic cognate
maniya means ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’, and espe-
cially ‘death (as one’s ultimate destiny)’
(KRAMER & WENSINCK 1941:418). There are
close analogies in Akk isqu ‘lot’, ‘destiny’,
related to ussuqu ‘to apportion’ (CAD I
202) and in Greek moira ‘fate’, which is
connected to meros ‘portion’ (GASTER 1985:
585).
From the single biblical attestation we
cannot determine whether Meni was male or
female. In addition, no outside witnesses to
Meni contemporary with Isaiah 65 (sixth
century BCE) have been attested. Nonethc-
less, both earlier and later sources have been
interpreted as an indication of a long tra-
dition behind the worship of this Semitic
deity of fortune. It has been suggested
(FAHD 1991:373) to relate Meni to Menitum,
an epithet of Ishtar found in a Mesopot-
amian god-list AKKGE 373). It must be cau-
tioned however, that even if Menitum is
related to the Akkadian verb mani, the con-
nection with ‘fortune’ or ‘destiny’ would
still be tenuous because the word, although
well-attested in the sense of ‘assign’, is not
employed in the specific sense of assigning
one’s lot or destiny (CAD M 221-227). Cau-
tion likewise must be exercised with regard
to an Egyptian list of Asiatic gods (Papyrus
Salier IV, verso, i 5-6) which is adduced as
an attestation of Meni (FAHD 1991:373)
because the reading is uncertain (ANET
250). More relevant data come from Nabat-
acan sources. One inscription from El-Hejra
(COOKE 1903:79:5-6; INGHOLT 1967:No 10:
5-6) from the first century BCE or CE reads
in part: wl'nw dwšr wmnwt w qyšh kl mn dy
yzbn kpr dnh "And may Dushara and
Manutu and Qaishah curse anyone who sells
this tomb". A similar inscription (COOKE
1903:80:3-4; INGHoLT 1967:11:3-4) adds
Throne (?; Mwtbh) and Allat to the list,
while yet another, dated 26 CE, (COOKE
1903:86:8) calls on Dushara and Manütu to
curse anyone who might alter the in-
scription. Manütu is likewise found as a
theophoric element in the Nabatean personal
names Whbmnwtw, Zydmnwtw, 'bdmnwtw,
567
MERIRI
*bdmnwty, and Tymmnwty (NEGEV 199]:nos.
341, 386, 656, 809, 810). There can be little
doubt that Nabatean Manütu is identical to
the classical Arabic goddess Manat men-
tioned in the Quran (Surah 53:20): “What
do you think of Allat, and Al-Uzzah and
Manat that other third goddess?”. It appears
that in the pre-Islamic period Manat had
been worshipped throughout Arabia. Orig-
inally represented by a simple rock, Manat
ultimately was sculpted with the face of the
Asiatic Venus, i.e. >Fortune, who according
to Pausanias was worshipped by the Syrians
on the banks of the —Euphrates. (FAHD
1991:374) The Qur’anic passage mentioned
above seems to imply that Mohammed at
first was willing to mitigate his somewhat
dour monotheism and recognize Manat as
one of the three ‘exalted ladies’ who might
intercede for the faithful, but then relented
(GAsrER 1985:585). Theophoric names
compounded with the element Manat are
attested in medieval Arabic sources (WEL-
LHAUSEN 1887:25-29).
In Greco-Roman sources, Manat ts identi-
fied with the Fortunae. In a mosaic from
Palmyra she is seated with a sceptre in her
hand in the manner of Nemesis, goddess of
destiny (FAHD 1991:373). The body of evi-
dence makes probable the extension of the
equation of Manat and Manim to include
Meni.
Iii. No Talmudic sources comment on
Meni. The Peshitta does not take Meni as a
proper name, but includes both deities in the
plural gaddé, ‘gods of fortune’. The Vul-
gate—qui ponitis Fortunae mensam et liba-
tis super eam—interprets gad as a personal
name rendering it as Fortuna, ‘luck; for-
tune’, but does not treat Meni as a proper
name. The so-called Targum Jonathan trans-
lates Gad by ‘false gods’ (])D0) and Meni
by pana ‘their (illicit) objects of wor-
ship’. Alone among the ancient versions,
LXX (which translates Gad by the general
term daimonion rather than as a proper
name) identifies Meni with —Tyche, the
Greek goddess of fortune, which, in keeping
with the synonymous parallelism of the
verse, would be matched nicely with Gad,
god of luck.
568
a
IV. Bibliography
A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North Semitic
Inscriptions (Oxford 1903); S. BROCK, The
Old Testament in Syriae According to the
Peshitta Version (Leiden 1987); T. Fann,
Manat, Encylopaedia of Islam New Edition
(Leiden 1991) 373-374; T. H. GASTER,
Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testa-
ment (New York/Evanston 1985); H. INc-
HOLT, Palmyrene-Hatran-Nabatean, in F.:
ROSENTHAL, An Aramaic Handbook Vol If
(Wiesbaden 1967) 40-50; J. H. KRAMER &
A. WENSINCK, Manat, Handwörterbuch der
Islam (Leiden 1941); A. NEGEV, Personal
Names in the Nabatean Realm (Jerusalem
1991); A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic
Vol 3: The Latter Prophets According to the
Targum Jonathan (Leiden 1962); S. D.
SPERLING, A Su-il-ld to IStar, WO 12 (1981)
8-20; J. WELLHAUSEN, Reste arabischen
Heidentums (Berlin 1887).
S. D. SPERLING
MERIRI ‘771
J. On the basis of the alleged paral-
lelism of mérirt with —Resheph and
Behemoth in Deut 32:24, Gorpis has
urged that “it seems highly reasonable to
assume that Meriri is also a mythological
term, probably representing a type of
—demon” (1943:178). Others make a similar
suggestion (cf. HALAT 601 s.v. 5); it is
without solid foundation, though. .
IJ. Since a supposed demon Meriri is
not attested in extrabiblical texts from the
ancient Near East, the proof rests entirely on
Deut 32:24. It cannot be denied that this
verse lists a number of demons known from
the Ugaritic texts or elsewhere. The fact is
somewhat obscured in the RSV which
renders: "They shall be wasted with hunger,
and devoured with burning heat and poison-
ous pestilence; and J will send the teeth of
beasts against them, with venom of crawling
things of the dust.” The Hebrew terms for
‘burning heat’, ‘pestilence’, and ‘beasts,
however, are, respectively, reep (>Re-
sheph), geteb (>Qeteb), and béhémói
(^ Behemoth), all terms originally denoting
deities. Because ‘hunger’ (rä‘āb) occurs in
MESITES —
the same list, it has been speculated that this
term, too, stands for a demon (J. C. DE
Moor, The Rise of Yahwism (Leuven 1990}
157) Even if it is assumed that the
identification of three (or four) deities (or
demons) is correct, the position of mériri is
quite different. It is found in apposition to
geteb, and the usval translation 'bitter' (cf.
mérirai, ‘bitterness’, Ezek 2:11) makes
excellent sense. It is conceivable to take
geteb mériri as a genetival construction, ren-
dering ‘the terror of Meriri', but that would
mean creating an obscure demon at the
expense of a—far less obscure—other one.
The textual variant DNNN ADP (Samaritan
Pentateuch) means ‘plucked-off bitter
herbs’.
Though méríri is a hapax legomenon, the
form "T^ is found one more time in the
MT, viz. in Job 3:5. Referring to Rashi's
commentary on this verse, GORDIS translates
ny TT as ‘the demon of the day’ (1943:
178). The expression occurs in a difficult
verse; a comparison with v 8 (where the
*oréré yom are ‘those who curse the day’)
could be made in favour of an .emendation
of "5 into "182, also from the root "RR,
‘to curse’. If the Masoretic text is left as it
stands, the most plausible translation would
be ‘the bitterness of the day’. In neither case
it is necessary to introduce a demon into the
text.
III. Bibliography
-R. GorpDIS, The Asseverative Kaph in Ugar-
jtic and Hebrew, JAOS 63 (1943) 176-178,
esp. 177-178 ad Job 5:3.
K. VAN DER TOORN
MESITES — MEDIATOR II
MESSENGER > ANGEL I
MESSIAH > CHRIST
MICHAEL DNDN
tl The name Michael appears as a per-
‘sonal name in the Bible: Num 13: 13; Ezra
45:8; 7 times in 1 Chr and 2 Chr 2122. It is
‘commonly interpreted as ‘who is like God?’
<The guardian of Israel referred to in Dan
SPURTE SREY
gn
MICHAEL
10:13. 21; 12:1 is without doubt a heavenly
figure.
Yl. Given the prominence of this ^angel
in ancient Judaism, it has been supposed
that the origins of his name and functions
should be seen in the Canaanite deity Mikal,
explaining the name as deriving from the
root yk’l, to be able etc. The ‘aleph’ would
then be a later addition in order to bring this
name into conformity with other angelic
names which often end with ‘-el’ (for ref-
erences see M. HENGEL, Judentum und Hel-
lenismus [2nd ed. Tübingen 1973] 344-345
and note 507). However, this explanation
seems to be unwarranted since the personal
name is quite frequent in the OT, and in this
early stage of Jewish angelology there is
hardly a need to make angelic names con-
form to one single pattem. Another attempt
has been made to parallel Michael with the
Persian Vohumanó (A. Konur, Ueber die
jüdische Angelologie und Daemonologie in
ihrer Abhüngigkeit vom Parsismus [Leipzig
1866} 23-27).
The few biblical occurrences of the angel
Michael belong to broader streams of tra-
ditions, mostly reflected in the extra-canon-
ical writings of the Second Temple period,
and must, therefore, be discussed with these
together. Given the early date of parts of 7
Enoch, it seems that the first biblical refer-
ences to Michael in.the Book of Daniel are
already part of a second stage of develop-
ment. However, it is generally difficult to
point out the traditions connected with
Michael, since this specific angel became
much more prominent than any other angel.
Consequently, he was likely to be identified
with almost any unnamed biblical angel (see
F. I. ANDERSEN, OTP I 136 note e).
Modern scholarship should therefore try to
differentiate between unnamed traditions
that became part of the characteristics of
Michael and more original Michael-tradi-
tions and not vice versa (contrast e.g.
LÜCKEN 1898). The trend of the ancient
authors to identify almost every angel with
Michae] goes on in our days. To illustrate
the problem: Michael is quite often granted
the title of an dpyrotpatnyos. Yet, this title
occurs also in connection with —Rafael (Gk
569
MICHAEL
Apoc. Ezra 1:4; cf. OTP I, 566, 571). Does
this mean that the unnamed ‘chief of the
hosts' in Jos. As. 14 is Michael?
Dan 10 and 12 refer to Michael as one of
the primary angels helping the angel speak-
ing to Daniel against the angels of other
nations (10:13: Persia; 10:20: Greece). The
scene has, however, an eschatological
undertone since the unnamed angel reveals
what will happen "in the last days" (10:14).
Michael’s eschatological role is also ap-
parent from Dan 12:1.
All these particular notions are prominent
in the extra-canonical literature of the time:
Michael is variously called dpytotpatnyos
(T. Abr. A 1:4; 2:16; 19:5.and passim; T.
Isaac 14:7; 2 Enoch 22:6f; 33:10f; 72:5 and
passim; Gk Apoc. Ezra 4:24 [cf. M. E.
STONE, OTP J, 566]; 3 Baruch 11:4 {Greek
version); 11:6. 8; PGM XIII 925 and see
DIETERICH 1905:202,1). It seems natural to
assume that this title translates the ‘chief of
the Lorp’s hosts’ from Jos 5:14, though the
precise Greek term is not used in the LXX.
One can hardly ascribe all these references
to a Christian redaction of Jewish apocalyp-
tic material in Jater times (pace ROHLAND
1977:22-24). One might add to this list the
— ‘prince of the army’ in Dan 8:11, although
Michael is not mentioned there by name. He
is ‘chief of the angels’ (1 Enoch 24:6; T.
Isaac 1:6; Mart. Isa. 3:15-6; 3 Enoch 17:3;
Hebr. T. Naph. 8-9; cf. 1OM 17,7. In 3
Baruch 11-15 he functions as the only
—mediator between God and the guardian
angels of men, i.e. he is the leading angelic
figure here, too. Accordingly he is often
mentioned as the only angelic mediator as in
1QM 17,6-8. In 4Q470 (ed. E. Larson,
Dead Sea Discoveries ] (1994) 210-228) the
making of a covenant between God and
King Zedekiah through the agency of the
angel Michael is mentioned.
The 'prince of Israel' or its guardian
angel is a problematic designation inasmuch
as it contradicts the idea that only the
nations ate under an angelic guard whereas
Israel has direct connection with God (ap-
parently as early as in Deut 4:19-20). Yet,
the designation is well known (c.g. J Enoch
40:8-10; 2 Enoch 18:9; 3 Baruch 37:1;
44:10; Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 4; see also
TgPs 137:7). Along with the gradual trans-
formation of the name ‘Israel’ into a more
universalistic conception of the nghteous in
general, Michael becomes the angel of
humankind (Apoc. Mos. 32:2-3; Adam and
Eve 41:1; this might be the reason for some
of the differences between the Greek and the
Ethiopian versions of 7 Enoch 20:5).
Michae]’s military functions are not
specific to this angel. They are often at-
tributed to the group of four (sometimes
seven) archangels as in 1QM 9, 15-16; J
Enoch 20:5; 40; 54: 71: 8-9. 13; 3 Baruch
4:7;.Apoc. Mos. 40; Sib. Or. 2:214-237 (cf.
4Q285, 6, 8-9: J. T. Miuix, Milki-sedek et
Milki-resa‘ dans les anciens écrits juives et
chrétiens, JJS 23 (1972], 95-144, esp. 143).
The judgment over the ‘fallen angels’ is
conveyed to the group of the four (including
generally Michael, >Gabriel, Raphael and
either — Uriel or Sariel, sometimes Suriel;
see Y. YADIN, The Scroll of the War of the
Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness
{Jerusalem 1957] 216; in magical literature
this group is not as consistent, e.g. S.
EmnEM, Papyri Osloenses 1 [Oslo 1925]
171, 309-310; E. R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish
Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period I
[New York 1953] 229 232, and irequenty
m PEM). >
Inasmuch as military iaig is supposed to
be part of the eschatological salvation,
Michael is often associated with this specific
notion: The punishment of the fallen angels
in general has an eschatological connotation.
Michael (and three other angels, Gabriel,
Raphael and Uriel) punish the fallen angels:
l Enoch 10; 54 etc. Yet, only in connection
with Michael / Enoch 10 turns to a de-
scription of the future that should be under-
stood in messianic terms (7 Enoch 10:11-
16). Therefore, it is Michael who shows the
seer the tree, the fruit of which will be eaten
by the righteous in the future (7 Enoch 25).
The messianic functions of Michael might
still be seen in later texts (cf. S.
AGOURIDES, OTP I 606). It is congruent
with the idca that it is Michael who an-
570
MICHAEL
nounces the final judgment, / Enoch 68 (cf.
Dan 8:13-14 without angelic names).
Once Michael's help is understood in
these terms and the future salvation is con-
strued as liberation from the fallen angels
and/or -*Satan, Michael is easily character-
ized as the opponent of Satan. The fight
against Satan, the —dragon in Rev 12:7-9,
belongs to this tradition as well as to the
literary context of Jude 9. The Life of
—Adam (Vita Adae) reflects for the first
time the opposition of Michael and Satan
regarding God's command to worship Adam
(Vita 13-14; cf. / Enoch 69). The angelic
warrior on behalf of Israel, i.c. for the right-
eous ones, in the last days is later under-
stood as one who assists in other means of
salvation, too. So he receives the prayers of
the virtuous ones (3 Baruch 11-15; cf. b.
Hag. 12b; 2 Enoch 33:10) and serves as the
keeper of the keys for the highest of
heavens (cf. also Par. Jer. 9:5). Michael's
priestly role, decisively so only in later lit-
erature, might be based upon sources like 7.
Abr. B 4:4 (Michael as the first among the
adoring angels, but cf. Ass. Mos. 10:2,
where it is not clear whether or not this
figure is to be identified with Michael). The
connection with Metatron seems to be later
than the NT writings (cf. P. S. ALEXANDER,
OTP | 243-244).
III. Another corpus of traditions is al-
luded to in Jude 9, where Michacl and Satan
argue about the soul of -Moses. This par-
ticular item belongs to the broader stream of
traditions characterizing Michael as a
psychopompos who carries the soul of the
seer as such (even for an apocalyptic jour-
ney) and serves as angelus interpres. Most
naturally, the bulk of revelations received
that way are concerned with the last day, the
judgment of the deceased and such related
matters. So Michael comes to take the souls
of the fathers (T. Abr. A 7-8; T. Isaac 2:1;
T. Jacob 1:6), of Ezra (Visio Ezrae line 59-
59, cf. Gk Apoc. Ezrae 4:7 [journey to
-—Hades]) and the soul of Adam (cf. Vita
43:1-3; Apoc. Mos. 13:2-6). He is actually
involved in burying-rites (7. Abr. A 20:10;
T. Isaac 14; T. Jacob 5:13; Vita 46: 3; Apoc.
Mos. 37:5-6; Vita 41:1, 47:2-3; 48:1-3;
Apoc. Mos. 43:1; 40; sec further: 7 Enoch
71:3-5 inasmuch as Enoch's transformation
marks his death; 2 Enoch 22:8-9; Mart. Isa.
3:15-6; cf. S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, The Death
of Moses, Studies on the Testament of
Abraham, ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg [Mis-
soula 1976] 185-217, esp. 208-209). Mart.
Isa. 3:15-6 expresses the inner correlation of
the psychopompos and the revealer of escha-
tological secrets: "the angel of the -*Holy
Spirit and Michael, the chief of the holy
angels, will open his (scil.: Jesus) grave on
the third day”, i.e., the one who is con-
cemed with the care for the dead is also the
one who will free him from his tomb (see
Par. Jer. 9:5, cf. 8:12). A Qumran apocry-
phon ascribed to Michael] ("The words of
the book that Michael spoke to the angels")
is still unpublished (see J. T. MILIK, The
Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of
Qumrán Cave 4 [Oxford 1976] 91 for litera-
ture and further suggestions). But the (ap-
parently late) heading of Apoc. Mos. as-
cribes this book to him, too. Jude 9
combines, then, the idea of individual salva-
tion with the concept of a struggle between
two angels as in Zach 3:1-5 (cf. 4QAmrb
and see K. BERGER, Der Streit des guten
und des bósen Engels um die Scele. Bc-
obachtungen zu 4QAmr? und Judas 9, JSJ 4
[1973] 1-18).
The angel set over the dead and their
future salvation raises apocalypticists to
heaven, so -Abraham in a chariot of
—Cherubs (T. Abr. 10-15), Adam (Vita
25:2-3, for announcing his punishment! Cf.
also T. Job 52:6-10, apparently concerning
God and not Michael), -*Eve (Apoc. Mos.
43:}-2), Ezra (Visio Ezrae, line 56-60. 79),
—Enoch (2 Enoch 22:1-6) and -*Melchi-
zedek (2 Enoch 71:28; 72:3.5.8-9 [interest-
ingly enough, this angel is Gabriel in the
shorter version]; / Enoch 71:3-5). The angel
Jaoel refers to Michael's help: Apoc. Abr.
10:17. Michael functions as God's mess-
enger to humankind (Apoc. Mos. 2:1; 3:2;
49:2; ] Enoch 25; 60:4-5) and is called
“angel of truth and justice" (Par. ler. 9:5;
cf. 1QM 13, 10).
571
MIDDAY DEMON
Michael has a specific connection to trees
and medicine. Thus he teaches agriculture in
Vita 22:2; reveals the fruits of the tree to be
eaten in the future by the righteous in 7
Enoch 25, and is one of the four who plant
the trees in paradise in 3 Baruch 4:7; he
helps Eve (together with other angels) to
give birth to — Cain (Vita 21:2 etc; 1 Enoch
67:1-11 does not really belong to this body
of tradition, but see ROHLAND 1977:26-27).
His name therefore often occurs in magical
texts (M. NavEH. & S. SHAKED, Amulets
and Magic Bowls. Aramaic Incantations of
Late Antiquity [Jerusalem/Leiden 1985}
Amulet 2, line 14; A. Knorr, Der Lobpreis
des Erzengels Michael [Brussel 1966) 12-
18.20-21, cf. ExrREM and GooDENOUGH
above). In PGM he is referred to either in a
group or alone as the highest angel and his
name serves as a magical sign. Perhaps
Jewish Christians maintained specific tra-
ditions about Michael (see W. MICHAELIS,
Zur Engelchristologie im Urchristentum
{Basel 1942] 145-158); for later develop-
ments which treat Michael as a physician
and as a military leader see esp. ROHLAND
1977.
Perhaps the archangel in ! Thess 4:16 is
onginally connected with Michael who is
portrayed as blowing the trumpet to call to
judgment (Apoc, Mos. 22:1). The “angel of
peace" (T. Dan 6:1-5; T. Asher 6:5; T. Ben.
6:1) identifies the four faces with the four
archangels (1 Enoch 40:8), i.e., he himself 1s
not to be confused with Michael. The "inter-
ceding angel” (J Enoch 89:76; 90:14; T.
Levi 5:6) could well be Michael, but he is
not called so, although there are some
resemblances: e.g. in T. Asher 6:5, entering
into. eternal life, or the dualism with Beliar
(^ Belial) in T. Ben. 6:1.
IV. Bibliography
A. DIETERICH, Abraxas. Studien zur Reli-
gionsgeschichte des späteren Altertums
(Leipzig 1905 = Aalen 1979) 117-126; T.
Hoprner, Griechisch-dgyptischer Offenba-
rungszauber Y (Leipzig 1921 = Amsterdam
1974) §§ 151-154; *W. LUCKEN, Michael.
Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der
jüdischen und | morgenláündisch-christlichen
Tradition vom Erzengel Michael (Góttingen
572
1898) [1-61 = Der Erzengel Michael in der
Überlieferung des Judentums, Diss. Marburg
1898]; M. Macun, Entwicklungssiadien des
jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer
Zeit. (TSAJ 34; Tübingen 1992), index s.v.
Engel-Namen.; "jJ. MiucBL, Engel VII
(Michae]) RAC V (1962) 243-251.; C. D. G.
MULLER, Die Biicher der Einsetzung der
Erzengel Michael und Gabriel ]-II (CSCO
225-226; Louvain 1962); *J. P. ROHLAND,.
Der Erzengel Michael, Arzt und Feldhery.
Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantini-
schen Michaelskultes (BZRGG 19; Leiden
1977).
M. MacH
MIDDAY DEMON
"npBptvóv
I. The Midday Demon is found in the
Septuagint version of Ps 91:6 (LXX 90:6).
In Ps 91:5-6, the Hebrew psalmist declares
that the one who takes refuge in the >Al-
mighty will not fear: “The -*Terror of the
night nor the Arrow that flies by day, nor
the Pestilence (~*Deber) that stalks in dark-
ness nor the — Destruction (~@eteb) that
wastes at noonday".
The parallelism of the verses twice bal-
ances a night and a daytime ~ Evil, each of
which was understood by rabbinic inter-
preters to refer to a demonic spirit: the day-
time Qeteb is balanced by the night
—demon, Pestilence, Deber. In Deut 32:24
the ‘poisonous Qereb' is parallel to ~Resh-
eph, the well-known Canaanite demon of
plague. Thus the Qeteb is the personified
destruction or disease, riding the hot desert
wind (cf. Isa 28:2 and the wind demons of
Mesopotamia). In Ps 91:6b (Heb. TW? 230p
D'UN), the Septuagint translators con-
fronted a different Hebrew text (with Aquila
and Symmachus), reading W for 7X,
meaning ‘Destruction and the demon (shed)
of noontime’, which the LXX rendered as
“Misfortune and the Midday demon
(ovuntdpatog Kai Saipoviov peonifpt-
voĉ). This variant violated the parallelism of :
the original, and added a fifth Evil (WU.
O°), the Midday demon. T
Jl. The noon-day heat and the critical.
Acidviov Mes-
Se ee
ROS oi sr
MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB
time at the sun’s zenith was a common con-
cern in the ancient Near East, and spirits of
calamity were held responsible for sunstroke
(GASTER 1969:770), feverish diseases, and
other maladies (CAILLoIS 1937). The Latin
of Jerome renders the verse as morsus in-
sanientis meridie, “the bite of insanity at
midday”.
II. The Midrash Tehillim understood
Qeteb here to refer to a terrifying demon:
“the poisonous Qeteb is covered with scales
and with hair, and sees only out of one eye,
the other is in the middle of his heart”
(LANGTON 1949:50). The indifference and
listlessness (ax ndta. ennui) which sometimes
plagued Christian monks was attributed to
this source. So Athanasius writes: “The
Midday demon is said to be (the demon) of
ennui” (Exp. Ps 90:6). Evagrius Ponticus
writes: “The demon of ennui, which is the
Midday demon, is more burdensome than al]
the demons. It besets the monk about ten
o’clock, and encircles his soul until two
o'clock” (Vit. Cog. 7); and again: “The other
demons at the rising or setting of the sun
seem to take hold of some one part of the
soul, but the Midday demon is wont to sur-
round the entire soul and suffocate the
mind" (Cap. Pract. A 25).
5 IV. Bibliography
*R. CArnLoIs, Les démons de midi, RHR
415 (1937) 142-173, T. ĮI. (GASTER,
‘Demon, Demonology, JDB 1 (1962) 820;
‘GASTER, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the
Old Testament (New York 1969); *S.
‘LANDERSDORFER, Das daemonium meri-
‘dianum, BZ 18 (1929) 294-300; E. Lane-
TON, Essentials of Demonology: A Study of
‘Jewish and Christian Doctrine, Its Origin
.and Development (London 1949).
G. J. RiLEY
GHTY ONE OF JACOB 2p» 7n
I. ‘The mighty one of Jacob’ was inter-
pleted as a divine name by ALT (1929). He
Classified it as a designation of one of the
‘Anonymous gods ‘of the father’. The only
: Hace where it may occur as a proper name
jS. Gen 49:24; elsewhere it is always an epi-
dhet of -Yahweh (Isa 49:26; 60:16; Ps
132:2-5, cf. Sir 51:12; see also *abir yisra’él
as a parale] to "ddón and yhwh sébá'ot in
Isa 1:24) It is doubtful whether "dbír
Ya'ügob may be translated as "Bull of
Jacob” (Cross 1973:4). The only possible
evidence for this could be found in Ugaritic
texts.
IL In KTU 1.12 i55 ibr is used to
designate a strong animal (bull or wild bull)
caught jn a trap or something similar, while
KTU 1.10 iii:35-37 and the personal name
ibrd ("Haddu is a bull", or, if-the name had
a Hurrian background, “Haddu is lord",
since Hurr twr means “lord”, see WUS No.
34; for d as 'Haddu' see KTU 4.33:26;
4.628:5) provide evidence for the use of ibr
as an epithet for the storm-god. El is never
referred to as ibr, Akk abāru means ‘power,
force’ (CAD A s.v.) and ìs used without
specific reference to the bull.
IH. In the OT 'abbír is used as an at-
tribute of strong men; it characterizes rulers,
heroes and leaders (1 Sam 21:8; Isa 10:13;
Job 24:22; 34:20; Lam 1:15; perhaps Jer
46:15 [the Pharach]). When used in combi-
nation with Jéb, it means ‘brave’ (Ps 76:6;
Isa 46:12). TORCZYNER wishes to assign a
comparable meaning to the word in a mili-
tary context, and translates “officers” where
others usually render “stallions” (Judg 5:22;
Jer 8:16; 47:3; ToRCZYNER 1921:298). Yet
in Jer 8:16 there is the parallel of sås and
SHL, 'to neigh', and in 47:3 the one of
abbirim and rekeb. In Isa 34:7; Jer 50:11;
Ps 22:13 and 50:13 the term refers to ani-
mals; in Isa 34:7, a distinction is made
between wild bulls, bulls and abbirim. In
Hebrew, as in Akkadian, the original mean-
ing of ’abbir must have been ‘strong,
powerful’. Where ’ăbbîr was applied
Yahweh, the Masoretes punctuated the word
to read *abir so as to prevent any association
of 'übir Ya'ágob with the bull (and the
statue at Bethel).
ALT called the expression an "archaic
term" used to characterize the ancestral god
of the Jacob clan (1929:26). He said the
phrase had not the form but the function of
a proper name (1929:24). He dated it back
to a preliterary tradition, because he judged
the use of "ábtr to qualify God foreign to the
573
MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB
theological views of later times; as a matter
of consequence, the epithet could not be
explained as a later invention projected back
onto earlier traditions (1929:25). Alt has had
great influence with this view: it was elab-
orated (MAAG 1959); adopted (e.g., FOHRER
1969, "Kümpfer, Verteidiger Jakobs"); or
modified (MOLLER 1980:125-128). Oc-
casionally, attempts have been made to re-
late the epithet to the traditions of Shechem
(cf. Gen 33:20; SEEBAsS 1984) or Bethel
(Gen 28:18.22). This was done by interpret-
ing the parallel expression in Gen 49:24,
viz. rófeh "eben Yiéra'el (-*Rock; —Shep-
herd), as meaning “Sheperd (or Ruler) at the
Rock of Isracl”, the “rock” being a stela. By
virtue of the assumption this stela was in
Bethel (erected by Jacob, according to the
cult legend), the “Mighty One of Jacob”
would then be a designation of the bull
figures erected by Jerobeam I (cf. DUMMER-
MUTH, ZAW 70 [1985] 85-86).
A number of objections can be raised
against the carly date proposed for the
expression ’abir ya‘tqdb. It occurs almost
solely in late texts (Isa 49:26; 60:16; for Ps
132 cf. the bibliography given by B.
JANOWSKI in Ernten, was man sdt [Fest-
schrift K. Koch; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1992]
245-246); the only possible exception is Gen
49:24, because its date of origin is subject to
debate. Morcover, the expression does not
occur in a patriarchal narrative properly
speaking, but in a secondary supplement to
a tribal saying on —Joseph (so C. H. J. DE
GEUS, The Tribes of Israel [Assen 1976} 90-
92; pace SEEBASS 1984:334-339). The
earlier simile (v 22), as well as its later
supplement (cf. the narrative forms in vv
23-24), are imbued by the atmosphere of a
sedentary civilization, including its religios-
ity (KOCKERT 1988:66-67); the same applies
to the benediction in vv 24b-26, which de-
rive from Deut 33:13-16.
According to v 25, the blessing is to
come "from (min ) the El of your father,
together with (wt) Shadday". Verse 24b
calls El proleptically the “Mighty one of
Jacob” from whose hands the blessing
springs, and it puts the emphasis on the
location (mis§Gm) which he is specifically
linked with as a ‘shepherd’ (rd‘eh). The text
is complicated, though, and the question
remains whether we are to interpret the
“Rock of Israel” as a topographical indi-
cation or as a divine name (-*Stone). How-
ever that may be, the “Mighty one of Jacob”
must be identified with El in Gen 49 (MOL-
LER 1980:117). Should the expression be
connected with Gen 33:20 (Shechem) or
28:18.22 (Bethel), it will have to be under-
stood as an epithet of El (cf. O. EISSFELDT,
KS III (Tübingen 1966] 393, n. 2), second-
arily applied to Yahweh. This hypothesis
finds no support in the Ugaritic texts,
though, because there the epithet of the bull
for El is tr (WUS no. 2932). There is, in
conclusion, insufficient evidence of a numen
'übir yafáqób, because the phrase "reprc-
sents probably an epithet, and is not a
proper name" (SEEBAss 1966:51).
IV. Bibliography
A. ALT, Der Gott der Vdter (BWANT
II/12; Stuttgart 1929 = KS IL; München
1953:1-77) 24-29; F. M. Cross, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the His-
tory of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge,
Mass. 1973) 3-12; G. Fourer, Geschichte
der israelitischen Religion (Berlin 1969) 20-
27; A. S. KAPELRUD, ’Gbir, TWAT 1 (1970)
43-46; M. KÖCKERT, Vätergott und Väter-
verheiBungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit
A. Alt und seine Erben (FRLANT 142, Gót-
tingen 1988); V. Maac, Der Hirte Israels.
Eine Skizze von Wesen und Bedeutung der
Viterreligion, Schweizerische Theologische
Umschau 28 (1958) 2-28; repr. in Kultur,
Kulturkontakt und Religion (Göttingen
1980) 111-144; H. P. MÜLLER, Gott und die
Götter in den Anfängen der biblischen Reli-
gion. Zur Vorgeschichte des Monotheismus,
Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner
Umwelt (ed. O. Keel; Fribourg 1980) 99-
142; H. H. Scuwip, "abbir stark, THAT 1
(München 1971) 25-27; H. SEEBass, Der
Erzvater Israel und die Einführung der
Jahweverehrung in Kanaan (BZAW 98;
Berlin 1966); SEEBASS, Die Stémmespriiche
in Gen 49, 3-27, ZAW 96 (1984) 333-350;
H. TORCZYNER, ’abir kein Stierbild, ZAW 39
574
MIGHTY ONES — MILCOM
(1921) 296-300; H. J. ZOBEL, Stammesspruch
und Geschichte (BZAW 95; Berlin 1965).
M. KOÓCKERT
MIGHTY ONES — GIBBORIM
MILCOM C27!
|]. The deity of the Ammonites, Mil-
com, occurs three times in the MT: 1 Kgs
11:5.33; 2 Kgs 23:13. The Greek translators
of the Septuagint or/and other Greek re-
censions and versions (Syrian, Latin) have
read Milcom (Meìxop, Meayoa, ModAxon,
MoAxoX, possible confusion of M and A in
uncial writing) in seven other instances: 2
Sam 12:30; | Chr 20:2; Amos 1:15; Jer
49(230)1.3; Zeph 1:5: 1 Kgs 11:7. In a
number of cases, the Greck translations
show how difficult the reading of the
Hebrew prototype milkm was; it could be
vocalised and understood as Milcom or as
“their king” (malkam), or both as in 2 Sam
12:30 (dittography?).
To these 10 attestations, it is now poss-
ible to add some more instances found
among the Ammonite archacological data:
as the divine name on the Amman citadel
inscription, line 1 (end of 9th c.) and on a
seal (7th c.) brk Imlkm (two other examples
are modem forgeries), or as a theophoric
clement in Ammonite anthroponyms: on the
Tell el-Mazar ostracon VILI (Sth c.)
mlkmyt, and on seals or bullae: mlkmr’wr (ca
600), bdmlkm, mlkmgd and mlkin'z (6th c.)
(HÜBNER 1992:252-253).
A divine name Malkum was already
known by the tablets of Drehem and a god
—Malik is documented by texts from
Nineveh as well as a theophoric element in
proper names on the Ebla and Mari Tablets
(CAZELLES 1957:cols 1343-1344). Alpha-
betic and syllabic lists of deities’ names
found at Ugarit (KTU 1.47; 1.22; 1.118,
HERDNER 1978:1-3, NouGAYROL 1968:45,
60; sce also KTU 1.119 = RS 24.266 but cf.
HERDNER 1978:34-35) mention a god milkm
at the penultimate position, just before šim -
dsa-li-mu, which is rendered dwA.LIK.MES
(NouGAvRor. 1968:45, 60). Thus, it appears
that the divine name is based on the root
mik “to rule” or “to counsel”, and that hesi-
tation between muluk and malik is no longer
permitted, even though the element mulug/k
is attested by some Amorite proper names
and toponyms (HUFFMON 1965:230-231).
Could then be the mulugik form preferably
be parallel to the spelling of Molok
(~Molech)?
Il. The relationship between malik and
mlkm in the Ugaritic lists is not easy to
define; a similar difficulty presents itself
with the biblical occurrences of Molech and
Milcom. What appears more secure is the
secondary role occupied by the god(s?)
Malik - Mlkm (plurale tantum ?) in the lists
of the temple of Assur as well as in the pan-
theon lists at Ugarit.
Malik and/or mlkm arc/is assimilated to
— Nergal, god of the underworld and of fire,
or counted among those deities whose in-
fernal characters are well known, and who
are associated with the funerary offerings
(kispum). They appear in connection with
the /gigi and Anunnaki as chthonic beings
involved in the cult of the dead ancestors
(HEALEY 1975). HEALEY (1978) has tried to
prove a close connection between rpum and
mlkm, supposing that rpum (-*Rephaim) is
simply a special epithet of Aflkm, although
the two are not identical in meaning. Hence,
since both refer to the same reality, shades
of the dead or underworld deities, there was
no need to include both in the panthcon list,
but mlkm was presumably preferred. In any
case, both would be secondary deities, or
divinized ghosts involved in the cult of the
dead, preferably the last dead kings of the
dynasty, and more probably beneficial dei-
ties than demons (DIETRICH & Loretz
1981). But a relationship to Milcom is not at
all ascertained.
The Ammonite epigraphical evidence
throws some light on the veneration of the
Ammonite deity and his cultic place from the
ninth to the fifth century BCE, contemporary
with the biblical evidence (HUBNER 1992).
An Atef-crowned head excavated at Tell
Jawa, Jordan should be interpreted as the
depiction of Milcom the chief god of the
575
MILCOM
Ammonites pace P. M. M. Daviau & P. E.
Dion (El, the God of the Ammonites?,
ZDPV 110 [1994] 158-167) who construe
the artefact as an image of >El.
III. Even if 9MA.LIK.MES should be an
attempt to find a Mesopotamian equivalent
to Ugaritic mlkm, it does not prove that
biblical Molech and Milcom have to be
identified as a single Ammonite national
deity. In the biblical passages, they are
separately worshipped and have a separate
cult place in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 11:5.7
(Molech -MT but Milcom -Greek]33; 2 Kgs
23:10.13: a sanctuary south of the mount of
Olives, east of Jerusalem, and a topher in
the valley of [Ben] Hinnom, south of Jerusa-
lem). In 1 Kgs 11:33 Milcom is called "the
god of the Ammonites” as -Chemosh was
the god of Moabites and Athtart (->Astartc)
the Goddess of the Sidonians or Yahweh the
God of the Israelites (cf. 1 Kgs 11:5 "Mil-
com the abomination [šqş] of the Ammon-
ites”; 2 Kgs 23:13 Milcom the horror [mw‘br]
of the Ammonites); but in 1 Kgs 11:7, it is
Molech who is described as “the abomina-
tion of the Ammonites”.
The Hebrew text of the Bible and the oral
tradition at the origin of the Greek trans-
lations or revisions, as well as the other
versions (e.g. Syrian, Latin) show clearly
that in many more passages the morpheme
(ketib) mlkm was read and rightly under-
stood as “Milcom” and not as “their king”
(malkám, qere) (MT et passim). Surely, the
national god Milcom was "king" of the
Ammonites as Yahweh was king of the
Judaeans, but this is not the specific mean-
ing of these verses. The biblical] prophetic
oracle against Ammon in Amos 1:15,
known and taken up again verbatim by Jer
49(= 30):3, is surely to be understood: “And
Milcom will go into exile, his priests and
his princes altogether, says Yahweh”.
The mention of “his priests” in this kind
of oracle (compare Jer 48:7 and 49:3) is
another proof in favour of the reading Mil-
com (PUECH 1977). Further, it is possible to
compare the iconographic representations of
the divine statues going into exile after the
capture of a capital by the Assyrian armies;
this is the background for these prophecies.
Whereas the reading is almost certain in
Zeph 3:5, it is also probable in 2 Sam 12:30
// | Chr 20:2.
Whether or not Milcom was related to
Malik - mlkm is impossible to establish. The
Ammonite national god occupies a more
pre-eminent place in the biblical texts and in
the inscription of the citadel than as a theo-
phoric element in the Ammonite onomas-
ticon, where El, the chief god of the
Canaanite pantheon, is much morc frequent.
Contrary to a common opinion (R. DE
Vaux, Les institutions de l'Ancien Testa-
ment, II [Paris 21967} 333), there is no proof
(biblical or Ammonite) that Milcom is an-
other form of the god Molek / Malik. No-
where are sacrifices of children offered to
Milcom; but, the references are always to
Molech.
IV. Bibliography
W. E. AUFRECHT, A Corpus of Ammonite
Inscriptions (Ancient Near Eastern Texts
and Studies 4; Lewiston 1989); H. CAzEL-
LES, Molok, DBSup. V (Paris 1957-) cols
1337-1346 [& lit; M. DiETRIECH. & O.
LoRETZ, Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten
aus Ugarit (I), UF 13 (1981) 63-100, pp. 69-
74; F. GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen der
Texte aus Ugarit (Roma 1967) 157-158; J.
F. HEALEY, Malki : Mikm : Anunnaki, UF
7 (1975) 235- 238; HEALEY, Mikm / Rp’um
and the Kispum, UF 10 (1987) 89-91; A.
HERDNER, Nouveaux textes alphabétiques
de Ras Shamra - XXIVe campagne 1961,
Ugaritica VII (Paris 1978) 1-74; U. Hus-
NER, Die Ammoniter (ADPV 16; Wiesbaden
1992); H. B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal
Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and
Lexical Study (Baltimore 1965); J. Nou-
GAYROL, Textes suméro-accadiens des ar-
chives et bibliothéques privées d'Ugarit,
Ugaritica V (Paris 1968) no. 182 RS 20.24
("Panthéon d'Ugarit" 42-64; E. PuECH,
Milkom, le dieu ammonite, en Amos I 15,
VT 27 (1977) 117-125.
E. PUECH
576
MIN — MISHARU
MIN
|. Min is an Egyptian god of procre-
ation and creation. It has been speculated
that his name occurs in the place name
Thakemeina (1 Kgs 11:19-20 LXX; MT
Tahpenes), which ALBRIGHT analyses as
*73-k3i-(n.t)-mn, “The Female Attendant (or
the like) of Min" (1955:32), presumably the
name of an Egyptian queen. The suggestion
is implausible, however.
IH. Min is the Greek form of Eg mw or
mn, the local god of Akhmin and later
Coptos. In the iconography Min is repre-
sented anthropomorphically as an ithyphallic
figure carrying two feathers as his headgear.
The god personifies male potency and fertil-
ity; since the latter could be subsumed under
the general notion of creativity, Min has
come to be regarded as the creator god par
excellence. Presumably because of the loca-
tion of Coptos at the beginning of the cara-
van routes, Min was venerated as the lord of
the eastern desert as well. Both in Akhmin
and Coptos Min was equated with -*Horus,
Isis being regarded as his mother. In later
syncretistic theology, Min has also been
identified with --Amun of Thebes.
III. The mention of Min in the Hebrew
Bible is extremely dubious. Against Albright
and other exegetes, it must be maintained
that. Tahpenes is probably not a proper
name, but rather the Hebrew transcription of
a-him.t-p3-nsw(.t), with the LXX rendering
Thakemeina being derived from #2-/un.t-
nsw(.1), both of which mean "the wife of the
king” (BARTLETT 1976:211 nn. 17-18 [&
lit}; but note the remarks on this name
Isis). This etymology invalidates the inter-
pretation by Albright and makes clear that
Min does not occur in the OT. The author of
the Hebrew text apparently took a title for a
name. The fact that the Egyptian is followed
by “the queen” does not make it a proper
name. In all probability, SCHULMAN is cor-
rect in suggesting that "the queen" following
Tahpenes (LXX Thakemeina) "is nothing
more than a Hebrew gloss on the translit-
erated Egyptian title" (1986:127 n. 18).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, New Light on Early
Recensions of the Hebrew Bible, BASOR
140 (1955) 27-33; J. R. BARTLETT, An
Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the
Edomite. ZAW 88 (1976) 205-226; *R.
GUNDLACH, Min, RdA 4 (1982) 136-140 [&
lit.]; A. R. SCHULMAN, The Curious Case of
Hadad the Edomite, Egyptological Studies in
Honor of Richard A. Parker (ed. L. H.
Lesko; Hanover/London 1986) 122-135.
K. VAN DER TOORN
MIRE > CLAY
MISHARU 7n
|. Like Hebrew mif6r, Ugaritic msr
derives from yr, ‘to be upright’; similarly,
Akkadian misart is a derivative of eSéru, ‘to
straighten up’. Evidence for mifdr as a deity
in Hebrew tradition is only indirect.
II. The name of the Babylonian male
deity miiaru occurs together with kittu,
‘Justice’, and either or both have the epi-
thets asib mahri Šamaš, ‘seated in front of
Shamash’ or sukkallu ša imitti, ‘vizier of the
right hand’ (for references to SMisaru see
CAD M/2, 118-119). The alphabetic and syl-
labic texts from Ugarit show that mir did
occur there as a divine name. In a catalogue
of divine names sdq mšr is listed (KTU
1.123:14): whilst the god 4misarum is in-
cluded in the god list 'Anu' (RS 20.121:166;
Ugaritica V [Paris 1968] 220). The Ugaritic
personal name misrn (KTU 4.342:2), spelled
syllabically me-Si/Sa-ra-nu (Ugaritica V1
(Paris 1969] 141), probably uses this divine
name as well. Another occurrence is in an
offering list in Ugaritic (KTU 1.148:39; less
certain is /.ms[r(?) ] in KTU 1.81 4); but, in
KTU 1.40, the meaning of rir is still un-
certain (DE Moor & SANDERS 1991).
Uganitic sdq mr corresponds exactly to
Phoenician Misor and Suduk as known from
Philo of Byblos (Phoenician History in Eu-
sebius, PE I 10,13). These two Phoenician
gods are said to have discovered the use of
salt: presumably in connection with treaties
(e.g. as in Num 18:19), because they are
gods of justice. Misor’s son was Taautos,
the Egyptian god ->Thoth, credited with the
577
MISTRESS — MITHRAS
invention of writing (BAUMGARTEN 1991:
65-72).
III. Although there is no explicit refer-
ence to a deity called mîšor in the Hebrew
Bible, a few passages suggest there was
some belief in a (demythologized) god sub-
ordinate to > Yahweh. They are Ps 45:7: “A
sceptre of Equity (mîšôr) is the sceptre of
your rule”; Isa 11:4: “But he shall judge the
poor with Righteousness (sedeq), and defend
the humble in the land with Equity
(méSarim)”; Ps 9:9: “He (Yahweh) judges
the world with Righteousness, he adjudi-
cates the peoples with Equity (méSdrim)”
and Isa 45:19 “I am Yahweh, speaking
Righteousness, announcing Equity (again,
plur.). See also Mal 2:6; Ps 67:5. Ancient
Near Eastern texts indicate the existence of
the god Equity; but there are scarcely any
traces of this deity left in the Hebrew Bible.
IV. Bibliography
A. L. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician His-
tory of Philo of Byblos. A Commentary (Lei-
den 1981) esp. 175-177; *H. CAZELLES, De
l'idéologie royale, JANES 5 (1973) 59-73;
M. LivERANI, Zvoóux e Mioop, Studi in
onore di E. Volterra, VI (Rome 1969) 55-
74; S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, Notes on the His-
tory of Biblical Phraseology, Comparative
Studies in Biblical and Oriental Literatures
(AOAT 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980) 210-
221, esp. 211-214 (originally published in
the Publications of the Israel Society for
Biblical Research 17(1965) 180-187 [Heb]);
J. C. pE Moon & P. SANDERS, An Ugaritic
Expiation Ritual and its Old Testament
Parallels, UF 23 (1991) 283-300 esp. 288-
290 [& lit]; G. DEL OLmo LETE, Ug. msr
(KTU 1.40:1) y el edicto mîŝarum, AuOr 8
(1990) 130-133; DEL OLMO LETE, El
sacrificio de expiación nacional en Ugarit
(KTU 1.40 y par.), La paraula al servei dels
homes. XXV jornades de biblistes catalans
(1963-1985) (Barcelona 1989) 46-56; R. A.
ROSENBERG, The God Sedeq, HUCA 36
(1965) 161-177.
W. G. E. WATSON
MISTRESS > ADAT; BELTU
MITHRAS
I. The name of the Indo-Iranian deity
Mithra occurs as a theophoric element in the
Iranian proper name Mithredath, Heb
ATW, Ezra 1:8; 4:7, Gk Mr8pidatns, ]
Esdr 2:8 and Mi@padarmg, | Esdr 2:12. The
different orthography points to two different
persons. The first one was treasurer of the
Achaemenid king Cyrus 11 (559-530 BCE),
who ordered the rebuilding of the temple in
Jerusalem. The second was a high function-
ary (a satrap?) in the Persian administration
in Juda during the reign of king Arthaxerxes
] (465-424 BCE), when the temple was ac-
tually rebuilt. The name means ‘gift of
Mithra’ and refers to the Iranian religion in
Achaemenid times.
II. The oldest attestation of Mitra can be
found in the list of gods in the treaty and the
counter-treaty between the Hittite king
Shupiluliuma I and the Mitanni-Hurrian
king Kurtiwazza. Here some deities occur
which have been construed as Aryan: Mitra,
~>Varuna, Indra and the two Nasatyd (KBo I
1 Rev:55; KUB III lb Rev:21'; KBo I 3+
Rev:41; A. KAMMENHUBER, Die Arier im
Vorderen Orient (Heidelberg 1968] 142-
151; I. M. DiAKONOFF, Die Arier im Vorde-
ren Orient: Ende eines Mythos, Or 4l
[1972] 91-120). The relation of this deity to
later Vedic and Avestan Mithras is unclear.
The god Mitra occurs in the Rigveda, esp.
in the hymn Rigveda 111.59, where he
functions as the personified sacred concept
‘Contract’. All the other deities together
with whom Mitra is invoked are sacred
concepts too, like Aryaman ‘Hospitality’
and in particular Varuna ‘True Speech’.
When mitra occurs as a common noun in
the Rigveda it has the meaning ‘friend
acquired by contract’, an ‘ally’. In the
Avesta, Hymn 10, Mihr-Yasht, dedicated to
the god Mithra, the god also embodies
sacred ‘Contract, Treaty’ and all his other
functions derive from this central concept.
Vedic Mitra as well as Avestan Mithra go
back to the reconstructed Proto-Aryan
*mitra = ‘contract’.
Mithra therefore supervises the inviol-
ability of all sorts of contracts (mithra) and
578
MITHRAS
treaties between men. He protects those who
keep their contractual word and punishes
those who break it. He gives peace and
prosperity, rain, vegetation and health to
those who are loyal (Yasht 10.61). In par-
ticular contracts between kings representing
their countries are sacred to Mithra. He
bestows blessings on the country of the king
who is faithful to a treaty; then the rain falls
and plants grow. In this context a common
epithet of Mithra in Yasht 10 “of wide cattle
pastures” finds its explanation. Already in
the Rigveda, Mitra and Varuna are con-
nected with cattle pasture and fertility (Rig-
veda II1.62.16). Wide cattle pastures, where
cattle can freely graze. only occur in times
of peace, the result of strictly keeping
contracts and treaties (Yasht 10.29; 10.60).
Mithra also punishes men who break their
contracts and lames them (Yasht 10.23). He
fights them standing in his chariot accom-
panied by Verethragna, ‘god Victory’ (Yasht
10.67; 124-127) The contracts Mithra
guards in the Avesta are exclusively con-
tracts between men or concluded by men.
Later Mithraic communities therefore con-
sist only of men and must be called ‘Miin-
nerbiinde’.
As a guardian of contracts Mithra obtains
a middle position between the two parties
involved. This also is clear from Mithra's
position in the Iranian calendar. He is the
eponymous deity of the l6th day of the
month and of the 7th month of the ycar.
Mithra consequently develops into the
mediator (Plutarch, /s. et Osir. 46s 369D.
mesités; Mediator I1) between light and
darkness. In the Avesta Mithra is “watchful”
(Yasht 10.97), he is the “observer” and
“guardian” of the whole of creation (Yasht
10.54, 103), he overlooks “all that is
between heaven and earth” (Yasht 10.95). In
complete accordance with these aspects
Mithra later develops into a solar deity.
III. That there is a link between the Iran-
ian divinity Mithra and the eponymous god
of the Mithraic mysteries Mithras is clear,
but the exact nature of this link between the
Iranian and the Roman Mithra(s)-cults is a
passionately debated question. The situation
in the arena of Mithraic studies has changed
dramatically over the past three decades.
The brilliant Belgian historian Franz
Cumont is rightly called the founding father
of Mithraic studies, for he not only provided
the learned world with a collection of texts
and monuments (CUMONT 1896-1899), but
he also created an interpretive context, based
on the identification of Mithraic gods with
Zoroastrian divinities. His interpretation was
universally followed for the greater part of
this century (CUMONT 1903), even after the
replacement of the collection of monuments
by VERMASEREN (1956-1960). Cumont's
reconstruction suffered a mortal blow at the
first conference of Mithraic studies, held in
Manchester in 197] (GoRDoN 1975), and
has not been revived since. The past twenty-
five years have instead given rise to many—
mutually exclusive—theories on the origin
and nature of the Mithraic mysteries, which
virtually all share a stress on the absence of
links between Zoroastrianism and Mithra-
ism. Apart from one attempt to interpret
Mithraism as a mixture of Iranian beliefs
and Middle Platonism (Turcan 1975), the
stress has either been on the creation of a
Neoplatonic salvation mystery (MERKEL-
BACH 1984), or—most prominently—on
Mithraism as an astrological cult, by inter-
preting the central icon of the faith, the
tauroctony (Mithras slaying the bull) as a
star map (BECK 1984; 1988; ULANSEY
1989). More recently a new chapter has
been opened in the study of Mithraism by
the heightened interest in the practices and
beliefs of two Kurdish sects, the Yezidis and
the Ahl-e haqq, who seem to have retained
traces of a pre-Zoroastrian Iranian cosmog-
ony in which Mithra slays a bull and who
also appear to share several ritual and archi-
tectural characteristics with those known
from Roman Mithraism (KREYENBROEK
1994).
Mithraism, though described in some
detail by several classical authors (GEDEN
1990), is mainly known from a great num-
ber of cult-places, Mithraea, generally
constructed in the likeness of a cave, with
side-benches and a small apsis with a rep-
579
MITHRAS
resentation of the tauroctony. Mithraea have
been found throughout the ancient world.
from Britain to Syria, but with a particular
density in those areas where Roman gar-
risons were prominent. The spread of Mithra-
ism, being a cult where only men were
admitted, is therefore often connected with
the spread of the Roman army, to which it is
suspected to have attracted many adherents.
Mithraism is one of the mystery religions
of the ancient world and as such is centered
around (personal) salvation, through suc-
cessive grades of inititation (BURKERT
1987). In the absence of reliable texts, the
exact contents of Mithraic mythology must
be pieced together by comparing the many
artistic representations of the accomplish-
ments of Mithras. Mithras is born from the
rock (Lat saxigenus, Gk petrogenés, the
~rock itself is called petra genetrix and is
equally the object of cultic reverence) and
establishes himself as creator and lord of
genesis (Porphyrius, De Antro Nympharum
24). Various episodes of his life are depicted
on the more elaborate cult reliefs and some
frescoes, such as the water miracle (where
Mithras releases the secluded waters by
shooting an arrow) and the hunt. Two
scenes from his life are most prominent, the
(catching and) killing of the bull and the
mcal with the -Sun (-*Helios; -^Shemesh).
The central icon of the Mithraic cult shows
Mithras—dressed in a cape and a “Phryg-
ian” cap—killing the bull by plunging a
knife in the animal's side, while pulling his
head upwards by the nostrils. From the tail
of the dying animal ears of corn sprout
(sometimes also from the wound itself,
VERMASEREN 1956, no. 593-594), a snake
and a dog come towards the wound to lick
the blood and a scorpion seizes the genitals.
Though the exact interpretation of this most
famous deed of Mithras is hotly debated, it
is beyond doubt that it represents a creative
act, cherished in the cult as an act of de-
livery. It is presumably this act of delivery
that is referred to in the famous maxim from
the Mithracum under the Sta. Prisca in
Rome et nos servasti eternali (?) sanguine
fuso, “You have saved us as well, having
shed the eternal (reading uncertain) blood"
(VERMASEREN & VAN EssEN 1965:217-
221). In the act of killing, Mithras is often
accompanied by two divinities, who are
represented as smaller replicas of the god
himself, called Cautes and Cautopates, the
former carrying an uplifted torch, the latter
camying a torch bent downwards, symbo-
lising coming into existence and passing
away. Though being frequently invoked as
the sun himself, Mithras is distinct from the
Sun, with whom he shares a meal that is
also frequently depicted. This meal of
Mithras with the Sun was, so it scems, ritu-
ally re-enacted in the gatherings of the
Mithraic communities. The holding of the
communal meal was at the heart of the
Mithraic rituals and was severely criticized
by several Church fathers as a diabolic
transvesty of the Christian eucharist. Other
rituals of the Mithraic communities were
also seen as imitations of Christian rituals,
which makes it difficult to reconstruct
Mithraic cultic activity (Justin Martyr, Apo-
logia | 66.4; Dialogus cum Tryphone 70.1;
78.6). Mithraism knew a sevenfold initi-
ation, represented as seven steps on a ladder
(Origenes, Contra Celsum 6.22), with the
grades of corax (raven), nymphus (bridc),
miles (soldier), leo (lion), Perses (Persian),
heliodromus (sun-walker) and pater (father).
The pater of a community was also its
leader. It is within this sevenfold initiation,
though imperfectly understood, that astro-
logical symbolism is of great prominence.
Having attracted a considerable following in
the second and third centuries CE, the promi-
nence of Mithraism waned rapidly, to disap-
pear fully after the Theodosian legislations
of the late fourth century.
IV. In the Bible Mithra is only indirectly
attested in the proper name Mithredath, one
of the most common Iranian names of male
persons (ScuMmitt 1978:398).
N. Wyatr (The Story of Dinah and
Shechem, UF 22 [1990] 433-458) has ar-
gued unconvincingly that there would have
been a connection between an alleged Aryan
Mithras/contract and the Israelite conception
of bérit, ‘covenant’.
580
MOLECH
V. Bibliography
*R. Beck, Mithraism since Franz Cumont,
ANRW 1.17.4 (1984) 2002-2115; Brcx,
Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the
Mysteries of Mithras (EPRO 109; Leiden
1988); E. BENVENISTE, Mithra aux vastes
pâturages, JA 248 (1960) 421-429; U.
BIANCHI (ed.), Mysteria Mithrae (EPRO 80;
Leiden 1979); M. Boyce, On Mithra’s Part
in Zoroastrianism, BSOAS 33 (1969) 10-34;
W. BURKERT, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1987); M. CLauss, Mithras.
Kult und Mysterien (München 1990); F.
CUMONT, Textes et monuments figurés rela-
tifs aux mystères de Mithra (2 vols.; Bruxel-
Jes 1896-1899); CUMONT, The Mysteries of
Mithra (London 1903); J. DUCHESNE-
GUILLEMIN (ed.), Etudes Mithriaques (Acta
Iranica 17; Leiden/Teheran 1978); A. S.
GEDEN, Mithraic Sources in English
(Hastings 1990); I. Gersnevircu, The
Avestan Hymn to Mithra (London 1959);
*R. L. Gorvdon, Franz Cumont and the
Doctrines of Mithraism, Mithraic Studies
(ed. J, R. Himnells; Manchester 1975) 215-
248; *GoRDON, Image and Value in the
Graeco-Roman World. Studies in Mithraism
and Religious Art (Aldershot etc. 1996); P.
G. KREYENBROEX, Mithra and Ahreman,
Binyamin and Malak Tawis. Traces of an
Ancient Myth in the Cosmogonies of two
Modem Sects, Recurrent Patterns in Iranian
Religions. From Mazdatsm to Sufism (ed. P.
Gignoux; Paris 1992) 57-79; KREYENBROEK,
Mithra and Abreman in Iranian Cosmog-
onies, Studies in Mithraism. Proceedings of
the Rome Conference 1990 (ed. J. R. Hin-
nells; Roma 1994). 173-182; A. MEILLET,
Le dieu indo-iranien Mitra, JA X 10 (1907)
.143-159; R. MERKELBACH, Mithras (Kónig-
Stem 1984); H. P. Scumipt, Indo-Iranian
;Mithra Studies: The State of the Central
‘Problem, Etudes mithriaques (Acta lranica
47; Leiden/Teheran 1978) 345-393; R.
SCHMITT, Die theophoren Eigennamen mit
~Altiranisch Mithra, Etudes mithriaques
(Acta Iranica 17; Leiden/Teheran 1978)
395-455; P. THIEME, Mitra and Aryaman,
eLransactions of the Connecticut Academy of
sArts and Sciences 41 (1957) 1-96; THIEME,
Pa
EIKEAN E Vri
PIRA EE
The Concept of Mitra in Aryan Belief,
Mithraic Studies 1 (ed. J. R. Hinnells; Man-
chester 1975) 21-39; THIEME, Mithra in the
Avesta, Etudes mithriaques (Acta Iranica
L4; Leiden/Teheran 1978) 501-510; R.
Turcan, Mithras Platonicus (EPRO 47;
Leiden 1975); D. ULANSEY, The Origins of
the Mithraic Mysteries. Cosmology and Sal-
vation in the Ancient World (New York etc.
1989); M. J. VERMASEREN, Corpus Inscrip-
tionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithria-
cae (The Hague 1956-1960); VERMASEREN,
Mithras, the Secret God (London 1963); M.
J. VERMASEREN & C. C. vAN ESSEN, The
Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church
of Santa Prisca in Rome (Leiden 1965); G.
WIDENGREN, Die Religionen Irans (Stutt-
gart 1965) 13-20; 117-121.
H. J. W. Dnuvzszs (1, II, IV)
& A. F. pe Jonc (IH)
MOLECH 721
I. Molech occurs as a divine name in
the MT eight times: five times in Leviticus
(18:21; 20:2-5); twice in Kings (1 Kgs 11:7,
where it is probably confused with —Mil-
com of the Ammonites; and 2 Kgs 23:10);
and once in Jeremiah (32:35). The LXX ren-
ders the name both as a common noun
(archón, "ruler", in Leviticus; basileus,
“king”, in 3 Kgdms 11:5 [MT 1 Kgs 11:7))
and as a proper name (Moloch in 2 Kgs
23:10 and Jer 39:35 [MT 32:35]). In addi-
tion, the LXX has Moloch for MT malkékem
(“your king’) in Amos 5:26; the LXX read-
ing is quoted in the one NT occurrence of
the name, Acts 7:43.
The etymology of the name is uncertain.
Most scholars relate it in some way to the
(West) Semitic root mlk, “to rule, to be
king”, either as a Masoretic distortion of
melek ("king") using the vowels of boset
(“shame”), or as a Qal participle, or as an
otherwise-inexplicable ‘segolate’ noun form
(given especially the variations of vowels in
the comparative evidence, see discussions in
HEIDER 1985:223-228; Day 1989:56-58).
Contrary to the entire thesis of Molech as
a divine name is the proposal of EISSFELDT
581
MOLECH
(1935), that OT Molech is to be related to
Punic molk/mulk, a technical term used in a
cult of child sacrifice, and known from
inscribed stelae in burial grounds at Car-
thage and elsewhere. According to his
hypothesis, all occurrences of MT mólek can
be explained as a cognate common noun, so
that the stereotypical phrase (as in 2 Kgs
23:10) léha‘abir ?et-bénÓ wé'et-bittó bares
lammoólek is to be rendered “to cause one’s
son or one’s daughter to pass through the
fire as a molk-sacrifice”. (Even given this
understanding, the etymology remains prob-
lematic; the most widely accepted view is
that of W. voN SODEN, who suggested a
*magtil-form of the root h/ylk, comparable
to mépét and fólà [Review of Eissfeldt,
Molk, TLZ 61 (1936) 46].)
N. Eissfeldt’s proposal has been widely
persuasive, as jt is founded on a rare combi-
nation of comparative literary, inscriptional
and archaeological evidence. Both classical
and patristic writers testify to a cult of child
Sacrifice, particularly in times of military
emergency, in Phoenicia and at Carthage
(translations are conveniently provided by
DAY 1989:86-91). The aforementioned
stelae, whose inscriptions appear variously
in Punic, Neo-Punic and Latin transcription
(as molch), regularly compound the milk-el-
„ement with another word, such as ?mr. Eiss-.
feldt read these latter elements as the second
member of construct chains, specifying what
sort of molk-sacrifice was commemorated by
the stela (so that mll?mr was the sacrifice of
a sheep [cf. Hebrew "immér], presumably as
a substitute for a child, while milk’dm was a
human sacrifice [cf. Hebrew "adàm]). Final-
ly, “sacrificial precincts” (or “tophets”, bor-
rowing the Biblical term for the locus of the
Molech cult) have been excavated at Punic
colonial sites in Sicily, Sardinia and North
Africa, all containing the remains of
children, as. well as small animals.
Each of these categories of evidence has
generated a considerable body of scholarly
literature. For now, we may note a couple of
points at which the case advanced by Eiss-
feldt and his supporters may not be as
strong as at first appears, Most significantly,
despite the classical and patristic citations,
there is no sure archaeological evidence of
the practice of a cult of child sacrifice in
Phoenicia, Jeaving a crucial ‘missing link’
between Israe] and the Punic colonies (and
provoking the suspicion that the citations are
polemical, directed chiefly at defaming the
motherland of the Carthaginians). Secondly,
compounding the problem of the ‘missing
link’ is the relatively late date at which
inscribed stelae begin to appear in the Punic
cemeteries (7th-6th centuries BCE), as well
as the discovery of stelae inscribed with mik
in places (such as Malta) where no cemetery
has yet been found, raising the possibility
that the sacrificial. sense of mlk is an intra-
Punic development. Thirdly, despite Eis-
sfeldt’s assertion that formulae such as
mlkmr indicate an increase in the practice
of animal substitution over time, the pre-
liminary analysis of remains found., at Car-
thage suggests that child sacrifice increased
in frequency (relative to animal substitu-
tion), at least through the 4th-3rd centuries
BCE (STAGER 1982). Finally, it should be
noted that an increasingly vocal body of
European scholars is challenging the inter-
pretation of the Punic remains as indicating
any cult of child sacrifice at all (D. PARDEE,
Review of Heider, Cult of Molek, JNES 49
[1990] 372). -
Recent research into comparative evi-
dence has focused on deities named M-I-k
(variously vocalized) in places closer to
Israel, especially Mesopotamia and Syria-
Palestine. A divine name Malik is well-
attested as a theophoric element at Ebla
(third millennium BCE), although little can
be determined of his nature or cult there.
Amorite personal names from second-mil-
lennium Mari include the element Malik, as
we}] as. Milku/i, Malki and Muluk (each
sometimes with the divine determinative and
sometimes without, so that the common
noun, “king”, may in some cases be present,
rather than a divine name). Of equal or
greater interest at Mari are references to
beings called maliku as recipients of funera-
ry offerings, although it is not clear whether
they are the shades of the dead or chthonic
582
MOLECH
deities. Nevertheless, the underworld context
regularly recurs in the other comparative
evidence. Akkadian god lists from the Old
Babylonian period onwards include a deity
named Malik equated with -*Nergal, and
other Akkadian texts mention mal(i)kit-
beings with the Igigi and Anunnaki, all in
connection with the cult of the dead ances-
tors. (We may also note a god Milkunni
attested in Hurrian.) But most significant of
all, so far as the study of OT Molech is con-
cerned, is the presence of a deity MIk at
Ugarit. In addition to its inclusion in per-
sonal names (vocalized as Malik, Milku and
Mulik in syllabic texts), MIk appears in two
divine directories (actually, snake charms),
as resident at ‘trrt (KTU 1.100:41; 1.107:17),
the same location which is elsewhere assig-
ned to the netherworld deity Rpu (KTU
1.108:2-3; but see Day 1989:49-50, for a
contrary view). While this collocation does
not necessarily imply the identity of the dei-
ties, it is suggestive of some close relations-
hip, as is the attestation of beings called
mlkm in connection with the royal cult of
the dead, along with the better-known rpum
(OT -Rephaim) who appear to be the
shades of dead royalty at Ugarit (or of all
the dead in the OT; cf. Ps 88:11). Finally,
we may note the similar divine names
—Melqart of Phoenicia and Milcom of
Ammon. While the equation of either deity
with Molech is unlikely, it is at least in-
triguing that Melgart (literally, “King of the
City”) may also have connections with the
underworld (particularly if one follows W.
F. Albright in understanding "the City" as
the netherworld), and equally of interest that
the Ugaritic *address' for MIk, ‘rtrt, is likely
to be identified with the city Ashtaroth in
-*Bashan, just north of Ammon. In sum, the
Semitic comparative evidence yields the
portrait of an ancient god of the nether-
world, involved in the cult of the dead
ancestors (and perhaps their king, given thc
meaning of the root mik, at least in West
Semitic).
HI. We tum, then, to a consideration of
the Biblical evidence, focusing on the seven
instances (less 1 Kgs 11:7) of médlek in the
MT, together with related material (especial-
ly other references to cultic child sacrifice).
The preponderance of occurrences are in
the Holiness Code in Leviticus: once in
18:21; and four times in 20:2-5. The former
verse speaks of “giving of your seed
(mizzar'ákd) to cause to pass over to
Molech". As noted especially by WEINFELD
(1972) the context (forbidden sexual re-
lations) led some of the rabbis to propose
that the cult of Molech entailed not sacrifice,
but intercourse with Gentile women. WEIN-
FELD builds on this point and others to pro-
pose a non-sacrificial interpretation of the
cult, such that "to cause to pass through the
fire to Molech” meant dedication to the
deity, but not sacrifice; most scholars, how-
ever, remain persuaded that actual sacrifice
by fire was involved, especially given Num
31:23, where he‘ébir ba’és clearly entails
burning.
The four instances of Molek in Lev 20:2-
5 move the discussion forward. First, the
reference to the cult in v 5 as “playing the
harlot after Molech” (liznét ’ahdré ham-
mólek) presents a significant obstacle to the
Eissfeldt hypothesis, that Molech is not a
divine name in the OT. The presence of the
article in hammólek is problematic for his
assertion that, based on the LXX evidence,
the article should be eliminated from
lammolek elsewhere, thus preserving a
parallel with phrases like /é*ólá (as a burnt
offering"). More seriously, the object of the
phrase “to play the harlot after” is uniformly
a deity or supernatural object (such as
Gideon’s ephod in Judg 8:27), with the one
possible exception of Num 15:39. Turning,
then, to the constructive task, we note that
the following context in v 6 repeats the
“play the harlot” phraseology. only now
with reference to doing so after “ghosts and
familiar spirits” (A@’6bét wehayyiddéOnim).
Again, we seem to be in the realm of the
shades (-*Spirit of the Dead; -> Wizard).
That this linkage is not limited to this one
passage is shown by Deut 18:9-14 which,
although it does not contain the term
Molech, includes at the head of a roster of
"abominable practices of those nations" (i.c.
583
MOLECH
the Canaanites) “one who makes his son or
his daughter pass through the fire” (ma‘dbir
béné-tibitté ba’és). There follows then a list
of (other) illicit practitioners of contact with
the spirit world: diviners, soothsayers,
augurs, sorcerers, charmers, mediums, wiz-
ards, necromancers.
That the OT sees the cult of Molech as
essentially a Canaanite practice (indeed, as
the archetypical Canaanite abomination) is
indicated both in Deuteronomy (12:31) and
in the Deuteronomistic summary of the fall
of. the Northem Kingdom (2 Kgs 17:17).
However, with the exception of the latter
verse, its practice in Israel appears to have
been restricted to the environs of Jerusalem.
Both Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:3) and Manasseh (2
Kgs 21:6) are explicitly accused of partici-
pation, while Josiah is credited with having
“defiled the Topheth, which is in the valley
of the sons of Hinnom, that no onc might
cause his son or his daughter to pass
through the fire to Molech" (2 Kgs 23:10).
In fact, while the evidence is all too scanty,
it appears to be within the realm of possibil-
ity that the cult was practised by the Jerusa-
lem establishment prior to Josiah, presum-
ably subsumed within the cult of Yahweh
(e.g. Isaiah uses the imagery of the cult in
describing what Yahweh would do to the
Assyrian king [30:33]—one can hardly
imagine Isaiah approving of the cult, but his
words were intended to communicate, using
known imagery). Its fate after Josiah is even
harder to describe with certainty. Both Jere-
miah (7:31-32; 19:5-6.11; 32:35; cf. 2:23;
3:24) and Ezekiel (16:20-21; 20:25-26.30-
31; 23:36-39) condemn their contemporaries
(presumably in Jerusalem, also for Ezekiel)
for the practice. Even following the exile,
Isa 57:5.9 suggests the continuation of the
practice for at least a brief time (particularly
if one reads mólek for MT melek in v 9), at
least in isolated locales ("the clefts of the
rocks", v 5).
Among the many questions surrounding
Molcch and the related cult, none is so per-
plexing as the god's relationship to other
deities (as has been seen already in the
examination of the comparative evidence).
The Biblical evidence suggests a distinction
from Milcom of the Ammonites by spec-
ifying that Josiah destroyed distinct holy
places for the two (2 Kgs 23:10-13) and by
stressing that Molech's origins were
Canaanite. On the other hand, many have
read Jeremiah as indicating an equation with
~Baal: “They built the high places of the
Baal which are in the valley of the son of
Hinnom to cause their sons and their
daughters to pass over to Molech, something
which I did not command them, nor did it
enter my mind ...” (32:35; cf. 19:5, “they
built the high places of the Baal to bum
their sons in the fire as offerings to the
Baal”). At most, however, this may reflect a
popular confusion of the two (or their cults)
since elsewhere they are spoken of distinctly
(e.g. 2 Kgs 23:5.10). (See HEIDER 1985: 291-
293, and Day 1989:29-71 for discussion of
other proposed divine equations, especially
WEINFELD'S proposal of Adad[milki] [1972].)
Also much discussed, in view of the com-
parative evidence and of other OT ref-
erences to human sacrifice, is whether the
cult of Molech was restricted to times of
military emergency (cf. the classical and
patristic references to the Carthaginian prac-
tice and the child sacrifices of Jephthah
[Judg 11] and King Mesha [2 Kgs 3:27]) or
to the firstborn (cf. the "Law of the First-
born" in Exod 13:2.11-15; 22:28b-29 [ET
29b-30]; 34:19-20; and the Akedah [Gen
22]). Neither appears likely. First, the pres-
ence of "his daughter" in the standard for-
mula describing the cult of Molech makes a
connection with the sacrifice of firstborn
sons unlikely. Second, because the few OT
references to sacrifice in time of military
emergency do seem to restrict the practice to
firstborn and/or only children, the cult of
Molech does not appear to have been prac-
tised for this reason, either. In this connec-
tion, it is of interest that STAGER has con-
cluded that the Carthaginian cult was
probably not one of military emergency,
pace the classical/patristic testimonies, or of
the firstborn (Child Sacrifice at Carthage—
Religious Rite or Population Control?,
BARev 10 [1984] 44; cf. STAGER 1982:161-
162).
With so much uncertainty, it is no sur-
584
MOON
prise that scholars have combed the OT for
additional references and allusions to
Molech or his cult, particularly where the
MT has melek in a provocative context.
With the exception of Isa 57:9 (discussed
above), such attempts have commanded
little assent. (A recent proposal, involving a
passage without an alleged concealed occur-
rence of Molech, is that of Day [1989:58-
64] regarding Isa 28:15.18.)
In conclusion, the presence of a deity
Molech and of his cult in ancient Israel
seems established, although the details of
either remain difficult to draw with pre-
cision. Based on the comparative evidence,
the relatively few explicit Biblical ref-
erences, and those additional passages which
may be defended as relevant, Molech
emerges as a netherworld deity to whom
children were offered by fire for some divin-
atory purpose. Less certain, though sug-
gestive, are connections with the cult of the
dead ancestors.
IV. What is certain is the profound (one
hesitates to say ‘fiery’) impact of those few
Biblica] references on the imagination of
later writers. In addition to those rabbis who
sought to interpret the cult of Molech as
non-sacrificial (discussed with Lev 18:21 in
HI above), others described in great detail
the deity's idol and cult, in terms borrowcd
from the classical/patristic writers on the
Carthaginian practice (G. F. Moors, Bibti-
cal notes. 3. The image of Molech, JBL 16
[1897] 161-165). The Quran (Sura 43:77)
depicts Malik as an archangel who governs
the damned on behalf of Allah: “‘Malek’,
they will call out, let your Lord make an
end of us!’ But he will answer: ‘Here you
shall remain'" (trans. N. J. ONwoop; Pen-
guin classics; 3d ed. [Baltimore 1968] 150).
Later writers built on the biblical, rabbinic
and classical sources, including J. MILTON
(Paradise Lost), C. Dickens (The Haunted
Man), G. FLAUBERT (Salammbô) and J.
‘MICHENER (The Source), each by turns fas-
mated and horrified by the deity whom
Milton termed “that horrid king besmeared
“with blood" (I. 392).
sV. Bibliography
E. Dav, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice
nM
in the Old Testament (UCOP 41; Cambridge
1989) [& lit]; O. E1rssrELDT, Molk als Op-
ferbegriff im Punischen und Hebrüischen
und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (Beiträge
zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 3;
Halle 1935); *G. C. HEIDER, The Cult of
Molek: A Reassessmeni (JSOTSup 43;
Sheffield 1985) {& lit]; P. G. Mosca, Child
Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Relig-
ion: A Study in Mulk and mlk (diss. Harvard
1975); K. A. D. Smelik, Moloch, Molech or
Molk-Sacrifice? A Reassessment of the Evi-
dence Concerning the Hebrew Term Molekh
(SJOT 9; Oslo 1995) 133-192; L. STAGER,
Carthage: A View from the Tophet, Phóni-
zier im Westen (ed. H. G. Niemeyer; Madri-
der Beitráge 8; Mainz am Rhein 1982) 159-
160; M. WEINFELD, The Worship of Molech
and of the Queen of Heaven and its Backg-
round, UF 4 (1972) 133-154.
G. C. HEIDER
MOON 177, 80>, 722°, wan
Y. By far the most common biblical
Hebrew word for ‘moon’ or ‘Moon-god’ is
yaréah, which appears 27 or 28 times in the
OT. In. 24 instances and in several Jewish
pseudepigraphic and apocryphal works,
yaréah repeatedly appears in combination
with Semes, ‘sun’ or ‘Sun-god’ (~Shemesh).
Its derivative yerah occurs with the calen-
drical meaning ‘month’ and is also attested
in early inscriptional Hebrew (cf. the Gezer
"calendar and Arad ostracon 20). The only
biblical text where the reading yáréah has
been contested is Deut 33:14. In this pas-
sage, the phrase "the produce of the yérahim
(moons or months?)" forms the second half
of a parallel bicolon alongside "the choicest
fruits of the seme’. Yaréah is also often
found grouped with terms designating the
lesser astral bodies such as the —stars
(kékabim), the —>constellations (mazzālôñ,
or the >hosts of heaven (séba@’ hasSdmayim).
The last, the hosts of >heaven, also func-
tions in biblical Hebrew as a class inclusive
of all the luminaries (including the moon).
Hebrew synonyms of ydréah include the
twice occurring kese’, ‘full moon’ (Ps 81:4
parallel with hóde3; Prov 7:20; perhaps Job
m 585
MOON
26:9), and the feminine noun /éband,
‘moon’ or ‘white lady’, which appears in
poetic texts and always in connection with
the sun or hammd, ‘heat’ (Eccl 6:10; Isa
24:23; 30:26). The noun hodes, ‘new moon’,
appears some 280 times, but this term never
refers to the moon as a luminous heavenly
body. Rather, its customary meaning is
month and so it more closely corresponds to
the derivative yerah. As for the etymology
of YRH, it has been related to the Hebrew
verb °RH, ‘to travel’, while semitic y/wRH
has been equivocally associated with Eg ;*À
or ‘moon’. Cognates of ydréah are well
documented in the semitic languages. Akk
arhu can designate the moon, the new moon
day, or the month (cf. Bab arhu, Ass urhu),
but the Akkadian only rarely denotes the
moon as the majority of occurrences refer to
a calendar month. Moreover, the meaning |
‘new moon day’ more closely corresponds
to Heb hédes. Ug yrh can denote the calen-
drial month, the moon, or the moon-god
Yarikh. Other cognates include Phoen yrh
(moon, Moon-god [?], or month), Aram yrh
(moon or month), Eth wrk (moon or month)
and Ar wrh (month).
IJ. Any treatment of the ancient lunar
cult traditions of the Levant demands that
some account be given of the Mesopotamian
traditions, for it is possible that the latter
significantly impacted the formulation of
both religious belief and rite as associated
with the moon in the contemporary cultures
of the eastern Mediterranean. The Moon-god
was known by at least three names in Meso-
potamian tradition: Nanna, Suen, and
Ashimbabbar. Scribes sometimes combined
the Nanna or Suen elements to make Nanna-
Suen. At least by the Old Babylonian
period, Suen was also written as ~Sin and
Sin’s wife was named Ningal. Their children
were the —sun-god Utu and the goddess
Inanna. The name Nanna dominates the
sources reflective of southern Mesopotamia
and the city of Ur, while Suen is attested
early on in such far away sites as Ugarit and
Ebla (only in lexical texts) in western Syria.
Sin of Harran is also attested in the docu-
ments from Mari. The different names possi-
bly indicate two originally distinct lunar tra-
ditions that were subsequently conflated in
early antiquity. Together, the attested Nanna
and Suen or Sin traditions convey the
Moon-god's divine spousal as well as paren-
tal relations.
The moon governed a vast and visible
celestial] assembly. The night luminaries
moved across the skies with great regularity,
they made manifest not only the power that
controlled the heavens, but also an alien
world possessed of a measure of stability
that intensely enchanted those living a terre-
stria] existence. Accordingly, the moon's
perceived position of pre-eminence in the
night skies was awarded special place in
Mesopotamian myth and ritual, for the Mes-
opotamian Moon-god was identified as both
the immediate offspring of the great gods,
Enlil and Ninlil, and as descendent of An,
the great sky god. Not only had the Moon-
god been created before the Sun-god, but he
was portrayed as having given birth to that
younger luminary of lesser status. Such tra-
ditions illustrate both the Moon-god’s cele-
stia] status and his high ranking in the
Mesopotamian pantheon.
Although for the ancient inhabitants of
Mesopotamia, the moon’s growth, disap-
pearance and re-emergence in a never-
ending cycle personified change, it was a
change viewed from within the larger para-
meters of continuity. In fact, of all the noc-
tumal luminaries, the changes in shape and
posìtion of the moon were the most readily
accessible to observe and chart. Jts waxing
and waning might symbolize both finite time
and eternity, light transforming into dark-
ness, and life into death and back again.
Thus, lunar motion came to represent both
the natural and cultural life cycle of birth,
growth, decay, and death. The moon’s peri-
odic movements also functioned as the
determining factor in the measurement of
the year, the month and ultimately the entire
cultic calendar. Major time periods and holi-
days were set to the phases of the moon—
the new, the quarter and the full moons.
Their importance was such that the king
typically participated in the associated fes-
tivals along with the priests and the general,
population. The disappearance of the moon
586
MOON
could also signify the displeasure of the
gods and so the practices of offering prayers
and lamentations to the divine assembly
were enacted in order to appease the gods.
The Moon-god might act as judge of fates
during his disappearance from the night sky
and subsequent sojourn in the netherworld,
but once his work as judge was completed,
he would reappear in the skies accompanied
by the prayers and libations of the Anunnaki
or underworld gods. Furthermore, the Mes-
opotamian Moon-god's monthly disappear-
ance together with his return from the
netherworld were linked with cycles of
fecundity, and his rebirth into the world of
light was thought to bring about renewed
fertility. Perhaps this is an appropriation of
powers typically more at home in the world
of the solar deity. Accordingly, the lunar
deity bestowed his rejuvenating powers
upon the produce, livestock and human pop-
ulation as he possessed the restorative
powers to keep herb, herd and humanity fer-
tile and prolific. Epithets like ‘the pure long
hom of heaven’ served to highlight these
powers of the Moon-god, for it expressed
the twofold image of the Moon-god as the
crescent moon or boat of heaven that sailed
the life giving waters, and in particular as
the raging bull empowered with the vigour
io insure the longevity of the herds, the aut-
hority of the earthly king, and the security
of the people. His role as fertility god was
given further expression 1n his description as
father of the people and especially in his
frequent appearance in the guise of a bull or
calf. In. sum, the Moon-god enjoyed
widespread popularity in the history of
ancient Mesopotamian religions. The conti-
nuous influence which these traditions exer-
ted upon ancient Levantine cultures provides
the needed socio-historical context within
“Which to pursue the topic of lunar religion
m ancient Israel.
; The moon- god likewise enjoyed an ele-
‘vated status in early Syrian traditions. In
"addition to Suen's attestation at late third
«millennium Ebla in lexical texts, the suppo-
d west Asiatic name for the moon-god,
„tarikh, has been identified at that site. Fur-
thermore, early second millennium Mari
EFNA
AE
personal names like Abdu-Erakh, ‘the ser-
vant of the Moon-god’, Zimri-Erakh, ‘the
protection of the Moon-god’, Yantin-Erakh,
‘the Moon-god has given’ and Uri-Erakh,
‘the light of the Moon-god’, probably reflect
the Moon-god’s important role in the reli-
gious life of that city and in the wider Mes-
opotamian orbit. At later second millennium
Emar, the Moon-god Sin played a major
role as one of the palace deities in the festi-
vals and appears in theophoric names fourth
in frequency only to the gods —Dagon,
Baal, and —Resheph. The fact that Yarikh
appears in personal names from Babylonia
might suggest that Yankh and Suen/Sin
were simply the Amonte and Akkadian
names for the same deity. Shaggar (Sheger),
perhaps a west Asiatic lunar deity, has also
been identified at Emar. At the contempora-
ry site of Ugarit, the moon-god Yarikh is
mentioned a number of times and in various
contexts such as legends (KTU 1.18 iv:9,
1.19 iv:2), incantations (KTU 1.100:26;
1.107:15), ntual texts (as the recipient of
offerings, e.g. 1.148:5,29), god lists (cf. yrh
of KTU 1.118:13 = 4sin of RS 20.24:13) and
as a theophoric element in proper names
(e.g. the name ‘bdyrh, ‘the servant of the
Moon-god’). A short hymn commonly
thought to be a translation from an original
Human, KTU 1.24, celebrates the marita
union of Yarikh and the moon-goddess Nik-
kal (= Ningal) whose cult perhaps developed
independently in Syria lasting well into the
common era. This cultic hymn gives expres-
sion to the aspiration to secure those bles-
sings of fertility which the lunar deities
could bestow upon their suitors.
On the basis of an Ugaritic text re-
counüng —El's banquet (Ug mrzh = Heb
marzéah), Yankh has been characterized as
fulfilling the roles of judge and gatekeeper
of the netherworld (KTU 1.114:4-8). Yet, it
is more likely the case that this passage
mocks the Moon-god's claim to pre-emi-
nence (1.114:4-8): "Yankh gets ready his (=
EY's) drinking vessel] / like a dog, he fills up
under the tables / The god who knows him
(= Yarikh) / offers him food / The one who
does not / beats him with a stick under the
table." This disparaging of the Moon-god's
587
MOON
role is further verified by the more promi-
nent role uniquely attributed to the solar
goddess at Ugarit. Shapash’s regular receipt
of offerings and sacrifices, her prominent
role in serpent incantations, her association
with the heroic ~Rephaim/rp’ traditions, her
invocation as eternal sum (Sp Im) in royal
correspondence second in position only
behind Baal (2.42:6-7), the mention of her
temple or bt špš, her epithet "Juminary of the
gods’ or nr? ilm, and her appearance as a
theophoric element in proper names illus-
trate the solar deity's major role at Ugarit.
Her position as judge over matters of life
and death in the Baal--*Mot myth likewise
affirms her exalted status. This reversal of
station at Ugarit vis-à-vis the Moon-pod and
Sun-goddess clearly stands as an exception
to the rule in early Levanüne lunar tra-
ditions.
Turning to the relevant first millennium
data from the Levant, a wide range of arte-
factual evidence—jewelry, glyptic, stelae
and onomastica with lunar related theo-
phoric names—testifies to the continuance
of lunar religion in the region (see eg.
SCHROER 1987; WEIPPPERT 1988; KEEL &
UEHLINGER 1992). In addition to the notor-
jety achieved by the cult of the Moon-god
attested at the ancient Syrian city of Harran,
two 7th cent. BCE Aramaic stele inscriptions
preserve the names of a pair of priests in the
service of the moon-god Sehr at ancient
Nerab. In fact their names, Sinzeribni and
Si?gabbar, consist of a theophoric element
derivative of the Moon-god Sin (the Si?- el-
ement in the latter instance being a shorten-
ing of that name).
While inscriptional Hebrew names con-
taining a lunar element are presently lacking
(but cf. ks’ from Beth Shemesh), other
regional first millennium onomastica such as
the Phoenician names ‘bdyrh, ‘the servant of
the Moon-god’, ‘bdks’, ‘the servant of the
Full Moon’, and the Ammonite yrh ‘zr,
‘Moon is my Helper’, confirm the existence
of local lunar religions. In view of the
Moon-god’s occasionally attested domin-
ance over the Sun-god in the early religious
traditions of the Levdnt, several 8th to 6th
cent. BCE Yahweh names in inscriptional
Hebrew might point to the definitive role
which lunar imagery played in ancient
Israel’s formulation of Yahweh symbolism.
Names like yhwzrh, 'the shining forth of
Yahweh’ (zrH ‘rise, shine forth'), nryhw
‘the Jamp of Yahweh’ (cf. nêr 'lamp") or
"cryhw ‘the light of Yahweh’ Cwr ‘to be
bright’) might refer to the illumination or
light originally thought to emanate from the
Moon-god (rather than the Sun-god).
The identification of the specific sources
underlying the Yahwistic lunar symbolism js
extremely problematic, for the admixture of
Mesopotamian and west Asiatic lunar tra-
ditions throughout the Levant is wel] docu-
mented and spans several centunes. For
example, the second millennium evidence
from Ugarit documents the presence of tbe
Mesopotamian lunar couple Sin and Ningal
(= Nikkal) in early western Syria. Further-
more, the Neo-Assyrian kings from Shalma-
neser IJI to Assurbanipal not only vigorous-
ly supported, but also exported the cult of
the Harranian Moon-god to the farthest
western reaches of their empire and Shalma-
neser IIÍ is credited with having rebuilt the
temple of Sin at Harran. The king of Samal,
Bar-Rakkab, an Aramaean vassal] of Tiglath-
pileser INI, paid due recognition to the
Moon-god of Harran by referring to thai god
as his ‘Lord’ in a stele inscription (KA/
218). Also relevant in this regard is the
provenance of the inscription as it surrounds
a lunar standard stele with pendant tassals
on either side, a stereotypic emblem of the
contemporary Moon-god cult.
The Moon-god’s central role in royal
ideology is made explicit in a letter ad-
dressed to Assurbanipal by a diviner who
describes his father Esarhaddon’s pilgrimage
to the temple of Sin at Harran. In this letter,
the god Sin is portrayed as a king leaning on
a staff with two crowns on his head. Esar-
haddon is commanded to take one of those
crowns and place it on his head and to go
forth and to conquer those lands that had yet
to submit to Sin. Some years later, the
Babylonian king Nabonidus was moved by â
dream to rebuild the great temple of Sîn at
588
MOON
Harran following its destruction by the
Medes and Babylonians in 610 BcE. His
mother, Adad-guppi, was a priestess of the
moon-god who in one text extolled Sin for
appointing her son to kingship. She pro-
claimed that Sin was ‘the king of all gods’
and ‘the lord of heaven and netherworld’.
Nabonidus echoes these words of his mother
in a stele inscription indicating his pref-
erence for Sin over ^Marduk as head of the
Babylonian pantheon. Nabonidus also
appointed one of his daughters as high
priestess of Sin at Ur thereby continuing the
two thousand year tradition of lunar religion
in that city. Furthermore, when Nabonidus
took a ten year leave of absence from the
political turmoil that gripped his capital city
Babylon, he settled in Taima in north
Arabia, a centre for lunar religion as sug-
gested by a Sth cent, sce Aramaic stele
recovered from that site.
As for the encounter between east and
west Asiatic lunar traditions in first millen-
nium Israel-Judah, an Assyrian crescent
shaped bronze standard was discovered in
the 7th cent. Assyrian military fort at Tell
esh- Sharia (Ziklag?; WEIPPERT 1988:627-
628, fig. 4.66.6). A seal impression on a
cuneiform tablet found at Gezer and dated to
649 BCE depicts an Assyrian style lunar
crescent standard with tassels mounted on a
socle. Of particular importance is the fact
that the name of the owner of this standard,
one Natan-Yahu, a resident of Gezer, con-
tains a Yahwistic theophoric element
(WrEmrERT 1988:627-628, fig. 4.66.3). A
considerable amount of biblical data like-
Wise assumes that lunar cults once played
Significant roles in early Israelite religion.
Proper names related to ydréah, like Jerah
(Gen 10:26; 1 Chr 1:20 pausal form only)
‘and Jaroah (1 Chr 5:14 ‘devoted to
Yerah' ?), as well as a name like Hodesh or
lióde$ (1 Chr 8:9) might attest to an ancient
form of Israelite lunar worship. Likewise,
‘the names of various sites such as Jericho
i(yérthd) mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and
Beth. Jerah (bët yerah - Khirbet Kerak)
‘Anown from the Talmud (b.Bik. 55a; Ber.
‘Rab. 98:18) might testify to ancient lunar
ae
AE SEERADETVUA AG
ESRB RS yarns
cults in the region.
Cults dedicated to the Moon-god are
clearly presumed in several biblical passages
wherein the Moon-god’s powers are trans-
ferred to Yahweh and the moon is polemi-
cally portrayed as an object created and con-
trolled by Yahweh. Moreover, a handful of
legal prohibitions point to the religious na-
ture of the rituals performed in deference to
the moon. Violators are often depicted as
having rendered “service to’ (‘BD) or having
‘bowed down to’ (SHH) the Moon-god.
Lunar worship is also condemned in non-
jegal texts like Job 31:26-28. These biblical
prohibitions against lunar worship reinforce
the likelihood that other biblical passages
extoHing Yahweh’s pre-eminence over the
moon are specifically aimed at disparaging
lunar religion. The argument in Job 25:5
that ~God does not regard the moon as very
bright (read yh?) probably rests on the prior
assumption that the moon's brightness was
held in some sectors of Israelite society to
be supernaturally empowered for, as Job
31:26-27 intimates, the Moon-god's bright-
ness apparently played a significant role in
some forms of Yahwistic religion. Sir 43:6-
8 similarly affirms the moon's brightness
wherein it is depicted as a beacon or marvel-
ous Hight shining in the vault of the heavens
and 2 Esdr 5:4 notes that the moon will
shine during the day in the eschaton.
The significant role of the Moon-god in
various forms of Yahwistic divination and
astrology is underscored in other biblical
passages. As Ps 121:6 suggests, in certain
Yahwistic circles the Moon-god was held to
be an oracular god whose brightness could
wreak havoc on its victims, rendering an
individual a ‘lunatic’. The psalmist on the
other hand, claims that Yahweh possesses
the power to restrain such ominous lunar
forces. Isa 47:13 refers to the making of
astrological prognostications at the time of
the new moons (hdddsim). According to the
mantic wisdom reflected in Prov 7:20, the
moon’s waning was considered an unpro-
pitious time for the conducting of business.
In Jer 2:24, the appearance of the new moon
is intimately connected with menstruation.
589
MOON
The new moon also appears together with
the —sabbath as sacred times requiring re-
stricted trade (Amos 8:5), special sacrifice
(Isa 1:13) or as a time especially conducive
to the consultation of a prophet (2 Kgs
4:23). In fact, should those religious prac-
tices deemed unacceptable by some Yahwis-
tic prophetic circles become attached to the
new moon festivals, certain prophets did not
hesitate to condemn them (Amos 8:5; Hos
2:11; Isa 1:13).
The data just discussed provide the im-
mediate context for interpreting other bibli-
cal passages making mention of the moon.
The new moon is coupled with the ap-
pointed feasts (md‘ddim) or with both the
sabbath and the appointed feasts as times of
celebration (Hos 2:13[11]) and of special
religious observance (1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr
2:3[4]; 8:13; 31:3; Ezra 3:5; Neh 10:34(33];
Ezek 45:17; 46:1-16). At these times the
king's courtiers were required to dine with
him (1 Sam 20:18-29) and the trumpet was
blown in the temple signalling their com-
mencement (Ps 81:4[3]). Interpreters have
also surmised that the Passover feast has
lunar cult associations owing to its initiation
following the blowing of the trumpet at the
new and full moons.
The moon is depicted as the lesser light
that dominates the night in Gen 1:14-19
where it is superseded only by the sun.
While this passage maintains a clear status
distinction between Yahweh and the moon,
it nevertheless upholds a significant degree
of continuity between Yahweh and the astral
bodies as to their functions and powers.
Another passage, Ps 104:19, evinces exten-
sive familiarity with ancient Near Eastern
astral worship (perhaps Egyptian Atenism?).
While it is clearly polemical in tone, this
psalm demonstrates that the astral imaging
of Yahweh was at home in certain versions
of the cult. It would appear that the astral
bodies were simply emptied of their divine
powers which were then transferred to the
domain of Yahweh. Isa 24:23 presupposes
this transformation, for this passage predicts
the overthrow of the Moon-god (/éband) in
an eschatological battle between Yahweh
and the astral bodies—here referred to as the
-*host of heaven. To be sure, any simplistic
equation of Yahweh and the moon and the
other astral bodies or their corresponding
forms is unequivocally spumed in the bibli-
cal traditions, but echoes of the above men-
tioned archaic transformations can neverthe-
less be discemed as underlying those
traditions.
Furthermore, if the broader Levantine
lunar traditions as well as the biblical
prohibitions are any indication of the lunar
cult’s pervasiveness, a number of related
themes in biblical tradition might contain
veiled polemics against the lunar cult or
against the moon in its natural unmediated
state as a once dominant iconographic sym-
bol of Yahweh. These themes include
Yahweh's creation of and control over the
moon (Gen 1:14; Ps 8:4; 104:19: 136:7, 9;
Sir 43:6-8), the moon’s resultant praise of
Yahweh (Ps 148:3; cf. Gen 37:9) and
Yahweh’s manipulation of the moon, that is,
his darkening of it, his turning it red, or its
shining by day (for the last, cf. 2 Esdr 5:4)
whether as a sign of Yahwch's power to
bless (Deut 33:14; Isa 60:19-20; Jer 31:35)
or to judge (Josh 10:12-13; Isa 13:10; Joel
2:10; 3:4; 4:15; Ezek 32:7-8: Hab 3:11; Job
25:5). All of these themes point to the per-
sistence of an Israelite lunar religion against
which they are aimed.
As for the biblical prohibitions, the wor-
ship of the Moon-god Yareah is prohibited
in three deuteronomistic texts and in one
prophetic text of deuteronomistic orien-
tation: Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2
(cf. also Wis 13:2). All four of these texts
Originate in the late pre-exilic period or
thereafter. As mentioned previously, the il-
licit character of the lunar cult in Yahwistic
religion is also dealt with in the post-exilic
passage Job 31:26. What developments cre-
ated the need to address the specific issue of
astral worship in deuteronomistic circles? It
might have been the case that an inner-
Israelite struggle ensued over the continued
role of the two major luminaries in Yahwis-
tic religion. Outside deuteronomistic circles,
the solar cult had overtaken that of the
590
MOON
Moon-god in the region as evidenced long
ago by the sun’s elevated role in the Ugari-
tic text KTU 1.24 and in the Genesis cre-
ation account. Within deuteronomistic cir-
cles, the divine pantheon had been reduced
to Yahweh and his servile mal"àktím (—Mes-
senger, Angels) and so the worship of the
moon and sun was outlawed. Nevertheless,
aspects of the lunar cult had already made
their way into the Yahwistic cult and sym-
bolism by the time the prohibitions had ari-
sen, therefore these elements had to be rein-
terpreted or rejected.
For example, Deut 4:15-20 underscores
the point that the people should not attempt
to make an image of Yahweh. The wholc-
sale denial of any material image of
Yahweh, whether man-made or naturally
occurring is not at issue. In other words, the
deuteronomistic circles merely endorsed a
different iconographic symbol than those
representative of the astral deities. Rather,
this passage addresses the nation's ignor-
ance of or disregard for Yahweh's proper
symbolism according to deuteronomistic
standards. As 4:11 reiterates, when the Sinai
theophany took place, the people did not see
Yahweh's form, for they stood only at the
foot of the mountain. Only Moses saw
Yahweh's form or témíüná, face to face, as
traditions like Num 12:8 and Deut 34:10
make clear. (An alternative tradition in Exod
33:16-23 notes that Moses is allowed to see
only Yahweh's glory and his back, but not
his -*face.) Similarly, a passage like 2 Kgs
18:4 might reiterate the deuteronomistic
judgement that the nation continually mis-
represented Yahweh in the cult. According
to our author, Moses’ bronze serpent
(>Nehushtan) was removed from the
Solomonic temple only several centuries
after its introduction by king Hezekiah, who,
rather ironically, was considered a reformer
in deuteronomistic circles. Perhaps this
cryptic account reflects a once influential
tradition that preserves a memory of a form
of Yahweh’s image distinct from that endor-
sed in later deuteronomistic ideology.
The assumption underlying these verses is
that the astral bodies could and did represent
a deity and that long ago Yahweh (identified
in some instances with El) appointed them
as gods to rule the other nations. The de-
piction of Yahweh in | Kgs 22:19 as seated
on his throne with the host of heaven stand-
ing at both his right and left side confirms
the independent, but subordinate, status of
the celestial bodies, the elevation of the
astral bodies to the status of major deities in
the pantheon preceded Yahweh's rise to pro-
minence as made evident in the textual tra-
ditions pertaining to Deut 32:8-9. According
to the relevant LXX and Qumran readings
of Deut 32:8-9, this passage describes how
the >Most High or El (cf. Gen 14:18-22)
had allotted to each of the nations one of the
‘sons of El’ (béné ’él) or members of his
pantheon. As the language shared by Deut
4:19 and 32:8-9 indicates, the underlings of
El included the moon and the sun and the
host of heaven. Therefore, it should come as
no surprise that Deut 32:9 reveals that
Yahweh was likewise included as an inde-
pendent, but subordinate, deity who was
assigned to -*Jacob/Israel.
In sum, Deut 4:16-18 concerns the issuc
of making the wrong image of Yahweh.
Deut 4:19-20 outlaws the adoption of the
sun, moon, or host of heaven as phenomeno-
logical manifestations of Yahweh in contra-
distinction to widely accepted convention in
non-deuteronomistic circles of Yahwism. Of
further interest in this regard is the fact that
non-astral inanimate objects are not singled
out for censure. The same applies in the
case of so-called mixed forms (Deut 4:16-17
only pertains to unmixed anthropomorphic
and zoomorphic forms). Aside from such
deliberate omissions one might speculate
regarding the nature of the legitimate sym-
bol of Yahweh on the basis of archaeologi-
cal data. Perhaps Yahweh's image as viewed
within deuteronomistic circles was a cultic
object like the ark or a half animal/half man
figure as attested at Kuntillet Ajrud.
2 Kgs 23:5 preserves a tradition in which
priests burned incense not only to Baal, but
also to the moon, the sun, and the -constel-
lations, that is, to all the hosts of hcaven
throughout Judah and the Jerusalem en-
591
MOON
virons. This passage also recounts how king
Josiah of Judah purged these priests from
the region. In 2 Kgs 21:3-5, king Manasseh
is accused of worshipping the hosts of
heaven and building altars to them in the
two temple courts. In the light of 23:5, the
hosts of heaven in 21:3-5 most likely in-
clude the moon along with the sun and
—stars or constellations. In any case, 23:12
claims that Josiah tore down the altars in the
temple courts that Manasseh had built, but
notes that he also pulled down the roof-top
altars on the upper chamber of Ahaz that
had been built, not by Manasseh, but by ‘the
kings of Judah’. This may be an echo of the
lunar cult’s longstanding pervasiveness in
ancient Judahite religion.
Exilic and post-exilic passages like Jer
19:13 and Zeph 1:5 likewise presuppose that
the roof-top altars were erected for the wor-
ship of astral deities and specifically for the
hosts of heaven. This practice had earlier
Yahwistic antecedents, that is, if passages
like 1 Kgs 22:19 are any indication of what
constituted Yahwistic cosmology in former
days: "... I saw Yahweh seated upon his
throne with all the host of heaven standing
in attendance to the right and to the left of
him". If so, 1 Kgs 22:19 would indict king
Hezekiah, the 'reformer', as a perpetrator of
the cult associated with the roof-top altars.
The ambivalence of the deuteronomistic
ideology as to the extent of Hezekiah’s
reform also points in this direction. While
Hezekiah is praised for his general reform-
ing efforts in the deuteronomistic traditions,
he nevertheless appears in those same tra-
ditions as a Judahite king tolerant of the
astral religion of his forefathers. 23:12 sug-
gests that as one of those ‘kings of Judah’
that preceded Manasseh, he allowed the
offering of incense to the hosts of heaven
and the rituals at the roof-top altars to con-
tinue unabated. If this tradition has any cor-
respondence with the socio-historical real-
ities of the late pre-exilic period, then it
confirms the claim that astral religion, and
especially the lunar cult, were very much a
part of Yahwistic religion of the seventh
century BCE and following. Such factors
would also explain the vacillation evident in
the deuteronomistic tradition’s treatment of
king Hezekiah.
A passage like Jer 8:2 further verifies not
only the lunar cult’s extent of influence in
ancient Israelite religion and tradition, but
also the continued threat which it posed as a
alternative form of Yahwism to that being
advanced by deuteronomistic circles. With a
touch of the ironic, Jer 8:2 describes the
exposure of corpses to the Juminaries, as if
to suggest the efficacy of the act. This prac-
tice is also attested in Assyrian texts where-
in the victorious king would punish defeated
enemies by desecrating their royal graves
and exposing their contents to the sun and
the moon. It should be recalled that as dei-
ties, the sun and the moon were judges of
the netherworld and such exposure of the
bodies meant that the Moon-god and Sun-
god had determined that such ghosts could
not be properly cared for and therefore
would never rest in peace.
Although forms of lunar religion clearly
have ancient roots in Canaan, some biblical
traditions more likely concern themselves
with the threat posed by later non-in-
digenous versions of lunar religion. If one
assumes that the relevant biblical traditions
are in many cases the productions of the
exilic or post-exilic period, then one should
not be surprised to find that the lunar cults,
disparaged in the Hebrew Bible, have their
origins in contemporary Syrian or Mesopo-
tamian traditions. Assyrian style lunar cult
reliefs, bronze lunar standard tops, and
standard glyptics recovered from first mil-
lennium Levantine sites testify to the per-
sistence of contemporary forms of Mesopot-
amian lunar religion in the region. The
biblical characterization of these lunar cults
as ancient and Canaanite would then reflect
the ideological rhetoric of ancient writers
who employed veiled polemics in their dis-
paraging of competing cults. This in turn
might suggest that eastern lunar influence on
the Israelite-Judahite cultic traditions was
more extensive than the mere borrowing of
month names from the lunar festival calen-
dar of Babylonian tradition as evidenced in
592
MOSES
the biblical tradition’s portrayal of the new
moon festival.
The image of the new moon festival as
displayed in biblical traditions might have
been informed by lunar traditions like those
attached. to the akitu festival observed in
honour of the Moon-god at Haran. The
Harranian lunar cult and akitu festival were
revived, adapted and fervently sanctioned by
the Assyrian and Babylonian royalty during
the mid-first millennium. Therefore, one
should not be surprised to find significant
influence from Mesopotamian and Syrian
lunar traditions on the biblical sketches of
the new moon festival or, for that matter, on
the late Judahite cults expressive of the
social realities underlying those literary
sketches. One’s view on this and the broader
question of Mesopotamian influence on mid-
first millennium Israelite and Judahite re-
ligion are bound up with the questions of
the dating and character of the biblical texts
in question and with the nature of the rel-
evant archaeological evidence, but any res-
olution of these issues lies well beyond the
boundaries of the present essay.
V. Bibliography
M. E. COHEN, The Cultic Calendars of the
Ancient Near East (Bethesda 1993); T
Green, The City of the Moon-god: Re-
ligious Traditions of Harran (RGRW 114;
‘Leiden 1992); J. C. GREENFIELD & M.
-SOKOLOFF, Astrological and Related Omen
Texts in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, JNES
: 48 (1989) 201-214; M. G. Hair, A Study of
„the Sumerian Moon-God, | Nanna/Suen
: (Diss.; Philadelphia 1985); J. S. HOLLADAY
` Jr., The Day(s) the Moon Stood Still, JBL
: 87 (1968) 166-178; S. HorLoway, Haran:
;Culic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian
“Empire and its Implications for Sennache-
;nb's 'Letter to Hezekiah’ in 2 Kings, The
; Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for
$ Gósta W. Ahlstróm (eds. S. W. Holloway &
HL. K. Handy; Sheffield 1995) 276-314; A.
; DrKu, Der Kult des Mondgottes im alto-
$ t rientalischen Palástina-Syrien, ZDMG 100
(01950) 202-220; O. KEEL & C. UrEnuin-
s GER, Góttinnen, Gótter und Gottessymbole
S (Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1992); E. Laroche,
E J
Ku.
rae
ye.
a
w
Divinités lunaires d'Anatolie, RHR 148
(1955) 1-24; J. Lewy, The Late Assyro-
Babylonian Cult of the Moon and Its Culmi-
nation at the Time of Nabonidus, HUCA 19
(1943) 453-473; J. W. McKay, Religion in
Judah under the Assyrians (London 1973)
50-53; G. DEL OLMO LETE, Yarhu y Nikka-
ju: La mitología lunar sumeria en Ugarit,
AulOr 9 (1991) 67-75; D. PARDEE, Les tex-
tes paramythologiques de la 24e campagne
(RSOu 4; Paris 1988) 35-48, 60-62; M.
Provera, I culto lunare nela tradizione
biblica e profana, BeO 33 (1991) 65-68; F.
ROCHBERG-HALTON, Aspects of Babylonian
Celestial Divination: The Lunar Eclipse
Tablets of Eniima-Anu-Enlil (AfO Beih. 22;
Horn 1988); S. ScHROER, In Israel gab es
Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst
im Alten Testament (OBO 74; Fribourg
1987) 261-266; A. SJÖBERG, Der Mondgott
Nanna-Suen der sumerischen Überlieferung
(Stockholm 1960); A. SPYCKET, Le culte du
Dieu-Lune à Tell Keisan, RB 80 (1973) 384-
395; M. Sro, The Moon God as Seen by
the Babylonians, Natural Phenomena: Their
Meaning, Depiction and Description in the
Ancient Near East (ed. D. J. W. Meijer;
Amsterdam 1992) 245-277; J. G. TAYLOR,
Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeo-
logical Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient
Israel (JSOTSup 111; Sheffield 1993); H
Weippert, Seigel mit Mondsichelstandarten
aus Palästina, BN 5 (1978) 58; WEIPPERT,
Palüstina in vorhellenistischer Zeit (Mün-
chen 1988).
B. B. SCHMIDT
MOSES nw Mavojic
I. In the Bible Moses is the human
mediator of revelation par excellence. His
name occurs ca. 765 times in the OT (espe-
cially in Exod [290x] - Josh) and ca. 80
times in the NT (more frequently than the
name of any other OT person, especially in
reference to Moses as lawgiver and author
of the Pentateuch) and is borne by no other
biblical figure. The name mdSeh is explained
in Exod 2:10 by means of a wordplay with
the root mgh, ‘to draw’: “I drew him out of
593
MOSES
the water”. Probably, however, the name
also contains an allusion to the destiny of its
bearer: ‘one that draws out, viz. his people
from the waters of the sea and the bondage
of Egypt’ (Exod 12-15). Josephus (Ant.
2:228; Contra Apionem 1:286) and Philo of
Alexandria (Vita Mosis 1 17) explained the
name with the aid of Egyptian/Coptic: 'the
(one) rescued from the water'. This expla-
nation probably forms the basis for the
Greek version of the name Movons [=
mó/mou "water" 4 esés "saved"]. The con-
ception which is currently almost universal-
ly accepted is that the name should be ex-
plained with the aid of the Egyptian word
mśj "produce", "bring forth", and that it is
an abbreviated form of a theophoric name
(e.g. Ptah-mose, "Ptah has been born/has
engendered”, cf. GriFFITHS 1953:225-231).
As appears from Matt 17:13 par. and Rev
11:3-12 Moses was considered to have been
transferred like -*Elijah to heavenly exist-
ence, at least according to some Jewish and
Christian circles. Accordingly his return
could be expected.
Il. According to the OT and especially
the pentateuchal traditions, Moses had a u-
nique status among men (cf. Deut 34:10-12;
Sir 44:23-45:5). He was the servant of the
LoRD (Exod 14:31; Num 12:7.8; Deut. 34:5,
etc.), God's confidant, a prophet (Deut
18:15.18; 34:10; Hos 12:14) and priest (Ps
99:6; cf. Judg 18:30) Moses was the
LoRD's representative to Israel (Exod
3:15.16; 11:2; 12:3, etc.) and to Pharaoh, the
king of Egypt (Exod 3:18; 5:1; 6:29; 7:10,
etc.) He was the redeemer and leader of
Israel (Josh 24:5; 1 Sam 12:8; Isa 63:11;
Hos 12:14; Mic 6:4; Pss 77:21; 105:26); the
initiator of its administration (Exod 18:13-
26; Num 1-2; 26; Deut 1:9-18) and the
founder of its cult (Exod 3:15; 12-13; 16:21-
30; 40:17-33; Lev 8-9, etc.); the zealous
champion of the true. Yahweh-religion and
the fighter against apostasy (Exod 32; Num
25). Moses interceded on Israel's behalf
(Exod 32:7-14.30-32; 33:12-23; 34:9; Num
11:2; 12:13; 14:13-19; 16:22; 21:7; Jer 15:1;
Ps 106:23); he had to suffer the enmity and
lack of confidence of his people (Exod 2:14;
5:21; 14:10-12; 15:24; 16:2.3; 17:2-4, etc.).
Though also condemned for lack of faith
(Num 20:7-13; Deut 32:51; Ps 106:32-33),
he was a real ‘man of God" (Deut 33:1; Josh
14:6; Ps 90:1, etc.) who wrought impressive
miracles and wonders (Exod 7:10-12:30;
14:15-15:27; 17:1-16, etc.). He was a poet
(Exod 15; Deut 32-33; Ps 90) and a law-
giver (Exod 24:3-4.7.8; 34:27.28; Deut.
31:9.24-26; Josh 1:7; 8:31.32; 22:5; 1 Kgs
2:3, etc.).
In their picture of Moses the NT passages
again and again go beyond the information
provided by the OT (e.g. Heb 11:22-28).
Sometimes they present traces of the extra-
biblical Moses’ legends (e.g., Acts 7:22; 1
Cor 10:4; 2 Tim 3:8; Jude 9). In conformity
with the OT, Moses often appears in the NT
as Israel's lawgiver (Matt 8:4; 19:7.8; 23:2;
Mark 7:10; 10:3.4; 12:9; Luke 2:22; John
7:19.22.23; 8:5; Acts 6:11.14; 13:39, etc.).
He is also considered to be the author of the
Pentateuch (Matt 22:24; Mark 12:26; Luke
16:29.31; John 1:17; Rom 10:5.19; Heb
7:14, etc.) and as such he is regarded as the
announcer and prophet of -*Jesus, the
—Messiah (Luke 24:27.44; John 1:45;
5:45.46; Acts 26:22; 28:23), who can be
described in the NT as a second Moses
(Acts 3:22; 7:37), misunderstood and re-
jected like the first Moses (Acts 7:17-44). In
various ways several OT traditions about
Moses are used in the NT within the context
of typological exegesis (e.g., John 3:14;
6:32-58; 1 Cor 10:1-13; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Heb
3:1-6; 9:16-28; 12:18-24; Rev 15:3).
In the OT as well as in the NT Moses is
above all the mediator of revelation. Several
times his most intimate relation with the
LorD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19;
20:18-21; 24:18; 33:11.18-23; Num 12:7-8;
Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John
9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb 8:5), evidently to em-
phasize that Moses’ words and prescriptions
really are the words and rules of the Lorp
himself. In connection with his role as a
mediator of revelation, Moses is portrayed
with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5;
Sir 45:2). According to Exod 34:29-35 the
skin of Moses’ face radiated after his meet-
594
MOSES
ing with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod
34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in
a divine aura. By his nimbus Moses was
legitimated as the true representative of the
Lorp (cf. Matt 17:2; Acts 6:15). The same
fear which seized man at the theophany
(e.g., Exod 20:18.21; 33:20), was according
to Exod 34:30 evoked by the Lonp's repre-
sentative, the man who thanks'to his long
and rigorous fasting (Exod 34:28; cf. Exod
24:18; Deut 9:9.18) had reached the highest
state of purity and holiness—with cating and
drinking impurity may enter the body (cf.
Matt 15:1 1)—and so had been transferred to
heavenly existence (2 Enoch 56:2; cf. 2
Enoch 22). Thus he was in a position to
communicate with the Lord and so his face
was transfigured (HOUTMAN 1989:7). Al-
though he was a mortal, Moses had received
the appearance of a divine being. The idea
that God can be known to humankind only
in and through Moses, is also expressed in
extra-biblical literature, for instance in Eze-
kiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge. He tells about
a dream-vision in which Moses saw the fol-
lowing scene: God gave him the sceptre and
the royal diadem. He himself descended
from the throne and seated Moses upon it
(Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9.29.5) This
daring concept is not found elsewhere. The
view that Moses ascended to heaven (cf.
Exod 20:21; 24:12-18; 34:2.4.27-29) and
became God's viceregent or plenipotentiary
by receiving divine and royal dignity, is
attested, however, in Philo of Alexandria
and in rabbinic and Samaritan literature
(MEEKS 1968:354-371).
According to the OT Moses did die (Deut
34:5). His death occurred, however, under
striking and mysterious circumstances.
Moses was not wom with age. Despite his
age, his sight was not dimmed, nor had his
vigour failed (Deut 34:7). He died at the
command of the Lorp (cf. Deut 32:50;
34:5), at the moment he finished his duty
(cf. Deut 32:48-52; 34:4). But how? No
indication is given of the way he died. His
burial is reported: wayyigbór ’616 “and he
buried him” (Deut 34:6). Who performed
this act is not mentioned explicitly, how-
ever. Notwithstanding the rather detailed
information in the text about the location of
Moses” burial-place, it is said to be un-
known (Deut 34:6).
Various traditions on Moses’ death are
known from outside the Bible. They all
express the uniqueness of Moses. In Pseudo-
Philo (LAB 19; 20:8) and the Samaritan
Memar Margah V (ed. MACDONALD 1963)
his death is even described as his
glorification. According to rabbinic litera-
ture, Moses’ life was not taken away by the
—Angel of Death, but by the kiss of the
LonD—-al-pi yhwh in Deut 34:5 is under-
stood literally—(e.g., Tg. Ps.-J.; MidrR.
Deut. 11:10; MidrR. Cant. 1.2:5), the easiest
form of death (b. Ber. 8a). In Rabbinic
literature various views are found with
regard to the agent of Moses’ burial.
According to a current interpretation Moses
was buried by the Lonp. This view is also
attested in, for instance, Pseudo-Philo (LAB
19:16) and in Memar Marqah V 8 4. Ac-
cording to another interpretation Moses has
to be considered the agent of his own burial
(e.g. MidrR. Num. 10:17). In the rabbinic
elucidation of Moses' burial, -*angels often
play a role as supernumeraries (e.g. Tg. Ps.-
J.; MidrR. Deut. 11:10). Outside rabbinic
literature the view is attested that Moses was
buried by an angel (Michael) or a number
of angels (cf. the use of the plural “they
buried him" in the LXX-version of Deut
34:6, in Tg. Neof., and in some MSS of the
Samaritan Pentateuch). Sometimes this
depiction of the event is connected with a
report of the dispute between Michael and
the Angel of Death/the Devil about Moses’
body (cf. Jude 9). The concept of (an)
angel(s) as the agent(s) of Moses' burial is
found in Christian literature (HOUTMAN
1978:76-77), but is also known to Islam
(WEiL 1845:186-191) and to the Falashas
(ULLENDORFF 1961:419-443).
The predominant view in the tradition is
that Moses did die and was buried. Also
another view occurs, viz. that Moses has
been taken up to heaven. This view is al-
luded to, for instance, in Josephus’ version
of Deut 34 (Ant. 4:323-326). in which no
595
MOSES
mention is made of Moses’ burial place: yet
communing with Eleazar and Joshua, who
followed Moses to the place of his passing
away, a cloud suddenly descended upon
Moses (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11; Acts 1:9) and he dis-
appeared in a ravine. Josephus adds that
Moses had written in the sacred books that
he died, Jest they should venture to say that
by reason of his surpassing virtue he had
gone back to the deity, i.e. that he had been
taken away bodily from the realm of human-
kind to God (cf. Ant. 1:85; 3:96). Josephus’
description of the end of Moses’ life is
ambiguous. By using for Moses’ disap-
pearance a technical term for assumption
(aphanizomai)-—n Ant. 9:28 it 1s used in
connection with Elijab's ascension—he sug-
gests that Moses was taken up into heaven,
but by the determination of the place of
Moses’ disappearance (“in a ravine”, cf.
Deut 34:6) and his remark on Moses’
authorship of his own death-report, he seems
to deny such a suggestion. However that
may be, Josephus was acquainted with the
view that Moses had not died, but had been
taken up in the flesh to heaven. That view is
also attested in Philo of Alexandria (Quaest.
et sol. in Gen. 1:86). In his De vita Mosis
2:288.291, however, he narrates Moses’ pil-
grimage from earth to heaven (the ascension
of his soul), Moses thus leaving mortai iife
for immortality (cf. De virt. 76; Sac. 8-10),
but also about his burial by immortal powers
(for the concept of Moses’ having a twofold
demise cf. e.g. Clement of Alexandria,
Stromata 6:15). In Deut 34 there are some
points of contact for the concept of Moses‘
removal: in stones from antiquity about
assumption (cf LonfINk 1971: 32-79) the
place of the removal of a person is often a
mountain (cf. Deut 34:1; Acts 1:12; 2 Apoc.
Bar. 76); because he was translated bodily,
the person in question has no burial-place
(cf. Deut 34:6; Luke 24:1-11.23.24, and
Josephus, Ant. 9:28 on — Enoch and —Eli-
jah). Possibly the concept of Moses' re-
moval has come into being under the
influence of the tradition concerning Elijah’s
translation to heaven (2 Kgs 2:11; Hour-
MAN 1978:79-80).
596
In Matt 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-
36 Moses is mentioned together with Elijah
(cf. also Rev 11:6), whose ascension was
widely accepted. So it is likely that in these
passages it is presumed that Moses enjoyed
„the same heavenly existence as Elijah. The
concept of Matt 17:1-13 par. and Rev 11:3-
12—the two witnesses of v 6 are to be
identified with Moses and Elijah—must be
distinguished from the concept of Moses’
return after the resurrection of the dead
(e.g., MidrR. Deut. 9:9) and the concept of
the ascension of Moses’ soul, about which
the lost ending of the so-called Assumption
of Moses (also known as Testament of
Moses) may have reported. In Matt 17:1-13
par. Moses and Elijah appear from heaven
in the role of precursors of Jesus, the
Messiah. By their coming the beginning
of the final age is announced (cf. Mal 3:22-
24). In Rev 11:3-12 they appear as
preachers of repentance. Jn their confronta-
tion with the beast (the Antichrist) they
suffered death, but after their martyrdom
they were raised from death and so they
were in the position to return bodily to
heaven (Rev 11:11.12). The concept of
Moses' removal to heaven is attested also in
Rabbinic literature (e.g., Sifre Deut. § 357;
b. Sota 13b; Midr. ha-Gadol [ed. S.
SCHECHTER; Cambridge 1902: 213]), in The
Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua
the Son of Nun (ed. CRANE 1890: 31), in
Christian pseudepigrapha (Acrs Pil. 16:5.6)
and in patristic literature (e.g., Jerome, łn
Amos IX 6).
IY. By Hellenistic Jewish authors such as
Eupolemus, Artapanus, Philo of Alexandria,
and Josephus, the biblical narrative concem-
ing Moses has been elaborated and ex-
panded with many legends. They glorify
Moses as an inventor, civilizer, lawgiver;
philosopher, king, and prophet. Their ideal
picture of Moses as a unique personality, a
Divine Man, partly has its origin in their
apologetic attitude in view of the strong
anti-Semitic attacks on Moses by Hellenistic
authors (Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus,
Apollonius Molon, Nicharchus).
In rabbinic literature, too, Moses’ life and
MOSES
work are surrounded with legends. Accord-
ing to rabbinic tradition Moses was not only
given the wnitten law, but also the oral law.
Several extra-biblical writings are ascribed
to Moses (so, e.g., a Greek Apocalypse of
Moses [Adam and Eve] and the Assumption
of Moses). The book of Jubilees is presented
as deriving from revelation given to Moses
on Mount Sinai (1:1-7.26.27; 23:22). The
same is the case with the Temple Scroll of
Qumran (cf. Wise 1990). In Samaritan tra-
dition Moses is the only prophet, God's
highest and most direct means of revelation.
In Samaritan eschatology Moses-typology
plays an important role (cf. Deut 18:15.18).
With the name Misa, Moses occupies a pro-
minent place in the Koran and in Islamic
tradition (cf. HIsl, 546-548).
In modem Moses interpretation S.
FREUD's (1939) view of Moses as an Egypt-
ian champion of monotheism, who was
murdered by the Israelites, has drawn wide
attention (STEMBERGER 1974). Such a tar-
nishing interpretation of Moses’ demise had
been suggested, however, already ca. 1775
by J. W. Goethe (BupbE 1932). Of all
biblical figures Moses has the most promi-
nent place in literature, art and music. The
picture of the horned Moses is widely
known (cf. MELLINKOFF 1970).
IV. Bibliography
C. BEGG, Josephus’ Portrayal of the Disap-
pearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses:
Some Observations, JBL 109 (1990) 691-
693; K. BERGER, Der Streit des guten und
des bösen Engels um die Seele. Beobachtun-
gen zu 4QAmr? und Judas 9, JSJ 4 (1973)
1-18; S. BrocK, Some Syriac Legends con-
cerning Moses, JJS 33 (1982) 237-255; K.
Buppe, Goethe zu Mose's Tod, ZAW 50
(1932) 300-303; H. CAZELLES, Moise,
DBSup 5 (1957) 1308-1337; *CAZELLES,
TWAT S (1986) 28-46; G. W. Coats,
Legendary Motifs in the Moses Death
Reports, CBQ 39 (1977) 34-44; O. T.
CRANE, The Samarian Chronicle or the
Book of Joshua the Son of Nun (New York
1890); F. DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatol-
ogy, The Samaritans (ed. A. D. Crown;
Tübingen 1989) 266-292; E. L. FLYNN,
Moses in the Visual Arts, /nt 44 (1990) 265-
276; J. Fossum, Sects and Movements, The
Samaritans (ed. A. D. Crown, Tiibingen
1989) 293-389, esp. 321-324, 338-342, 380-
382, 386-389; Fragments from Hellenistic
Jewish Authors (ed. C. R. Holladay; Vol I
Chico, California 1983; Vol If Atlanta,
Georgia 1989); Greek and Latin Authors on
Jews and Judaism (ed. M. Stern; Jerusalem
1974-1984) III 137-138 [Index]; J. GoLpin,
The Death of Moses: An Exercise in
Midrashic Transposition, Love and Death in
the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of
M. H. Pope (ed. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good;
Guildford, Conn. 1987) 219-225; J. G.
GRIFFITHS, The Egyptian Derivation of the
Name Moses, JNES 12 (1953) 225-231; K.
HAACKER & P. SCHAFER, Nachbiblische
Traditionen vom Tode des Moses, Josephus-
Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem
antiken. Judentum und dem Neuen Testa-
ment. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag
gewidmet (ed. O. Betz et al.; Göttingen
1974) 147-174; P. W. vAN pEr HORST,
Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the
Dramatist, JSS 34 (1983) 21-29; C. Hout-
MAN, De dood van Mozes, de knecht des
Heren. Notities over en naar aanleiding van
Deuteronomium 34:1-8, De Knecht. Studies
rondom Deuterojesaja aangeboden aan
Prof. Dr. J. L. Koole (Kampen 1978) 72-82;
Houman, Het verheerlijkte gezicht van
Mozes, NedTTs 43 (1989) 1-10; *J. JERE-
MIAS, TWNT 4 (1942) 852-878; TWNT 10/2
(1979) 1184-1185; R. KUSHELEVSKY, Moses
and the Angel of Death (Studies on Themes
and Motifs in Literature 4; Frankfurt am
Main et al. 1995); G. LouFinx, Die Him-
melfahre Jesu (SLANT 26; Miinchen 1971)
32-79; J. MacDonaLp, The Theology of the
Samaritans (London 1964) 147-222, 420-
446; W. A. MEEKS, Moses as God and
King, Religions in Antiquity. Essays in
Memory of E. R. Goodenough (ed. J. Neus-
ner; Leiden 1968) 354-371; R. MARTIN-
ACHARD et al., La figure de Moïse (Genève
1978); Moïse l'homme de l'alliance (Paris
etc. 1955); R. MELLINKOFF, The Horned
Moses in Medieval Art and Thought
(Berkeley etc. 1970); J. PRIEST, Testament
597
MOST HIGH ~ MOT
of Moses, The Old Testament Pseudepi-
grapha | (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London
1983) 919-934; W. H. Propp, The Skin of
Moses’ Face - Transfigured or Disfigured?,
CBO 49 (1987) 375-386; J. D. Purws,
Samaritan Traditions on the Death of Mosis,
Studies on the Testament of Moses (ed. G.
W. E. Nickelsburg; Cambridge 1973) 93-
117; A. ScHaLm, Untersuchungen zur
Assumptio Mosis (ALGHJ 17; Leiden 1989);
SCHWARZBAUM, Studies in Jewish and
World Folklore (Berlin 1968) 563 [Index];
SCHWARZBAUM, Biblical and Extra-Biblical
Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature (Wall-
dorf-Hessen 1982) 228 [Index]; H. SPEYER,
Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran
(Gräfenhainchen 1931) 225-363; G. STEM-
BERGER, Der Mann Moses’ in Freuds
Gesamtwerk, Kairos 16 (1974) 161-215; J.
D. Tasor, “Retuming to the Divinity”:
Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances
of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, JBL 108
(1989) 225-238; E. ULLENDORFF, The
‘Death of Moses’ in the Literature of the
Falashas, BSOAS 24 (1961) 419-443; M.
WADSWORTH, The Death of Moses and the
Riddle of the End Time in Pseudo-Philo,
JJS 28 (1977) 12-19; G. WEL, Biblische
Legenden der Muselmänner (Frankfurt a. M.
1845) 186-191; M. O. WisE, A Critical
Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran
Cave 11 (Chicago 1990).
C. HOUTMAN
MOST HIGH > ELYON; HYPSISTOS
MOT ma
I. mdwet/mot is the Hebrew word for
‘death’. It is also, however, the name of a
specific Canaanite deity or demon, Mot
(more precisely Motu), known especially
from the Ugaritic literature. Attempts to
explain his name as connected with Akkad-
jan mutu, ‘warrior’, and not with ‘death’, are
to be discounted. In OT poetry Death is
often personified (e.g. Hos 13:14), so that
there is frequently the possibility that there
may be mythological overtones in texts
which could, however, be read in a totally
598
demythologised way. Plausible cases of
Hebrew passages referring to Death with
mythological overtones may number about a
dozen.
JY. Although there is plenty of evidence
of underworld deities and demons in ancient
Mesopotamia, there is only limited evidence
of the personification of Death (cf. CAD
M/II, 317-318). So far as mythologisation of
Death is concerned we may note rtu,
who appears as a Death deity in a seventh
century BCE Assyrian text describing an
underworld vision (W. VON SODEN, Unter-
weltsvision eines Assyrischen Prinzen, ZA
43 (1936) 16).
Our main evidence in this matter comes
from the Ugaritic mythological texts. Before
proceeding to a detailed discussion of these,
it may be worth noting that the only other
evidence in western sources for this deity or
demon, apart from possible occurrence of
the divine name Mutu in Emarite and Ebla-
ite persona] names (SMrrH 1990), is again in
a mythical context, i.e. in the account of
Phoenician mythology presented in Philo of
Byblos, where Mdt/Mové plays a small
role. Mov@ was regarded as a son of Kronos
and the text states that “the Phoenicians call
him Death and Pluto” (apud Eusebius, Prae-
paratio Evangelica 1.10.34). Even without
further evidence this would establish Mot as
an underworld deity. By contrast, as we
shall see, the Ugaritic cultic texts and the
Ugaritic onomastica are totally ignorant of
Mot and if we were to rely solely on such
texts we could hardly discern his existence,
let alone his mythological importance.
Mot’s absence from the Ugaritic cult and
personal names suggests that he was not à
deity worshipped like others in the pan-
theon. In fact there are a few personal
names containing the element mt, but this is.
probably the noun mf meaning ‘man, war-
rior. Mot is absent from the local 'pan-
theon' and offering lists. Although we can-
not completely rule out the possibility that
he is represented by some surrogate also
connected with death and the underworld, it
seems much more likely that Mot was not
regarded as a deity to be worshipped like
MOT
others. Some take the view that Mot is in
Ugaritic simply the personification of death.
He is more than that, as his role in the
mythology shows, but he is not a deity in
the full sense.
In Ugaritic mythology Mot is one of the
main enemies of —Baal (alongside -*Yam,
the. sca-god, who, unlike Mot, was the
object of cultic veneration to some extent).
He overcomes Baal and the latter has to des-
cend into Mot’s underworld domain. Baal is
reported dead (KTU 1.5 v-vi), but the god-
dess —Anat hunts for him and attacks Mot
(KTU 1.6 ii), who is vanquished. Baal re-
vives and the two protagonists fight (KTU
1.6 vi:16-35). Eventually Mot is forced to
concede, at least temporarily. The details
are, of course, far from certain.
Mot is the enemy of Baal in so far as he
is the representative of all that is contrary to
Baal's nature. Baal represents principally the
life-giving fertility associated with essential
autumnal rainfall. Mot represents the death-
dealing sterility associated, at least in part,
with the summer heat and drought. This
may be the specific significance of one of
his titles, sir mt, perhaps ‘heat of Mot’
(KTU 1.6 v:4, though the reading is ex-
tremely uncertain). The same theme is
reflected in the repeated circumstance that
the -*sun-goddess, Shapshu burns very hotly
as a result of Mot's ascendancy (KTU 1.6
ji:24, c.g.).
Mot is called 'the beloved of El, the War-
rior (ydd il: $zr- e.g., KTU 1.4 vii:46-47), a
slightly odd title given his negative role. It
may be a conventional euphemism. He is
also called bn ilm (sce, e.g. KTU 1.6 ii:13;
vi:24), literally ‘son of El’ or ‘son of the
god(s)’. This title is taken by some (c.g.
Gisson 1979) to mean nothing more than
‘divine’, but Mot's sonship of —EI is quite
explicit in KTU 1.6 vi:26-27, where the sun-
goddess, Shapshu, in speaking to Mot, refers
to ‘the ->bull El, your father’ (tr il abk). It
may be noted, however, that King Keret too
is called ‘son of El’ (KTU 1.16 i:10, etc.)
and the title need not imply real sonship on
the mythic level. As for Mot's other notion-
al family relationships, we may note the ap-
pearance of his brothers and other kin in
KTU 1.5 i:22-25, while in KTU 1.6 vi Baal
tricks him into eating his own brothers.
The main characteristic of Mot is that he
is a voracious consumer of gods and men.
He has an enormous mouth and an appetite
to match. His gullet and appetite are fre-
quently mentioned. At one point he defends
himself against Anat thus: “My appetite
lacked humans, my appetite lacked the mul-
titudes of the earth" (KTU 1.6 ii:17-19).
KTU 1.5 ii:2-4 pictures his mouth: "A lip to
the earth, a lip to the heavens, ...a tongue to
the stars! Baal must enter his stomach, Go
down into his mouth.” It is dangerous to get
too near to him, “lest he make you like a
lamb in his mouth, and like a kid you be
crushed in the crushing of his jaws” (KTU
1.4 viii:17-20).
In this voraciousness Mot is closely asso-
ciated with the underworld. Mot dwells in
the underworld, which is an unpleasant
(muddy) place of decay and destruction.
This is most explicit in KTU 1.4 viii, in
which Baal despatches messengers to Mot in
his subterrancan realm, a city which is
reached through an entrance at the base of
the mountains and of which Mot is king (sce
KTU 1.6 vi:27-29). Descent into the gullet
of Mot is the equivalent of descent into the
underworld.
Scholars are, however, uncertain about
whether Mot should be seen in a specifically
agricultural role. This may be implied by his
opposition to Baal and his association with
the destruction of life, but it is is not certain
whether it is specifically implied in an
important text which has often formed thc
basis for this kind of agricultural under-
standing of Mot. The text in question is
KTU 1.6 ii:30-35 (cf. also v:11-16), in
which Anat is described as attacking Mot:
"She seized divine Mot, With a sword she
split him, With a sieve she winnowed him,
With fire she burned him, With mill-stones
she ground him, In the field she scattered
him."
That agricultural imagery is prominent
here is clear enough and even the buming
might have agricultural significance (see
599
MOT
HEALEY 1984). However, it is very difficult
to see how we can conclude that Mot is
treated as grain in the sense of being the
representative of the positive product of
agriculture. He is not. Rather the imagery is
based on the destructive treatment of grain:
like the grain in at least some of the images
employed, he is destroyed, scattered in the
fields. Indeed the text goes on to say that his
limbs are eaten by the birds (35-37). There
are similar cases from the Hebrew Bible in
which destruction is expressed in such
terms. Apart from the commonplace thresh-
ing-chaff imagery, we should note the treat-
ment of the Golden -*Calf in Exod 32:20,
where the same sequence of actions appears.
It too is ground up like corn and consumed
(by the Israelites). The meaning is simply
destructive (see WATSON 1972). For the
destructive scattering of limbs to the birds,
we may compare | Sam 17:44 and the treat-
ment of Apophis in Egyptian myth.
The only way that Mot could be under-
stood as being involved here in some kind
of agrarian ritual might be on the as-
sumption of a ritual like that of the first
sheaf (cf. Lev 2:14): ie. the ritual de-
struction of the first of the crop, perhaps
designed to drive the evil from the crop.
This would have been part of the annual
New Year festival celebrating the renewal of
Baal’s power.
The role of Mot as a demonic force to be
held in check is well illustrated by KTU
1.23, which describes among other things
the birth of Shahar and Shalim. The ritual
destruction of Mot in sympathetic magic
plays a part in this. Under the double epithet
mt wr, perhaps ‘Death and Dissolution,’
and described as carrying ‘the sceptre of
bereavement’ and ‘the sceptre of widow-
hood’, he is pruned like a vine, i.e. attacked,
in an apotropaic ritual to protect the deities
who are to be born. According to J. C. DE
Moor (The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic
Myth of Ba'lu [AOAT 16; Kevelaer/Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1971} 213, n. 10) Mot is
attacked here and in KTU 1.6 ii as an act of
destruction of the ugly and evil god. Mot's
sceptre appears also in KTU 1.6 vi:29 and
although there is no certain iconographic
representation of Mot, such suggestions as
have been made involve images of a god or
demon carrying a sceptre or sceptres (sec
Pore 1961, TsuMuRA 1974).
Mot is not a deity in the normal sense.
He is never the object of worship and he has
no role in Ugaritic personal name formation.
He does not appear in the otherwise more or
less complete ‘pantheon’ list of local gods.
He is, rather, to be regarded as a demonic
figure, wholly evil and without redeeming
features. In at least one Ugaritic text, ritual
KTU 1.127:29 (a liver omen text), Mot
appears to be a simple demon of the kind
that can attack the people of a city. This is
probably also the implication of the ritual
text KTU 1.119:26-36. It would be meaning-
less to ask Mot for help or blessing and to
name a child after Mot might be regarded as
witchcraft. He is, therefore, not a part of the
Ugaritic pantheon, despite his role in myth.
We may note in this connection the
attempts by several scholars to identify Mot
with another deity within the Ugaritic pan-
theon. This is tempting in the absence of
Mot from offering texts and from the ‘pan-
theon’ lists. In the grain context, one candi-
date has been Dagan (Dagon). Others
include Yam (also an enemy of Baal) and
->Resheph (in his clearer role of underworld
deity). There is little plausibility in and no
clear evidence for these suggestions.
Retuming to the overall theme of the
Baal versus Mot conflict, it is clear that Mot
is in the ascendant when Baal appears to be
dead and vice versa. This alone is sufficient
to make us conclude that Mot's role is
somehow connected with the agricultural
cycle. Several authors have noted, however,
that the mythological texts suggest a seven-
year cycle, not an annual cycle. Despite this,
there can be little doubt that the Mot (and
Yam) texts played a role in an annual re-
newal of Baal's authority in the cult. Ulti-
mately, although he is strong (both in his
fight with Baal: *Mot was strong, Baal was
strong” [KTU 1.6 vi:17] and as the demonic
menace to men in KTU 1.119:26-36), Mot
cannot win his battle with Baal, since the
MOT
Jatter must be renewed every year.
The general absence of any Death-deity
jn Mesopotamian mythology is remarkable
and SMITH (1990) has tentatively suggested
that the Mesopotamian theme of the hero
who descends to the underworld, is sought
and lamented by a spouse and returns to the
earth, has been replaced in West Semitic tra-
dition by a conflict between the hero-figure
and personified death. The new form of the
narrative may have been formed on the pat-
tern of the Baal-Yam conflict.
WI. It is not always possible to be certain
that there is a mythological element in OT
passages in which Mot or simply ‘death’
plays a part. Personification is easier to
detect, but it need not always imply a prior
demythologisation (as is clear from the per-
sonification of death in the European cul-
tural tradition, which is no more than a
figure of poetry).
Death appears, for example, in a personi-
fied guise in Hos 13:14: "Shall I ransom
them (Ephraim) from the power of ~Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death? Death,
where are your plagues? Sheol, where is
your destruction?” Here the personification
is very clear, but there is no need to assume
a mythological overtone or to mle it out.
Tromp (1969) regards Death/Sheol as a
person, plague(s) and destruction (dbr/gib)
as his servants. In the following verse the
‘scourge of the east wind is threatened and
SMITH (1990) would associate this with
Mot.
=. In other texts there is mention of specific
‘characteristics of Death which have some
‘Sort of parallel in the picture of Mot painted
‘by the Ugaritic texts. Thus in Hab 2:5 the
Ansatiability of personified Death is men-
tioned (“whose greed is as wide as Sheol,
cand like Death he is never satisfied”) and
‘this may echo the background cultural tra-
‘dition of Mot, but the comparison is with
‘the insatiability of the arrogant man and
“does not directly touch on matters religious.
‘The same idea, though applied to a per-
‘sonified Sheol, is found in Isa 5:14 ("There-
fore Sheol has enlarged its appetite, and
“Opened its mouth beyond measure”: and cf.
s. .
Prov 1:12; 27:20; 30:15-16; Ps 141:7). It is
difficult to be sure whether these texts
reflect awareness of the Baal-Mot conflict,
since the voracity of Death may well have
been an idea which existed independently of
the myth.
In Job 18:13-14 the personification 1s
taken a step further in that Death's firstbom
son, Disease, is mentioned, but there is no
evidence of Ugaritic Mot having offspring.
Isa 25:8 on the other band has — Yahweh
swallowing up Death and this indicates
more clearly a parallel with Canaanite
mythology: normally it was Mot who did
the swallowing, but in this case Yahweh
makes nonsense of the law of Canaanite
myth by himself swallowing the swallower.
This seems to imply awareness of the
Canaanite Mot. There may be a similar play
on tradition m Hos 13:1, perhaps to be
translated “he incurred guilt with regard to
Baal and died (i.e. came under Mot)."
Similar cases of implicit treatment of
Death/Mot as a deity who is a theoretical
rival to Yahweh are found in the texts which
Speak of the Israelites making a 'covenant
with Death/Sheol’ (Isa 28:15.18). Here we
go beyond mere personification to the point
of regarding Mot as a ‘divine’ being, but as
in the case of Mot’s firstbom we are dealing
with an aspect of the deity (covenant-
making) which is not known in the Ugaritic
sources. It could be that the application of
the covenant to Mot js secondary, an in-
vention of the originator of the Hebrew text.
Another case in which there is a close
parallel with the Ugantic texts is Ps 49:15,
which says of the over-confident: "Like sheep
they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be
their shepherd; straight to the grave they de-
scend." Here we have Death leading people
into Sheol and this reflects the way the Ugar-
itic texts convey the idea that it is necessary
to beware of Mot, since he can entrap the
innocent and is specifically mentioned as
consuming sheep (KTU 1.4 viii: 17-20), He
is not, however, a shepherd in Ugaritic.
In Cant 8:6 the strength of Mot is pro-
verbia] and compared with the power of
love: ‘azz@ kammáwet 'ahábá. Mots
601
MOT
strength may be scen also in his fight with
Baal: "Mot was strong. Baal was strong"
(mt “z bl ‘z: KTU 1.6 vi:17). However,
Cassuto (1962) misinterpreted a phrase in
a Ugaritic letter, KTU 2.10:11-13. as pro-
viding a parallel with Cant 8:6. Mot is there
described as strong (‘z) and may be per-
sonified, but there is no reference to love,
since yd ilm is a disease (see PARDEE 1987).
In many cases it is far from clear whether
the Canaanite Mot is being alluded to in
biblical passages (Pss 18:5-6; 33:19; 68:21;
116:3; 118:18; Prov 13:14; 16:14).
A much-vaunted, but doubtful case of an
echo of Canaanite myth appearing in the
Hebrew Bible is found in Jer 9:20, which
alludes to Death entering by means of win-
dows. Cassuto (1962), MULDER (1965)
and others have made comparison with the
Ugaritic episode of Baal's reluctance to
have windows incorporated into his palace
because of fear of attack (KTU 1.4:vi-vii). It
has been noted, however, that the attack on
Baal was to come from Yam (KTU 1.4:vi
12), not Mot (SmitH 1987). The window-
attack theme may be of interest in terms of
Hebrew-Uganitic parallels, but it has no
direct bearing on Mot. In Jer 9:20 Death is
an attacking demon, as in KTU 1.127:29
(and implicitly in ritual text ATU 1.119:26-
36). PauL (1968) makes a comparison with
the Mesopotamian /amastu demon.
Coorer (1981) notes extensively other
possible biblical appearances of Mot. Some
rely on conjectural emendation of texts.
Thus in Hab 3:13 ALBRIGHT read mwt for
MT mbyt (after LXX 6avatov) a reading
which gives the meaning “You struck the
head of wicked Mot.” This, if correct, would
give very explicit evidence of a battle-like
conflict between Yahweh and Mot. The
emendation has not been accepted by all
scholars. In Hab 1:12 Trompe (1969)
emended P nmwt to Pn mwt, supposedly
“the Victor over Death”. Note also Ps 55:16,
emended by some to give “Let Death come
upon them." A text which is usually
emended, Ps 48:15, can in fact be read as
referring to. Yahweh's leading his people
‘against Mot’. In fact this phrase, ‘al-muit, is
usually corrected to *ólamót and often read
as the title of Ps 49. All four of these
‘Yahweh versus Mot’ passages are, there-
fore, problematic.
Finally mention must be made of the
possible appearance of the divine name Mot
in the much-discussed Hebrew word s/mwt
(c.g. Isa 9:1), as argued by Tromp (19649),
among others. This is not the place for a
detailed discussion of this word. Suffice it to
note that the -mwr element may originally
have been the word ‘death’ and perhaps
even the name of the deity. In this context
mawet/nét might have indicated the gram-
matical superlative (‘shadow of death, ex-
treme darkness’), inviting contrast with the
use of ’é//éléhim in superlative expressions
(WINTON THOMAS 1962). Note also Sdin(w)r
in e.g. Isa 16:8, in this context (LEHMANN
1953).
There are a few Hebrew personal names
(e.g. "hymwt [‘Death is my brother’?}: 1
Chron 6:10; *znwt ['Death is strong'?] 2
Sam 23:31, etc.) and geographical names
(hisrmwt: Gen 10:26) which might contain
the name Mot and suggest some continued
interest in the Canaanite deity, but all are
very uncertain (-*Thanatos).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Psalm of Habakkuk,
Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H.
H. Rowley; Edinburgh 1950) 1-18; H. W.
ATTRIDGE & R. A. ODEN, Philo of Byblos:
The Phoenician History (Washington 1981);
U. Cassuro, Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic
Texts, JEJ 12 (1962) 77-86; A. COOPER,
Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic
Texts, RSP III 392-400 [& lit]; M. Dir-
TRICH & O. LonETZ, mt “Mét, Tod” und mt
“Krieger, Held” im Uganritischen, UF 22
(1990) 57-65; J. C. L. Gisson, The Last
Enemy, Scottish Journal of Theology 32
(1979) 151-169; J. F. HEALEY, Burning the
Corn: New Light on the Killing of Mótu, Or
53 (1984) 245-254; M. R. LEHMANN, A
New Interpretation of the Term X279, VT 3
(1953) 361-371: T. J. LEwis, Mot, ABD 4,
922-924; M. J. Mutper, Kanadnitische
Goden in het Oude Testament (The Hague
1965) 65-70; D. PARDEE, As Strong as
Death, Love and Death in the Ancient Near
East (eds. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good;
602
MOTHER
Guilford. CT 1987) 65-69; S. M. PAUL,
Cuneiform Light on Jer 9, 20, Bib 49 (1968)
373-376, M. H. Pore, Mot, WbMyth Vl,
300-302; M. S. Situ, Death in Jeremiah,
ix, 20, UF 19 (1987) 289-293; SsirH, The
Early History of God (San Francisco 1990)
53, 72-73; N. J. Tromp, Primitive Concep-
tions of Death and the Nether World in the
Old Testament (Rome 1969); D. TSUMURA,
A Ugaritic God, Mi-w-3r, and His Two
Weapons (UT 52:8-11), UF 6 (1974) 407-
413; P. L. Watson, The Death of ‘Death’
in the Ugaritic Texts, JAOS 92 (1972) 60-
64; D. WINTON THOMAS, Salmadwet in the
Old Testament, JSS 7 (1962) 191-200.
J. F. HEALEY
MOTHER C5
I. The mother-goddess is the most com-
mon and pluriform deity of the religions of
the ancient Near East. Because the Canaan-
ite —Asherah, worshipped also as the
—Queen of Heaven, is not unknown to OT
tradition, scholars have found references to
her mythical role and imagery, particularly
in the person of -*Eve, the mother of all the
living (Gen 3:20). Many scholars suppose
that the title ?ém kol hay originally referred
either to Mother Earth (see also Sir 40:1) or
the primeval mother-goddess (VRIEZEN
1937:192-193; WESTERMANN 1974:365;
KAPELRUD 1977:795).
II. The Sumerian mother-goddess is
simply called ama/amma, ‘Mother’. She
has no specific name, but her many titles
and epithets like Ningal, Ninma, Nintu ‘the
lady who gave birth’, Ninhursag ‘mistress of
the mountains’ etc., testify to an immense
spread and variety of her cults. In Akkadian
context the mother-goddess is pre-eminently
known by the name and title Bélit-ili
(‘Mistress of the gods’, in Atra-Hasis also
called Mami, Mama, Nintu) Also other
goddesses as Gula, —Ishtar, Nikkal are
called ummu, ‘mother’, and assume aspects
of the mother-goddess (AkkGE 21-23). As
such they receive for instance the title ummu
šiknāt napišti, ‘mother of the living crea-
tures’. In Egypt besides a number of prime-
val mothers (Nut, Mut etc.), particularly
—Hathor—in her bovine form representing
the Cow of Heaven—is the outstanding
magna mater and m$t ntnw, 'creatress of the
gods’ before she merged with —lsis, rawr
ntr, ‘the mother of god’ (= —Horus;
ASSMANN 1982:267-268). Also outside thc
Mesopotamian sphere Semitic *immu/
"ummu is attested from ancient times as the
name and title of numerous mother-god-
desses. In the context of Ugaritic myth um
refers to the divine mother (ATU 1.6 vi:11,
15). presumably Asherah because the texts
call the gods exclusively "the (seventy) sons
of Asherah/Qudshu" (KTU 1.4 vi:46),
whereas she receives frequently the epithet
qnyt ilm, 'creatress of the gods’ (e.g. ATU
1.4 i:23). Less clear is um. ilm*, 'divine
mother’, in the broken context of ATU
2.31:45, though it is usually taken as a ref-
erence to Asherah (GESE, RAAM, 149; UT §
19.225). There exist many Assyrian,
Canaanite and South Semitic names of the
type of DN-ummi/um/m and ummi/um/ m-
DN, e.g. in Mar: Ummi-Hanat, Ummi-
dishara; Ummi-9up-3i; Ummi-ili etc. (ARM
16/1, 208-209); in Ugarit: [fJUm-mi-a-da-te
(PRU VI, 107:7); ‘ttrum (KTU 4.410:31;
4.426:1; 4.504:2); fama-Na-na (PRU Ill,
168:1); fAnati-ununi (RS 14.16:7) etc.;
Phoen 7m‘Strt (I/Umm-Astarte KAI 14:14;
89:2 passim) and 7m(?)Smn (I/Umm-Esh-
mun). The latter is comparable with ‘strum
and Nco-Punic b'Pmy (KAI 155) and South
Semitic 7m‘trsm (Umm-Atarsam). In Sabae-
an and Thamudic a goddess ^mm'ri(r) ('Um-
mi‘attar), *mother of Astar' is known. lt is
here perhaps an epithet of the -*Sun-god-
dess.
HI. An interesting feature of some of the
afore-mentioned names is that male gods
receive the epithet ‘mother’. In these names
it is used as a metaphor, sometimes also
attested in biblical context for man and
-'Yahweh (Num 11:12; Isa 49:14; 66:13).
Another question is whether, apart from the
mother metaphor for the divine, the word
'ém, ‘mother’ in biblical tradition may refer
to a female deity or ideas derived from
female mythic imagery. There is no example
in which ’ém refers to a female deity. The
only text which could be taken in considera-
603
MOUNTAINS AND VALLEYS
tion is Hos 4:5: wéddamiti ’immekd, “So I
will. destroy your mother". One could here
think either of the ‘mother of Israel’ mean-
ing the capital Samaria (cf. also this form of
speech in 2 Sam 20:19, Jerusalem Isa 50:1,
Babel Jer 50:12) or the priest (cf. Jer 22:26).
In the first case, an echo of mythical image-
ry in the personification of the (genius of
the) city may have been preserved.
The idea of a mother-goddess as primeval
creatress does not seem to be completely
absent in OT tradition. Ezek 8:3-5 may con-
tain a distorted reference to the cult-place
and statue of Asherah, called haqqin'á ham-
magneh, “who creates the livestock”, recal-
ling Ugaritic qnyt ilm. In Gen 3:20, 4:1 we
may find a faint echo of a theogonic, genea-
logical myth describing the marriage of the
—Earth (dddm) and the Netherworld as
source of life (Hawwá) bringing forth a
‘creature’ (gayin, WESTERMANN 1974:394;
—Cain) called man. Particularly, because in
Eve's words: qdnitt i$ ^et YHWH, "| created
(a) man with the help of Yahweh"—an
utterance which originally intended to
express more than the birth of a male
child—a mythical concept is implied. The
connection between Hawwdé = ’ém kol hay
and the mother-goddess giving birth to man-
kind has often been made. Such a mythical
concept underlying the present narrative is
not improbable, even if in the biblical tra-
dition Yahweh acts as an associate in this
act of creation of man (WESTERMANN 1974:
396-397; VAN WOLDE 1991:26-27).
IV. Bibliography: 7
J. ASSMANN, Muttergottheit, LdA 4 (1982)
266-271; A. S. KAPELRUD, hawwd, TWAT
2, 794-798; W. von SOpDEN, Muttergott-
heiten, RGG IV, 1228-1229; T. C. VRIEZEN,
Onderzoek naar de Paradijsvoorstelling bij
de Oude Semitische Volken (Wageningen
1937); C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 1-11
(BKAT 1/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974); E.
VAN WOLDE, The Story of Cain and Abel:
A Narrative Study, JSOT 52 (1991) 25-41.
M. DIJKSTRA
MOUNTAINS-AND-VALLEYS
cposm
|. Broken up, the word pair *mountains
and valleys’ occurs in Mic 1:4 in the context
of a theophany: “and the mountains will
melt under him, and the valleys will be
cleft". Until recently, the pair was thought to
reflect the Ugaritic binominal deity *Moun-
tains-and-Valleys (*grm w*mqt, *9iun.saG.-
MES ui a-mu-tu[m]).
II. The alleged Ugaritic divine pair
*Mountains-and-Valleys, frequently com-
pared with a similar pair -*Heaven-and-
Earth (ars wimm, 4ipim ù 1DIM, famíá-
ersetum; sec R. BORGER, RA 63 [1969] 171),
is based on a misreading of the texts. The
pantheon list Ug. 5 no. 18:18, read as
YUR.SAG.MEŠ ù a-mu-tu[m] by J. Nougay-
rol, should in fact be read as CgUR.SAG.MES
ù A-mu-i, the last word meaning ‘waters’
and not ‘valleys’. A duplicate text found in
1992 has 4yur.saG.MES ù JaA.MES (RS
1992.2004:29, courtesy D. Arnaud), which
confirms that the corrected reading of Ug. 5
no. 18:18. RS 1992.2004 is a deity list cor-
responding to RS 26.142 (= Ug. 5 no. 170),
which, as is now clear, corresponds to RS
24.643 Rev. (= C. VIROLLEAUD, Les nou-
veaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de
Ras Shamra, Ug. 5 [1969] no. 9). The entry
there corresponding to RS 1992.2004:29 is
[gr]m wthmt, *mountains and deep waters’
(no. 9:41). This means that the entry grm
w[----] in the first part of RS 24.643 is to be
read grm w[thmt] (line 6). These data mean
that there is no divine pair Mountains-and-
Valleys in the Ugaritic pantheon texts, nor
in the corresponding rituals. What we do
find, however, is another divine pair: Moun-
tains-and-Deep-Waters.
III. In the Hebrew Bible, both mountains
and the subterranean waters are often con-
nected to specific theological concepts, in
the background of which the divine status of
these elements (known from various tra-
ditions in the ancient Near East, particularly
Anatolia and Syria) is still visible. Moun-
tains (hárím) have a quite positive value in
the biblical tradition (sec e.g. 1 Kgs 20:28:
Yahweh is god of the mountains; cf. Gen
DU
604
MOUTH
31:54; Hab 3:10), in contrast to the valleys,
which are cradles of urban and agricultural
civilizations that are denigrated by several
biblical writers. The valleys are related to
—Sheol and the --Rephaim (Job 11:8; 12:
22; Prov 9:18; Josh 15:8; 18:6; 2 Sam
5:18.22//1 Chr 14:9-13; 2 Sam 23:13//1 Chr
11:15; Isa 17:5) and the Last Judgement
(Joel 4:2.12). The Bible contains a tradition
of the Mountain as a holy place (see the ter-
minology of the Holy Mountain for Jerusa-
lem and Mt Zion) and the scat of hiero-
phanies. Mountains are often considered
more ancient than creation itself (Job 15:7;
Prov 8:25); they will exist forever (Gen
49:26; Hab 3:6). Their sacrality and holiness
can be explained on the basis of a wide-
spread symbolism, also known outside the
borders of the ancient Near Eastern religious
traditions.
In addition to the fact that Tehom (cf.
Akk ->Tiamat) has retained traces of a deity
at some places in the Hebrew Bible
(7 Tehom), it is connected with ‘mountains’
as a divine pair at Hab 3:10. In response to
the cosmic upheaval brought about by God's
epiphany, "the Mountains (/iárím) saw you
and agonized ... and the Deep (téhóm)
Started to scream”. Since the Psalm of
Habakkuk features several pairs of Ca-
naanite deities, such as Pestilence (->Deber)
and Plague (-*Resheph; Hab 3:5), —River
and -*Sea (Hab 3:8), and -*Sun and Moon
(Hab 3:11), it is conceivable that ‘the Moun-
tains and the Deep’ is originally another
such pair.
IV. Bibliography.
*J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain in
Canaan and in the Old Testament (Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1972); P. S. CRAIGIE, A Note
on “Fixed Pairs” in Ugaritic and Early
Hebrew Poetry, J7S 22 (1971) 140-143; L.
KRINETZKI, "Tal" und "Ebene" im Alten
Testament, BZ N.F. 5 (1961) 204-220; M.
METZGER, Himmlische und irdische Wohn-
statt Jahwes, UF 2 (1970) 139-158; *A.
SCHWARZENBACH, Die geographische Ter-
minologie im Hebrüischen des Alten Testa-
mentes (Leiden 1954).
D. PARDEE & P. XELLA
MOUTH 715
I. The mouth or utterance of a god—
the two notions are often expressed with the
same word (Sum ka, Akk pil)—is some-
times made into an independent deity in
Mesopotamia. The etymological equivalent
in Hebrew (peh) does not seem to have
enjoyed a comparable divine status.
II. In third millennium texts the Akka-
dian word pâm, ‘mouth, word’, occurs re-
peatedly as a theophoric element in personal
names; its divinity is marked by the divine
determinative (GELB 1992:126-127). First
found as a deified entity in Middle Babylo-
nian (Kassite) seal inscriptions, the deity Pü
(-u)-lisànu, 'Mouth(-and)-tongue' (VKA-EME,
Takultu no. 181) is mentioned in a limited
number of Assyrian texts of the first millen-
nium BCE. The expression refers to both a
physical object of worship to which prayers
were addressed, and to a supernatural phe-
nomenon acting as an intercessor with
various gods on behalf of private supplicants
(OPPENHEIM 1965:261). The object pre-
sumably had the form of a speaking mouth
and served as a kind of ‘communication
device’ (OPPENHEIM 1965:263). The possi-
bility of a Hurrian background to this instru-
ment has not been substantiated (cf. B.
MENZEL, Assyrische Tempel, II [StP s.m.
10/11; Rome 1981] 108* n. 1489).
IH. According to the anthropomorphic
vision of divinity found in the Hebrew
Bible, Yahweh also possesses a mouth
(Garcfa LÓPEZ 1987-89:530-531). Yet even
though the ‘mouth of Yahweh’ (pî yhw'h) is
frequently hypostatized, it is never spoken
of as a separate manifestation of the deity.
Also in the Qumran texts, where God’s
mouth is said to be ‘glorious’ (1QH 6,14)
and ‘true’ (1QH 11,7), a deification of the
mouth is not found. It must therefore be
concluded that the Mesopotamian deities
Pûm and Pû-lišānu have no analogues in the
Bible.
IV. Bibliography
F. Garcfa L6pEz, 7D pewh, TWAT 6 (1987-
89) 522-538; I. J. GELB, Mari and the Kish
Civilization, Mari in Retrospect (ed. G. D.
Young; Winona Lake 1992) 121-202; A. L.
605
MULISSU
OPPENHEIM, Analysis of an Assyrian Ritual
(KAR 139), HR 5 (1965) 250-265.
K. VAN DER TOORN
MULISSU
I. Assyrian divine name, attested as
theophoric element in the name of one of
the sons of Sennacherib who murdered him,
Arad-Mulissu. Adrammelech (adrammelek)
in 2 Kgs 19:37, par. Isa 37:38, is a cor-
rupted form of this Assyrian name. Greek
traditions assign him the names Adramelos
and Ardumuzan (M. STRECK, VAB VIVI
[1916] ccxxxix-ccxL; Parpota 1980:176
notes 4-5). Parpola demonstrated that these
names are corruptions of Arad-Mulissu. This
human being Adrammelech = Arad-Mulissu
in 2 Kgs 19:37 and Isa 37:38 should not be
confused with the deity — Adrammelech,
one of the gods worshipped by the Sefar-
vites who repopulated the Samarian territory
conquered by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:31).
Il. Mulissu js the reconstructed Assyrian
name of the spouse of the god —Assur. The
Assyrians identified Assur with the Sumer-
ian god Enlil. There is evidence that the
name of the spouse of Enlil, written
SNIN.LILz, was pronounced as Mulliltum, in
view of the the occurrence of a name
Mulliltum i an Old Babylonian list of gods,
and of optional writings dnin.Jil;-tum/-tim in
earlier periods (PARPOLA 1980:177, a-c; D.
R. Frayne, BiOr 48 [1991} 406; ARCHI &
PomPponio 1990). Only in recent years could
606
it be decisively demonstrated that Babylo-
nian Muli$$u or Mullissu js the reading of
the Sumerogram NIN.LIL,, only seemingly
‘Ninlil’. The reconstructed form Mulissu is
based on Mu-li-si, once written in Assyrian
context; in the geographic name KAR-Mu-li-
si. The Aramaic treaties from Sefire call her
miš (KAI 222 A 8) and Herodotus records
for the Babylonian ~ ‘Aphrodite’ the name
Mylitta (1 131, 199; DaLLEy 1979).
‘Enlil was originally the main god of the
Sumerian pantheon; he and his spouse Ninlil
resided in Nippur. In the second millennium,
the Assyrians identified Enlil with Assur (R.
BORGER, Einleitung in die assyrischen
Konigsinschriften I [Leiden 1964] 66 [&
lit]). Later, Mulissu (always written ‘Ninlil’)
replaced Sheru’a as Assur’s spouse and
Sennacherib stated that Sherwa was his
‘sister’ (MENZEL 1981, with IJ 63* n. 782).
INE. Bibliography |
A. ARCHI & F. POMPONIO, Testi cuneiformi
neo-sumerici da Drehem N. 0001-0412
(Milan 1990) 51, on no. 35; *S. DALLEy,
GNIN.LIL == mul(lis(sju, the Treaty of
Barga’yah and Herodotus’ Mylitta, RA 73
(1979) 177-178; B. MENZEL, Assyrische
Tempel I (StPsm 10; Rome 1981) 63-65; *S.
PaRPOLA, The Murderer of Sennacherib,
Death in Mesopotamia (ed. P. Alster,
CRRA 26; Mesopotamia $8; Copenhagen
1980) 171-182. m
M. STOL
NABU 123
I. Nabû is the Babylonian god of writ-
ing, occurring in Isa 46:1 with his father
—Marduk, and as a theophoric element in
Babylonian personal names rendered into
biblical Hebrew such as Nebuchadrezzar
and Nebuzaradan.
Il. Nab@ appears in Akk sources from
early in the second millennium BCE as Na-
bi-um, a form which suggests his name
comes from the base NB’, ‘to call’, and may
mean ‘herald’ (see AHW 697-698). There is
no trace of Nabû in the texts from Ebla, or
in Old Akkadian. In the latter part of the
Old Babylonian period, Nabi’s name be-
comes a regular component in the human
onomasticon, although the terminology of
the names reveals no special attributes for
him, most of the forms occurring with
names of other deities also. Occurrence of
Nabium-Sar-ili, ‘Nab is king of the gods’ in
one text (YOS 13 [1972] no. 304.14) simply
reveals a parent's devotion. Letter-writers of
the period occasionally invoked the blessing
of Nabü, coupled with Marduk or > Amurru.
Old Babylonian cylinder seals add infor-
mation: some proclaim their owners 'servant
of Nabü', although far more acknowledge
Adad (-*Hadad), ~*Sin and Shamash (->Sun),
but a few reveal Nabii’s status as ‘scribe of
Esagila', that is, Marduk's temple in Baby-
lon, as ‘chief priest of rites’ and as ‘lord of
wisdom’. Lists of gods place Nabû with dei-
ties of Eridu as son of Marduk, son of Enki
(Ea, ~Aya) and include him with Nisaba
and Haya, goddess and god of writing.
Hammurabi named his sixteenth year after
the creation of a throne for Nabü (ca. 1776
BCE) and Samsuiluna his seventeenth after
the introduction of a statue of Nabû into
Esagila (ca. 1732 Bce). Nabû shared a festi-
val with Marduk and also had a shrine at
Sippar.
Lack of sources obscures the history of
Nabû thereafter until late in the second mil-
lennium. The fourteenth to eleventh centu-
ries BCE saw his worship growing. Boundary
stones (kudurru) from Babylonia hail him as
‘scribe of Esagila’, one ‘who fixes destinies’
and associate him especially with Borsippa
where, as ‘king of Ezida’ (the temple), his
cult begins to replace Marduk’s. The kudur-
rus often depict the symbol of Nabû, usually
a stylus or wedge, sometimes a tablet or
writing board. His cult spread with cunci-
form writing at this time, scribes at Ugarit
seeking the favour of Nab@ and Nisaba and
a Hittite scribe invoking him in Amama
Letter 32.
The rise of the Neo-Assyrian power from
ca. 925 BCE carried Nabd worship to its
peak. By the seventh century BCE Nabi was
the most common divine clement in per-
sonal names, Marduk and Nabü far outnum-
ber all other deities in epistolary greetings
and Nabü stands with —Assur, Sin, Sha-
mash, Adad and -*Ishtar as one of the prin-
cipal gods of Assyria. Temples dedicated to
him stood in the chief cities and at Sargon
Ils new capital, Dur-Sharruken (now Khor-
sabad) the main shrine in the citadel was his
temple. Best known are the twin temples at
Kalakh (modem Nimrud) within a large
sacred precinct on the citadel, rebuilt by
Adad-nirari IH about 800 BCE for Nabû and
his wife Tashmetu, then repaired by several
of his successors. Devotion to Nabû is seen
at its deepest in the words engraved on
statues of attendant gods erected there by
the local governor, ‘Trust in Nabû; do not
trust in any other god.’ In the seventh centu-
ry BCE Ashurbanipal claimed to have been
trained under Nabü's aegis. expressed in a
dialogue, and his skill in reading was
undoubtedly part of that education.
The situation in Babylonia mirrored
607
NABÜ
Assyria's love for the god. His name is next
most frequent to Bel-Marduk’s in personal
names, notably royal names (e.g. Nabunasir,
Nabonidus) where it is not found in Assyria,
with Bel he is common in letter greetings
and the two head lists of deities in royal
inscriptions. The Ezida at Borsippa was sub-
ject to splendid refurbishments by Nebu-
chadrezzar and was still functioning when
Antiochus Soter restored it in the third cen-
tury BcE (see ANET 317).
Hymns to Nabi, prayers and incantations
seeking his aid survive from the early first
millennium BCE. They use phrases found in
poems for other gods, such as ‘lover of jus-
tice’, ‘light of the gods’, ‘the one who
formed human and animal features and
acted as shepherd’, but also display the spe-
cial attributes of Nabi and often apply to
him terms which had primary application to
Marduk and Ninurta. These include some of
the Fifty Names of Marduk presented in the
creation poem Enuma elish, in which Nabû
has no place, seeming to imply a transfer of
Marduk’s position to his son (see SEUX
1976:124-128), and the killing of the evil
Anzii-bird, an exploit of Ninurta, son of the
former chief god Enlil, whom Marduk
replaced (LAMBERT 1971:337). However, no
myths describing Nabii’s activities have
come to light, nor does his name replace
that of any other god in a copy of any myth.
One hymn identifies various minor deities as
aspects of his character (SEux 1976:134-
136).
As scribe of the gods, ‘holder of the reed
stylus,’ Nabû reflected the powerful position
of human scribes and they viewed him as
their patron and protector. Colophons at the
end of tablets from Ashurbanipal’s library at
Nineveh, and on tablets from Assur and
Sultantepe, appropriately ask his protection
for the texts and his curse on anyone who
steals them. At Kalakh and at Nineveh, the
temples of Nabü had their own libraries,
with very varied contents, some of them
recovered through excavation. Ashurbanipal
augmented his collection at Nineveh with
tablets from Nabi’s Ezida temples in other
towns of his realm. As scribe, Nabû bad
608
access to secrets that others could not read,
and so could contro] religious rites and was
regarded as especially wise, although the
title ‘lord of wisdom’ was more usually
applied to Ea and Marduk. He wrote down
the decisions of the gods and was the one
who kept accounts, reckoning credit and
debit, titled Nabi ‘of accounts’ as'a mani-
festation of Marduk. An Assyrian letter of
the seventh century BCE prays that Nabû
may enter the account of the king and his
sons on his ‘tablet of life’ for all time (ABL
545, see CAD N/2 [1980] 228a). The turn of
the year was the time for inspecting past
accounts and planning the next session.
While this is not specifically mentioned, it
was possibly part of the Babylonian New
Year Festival when Nabû left the Ezida in
Borsippa, travelled to Babylon partly by
boat, then along the street called ‘Nabû is
the judge of his people’ to meet his father
Marduk. The gods left Esagila in procession
for the House of the New Year’s Festival
(bit akiti) outside the city. Near the end of
the celebrations, on the eleventh day of
Nisan, Marduk and Nabû settled the fate of
the land for the ensuing year, and Nabi
inscribed it on his tablet.
Nabii’s tablet of destinies has similarities
to the book in which ~God was believed to
record the names of those he favoured, or
who pleased him (Exod 32:32-33; Pss
69:28; 139:16). The concept continued in
later times, notably in Revelation where
there are the ‘book of life’ (Rev 3:5; 20:12,
15; 21:27), books recording the deeds of
mankind (Rev 12, 13) and the sealed book
containing the final fate of the world (Rev 5
etc.).
In Assyria Nabü's spouse is Tashmetu,
her temple being the twin of Nabü's at
Kalakh. A detailed ritual prescribes the cele-
bration of their marriage early in the month
of Iyyar. In Babylonia Tashmetum occurs
beside Nabû in some texts from early in the -
second millennium BCE, but Nanaya ako:
appears as his spouse there, according tO..
one poetic composition concerning theu :
union (MarsusmIMA 1987). A hymn hon; ;
ouring Abi-eshuh of Babylon (ca. 171]-:
SSB GE ocean
diss
NABU
1684 BCE) relates an amatory dialogue
between Nanaya and the god Muati. As he
is clearly reckoned to be the same as Nabi
in later times, it is possible that he was in
Abi-eshuh's reign, making this an early
example of Nabü's marital affairs. At pres-
ent the reason why Nabó's spouse is some-
times Nanaya and sometimes Tashmetu is
obscure.
The Assyrian imperial policy of uprooting
and replacing rebellious conquered peoples
helped some aspects of Assyrian and Baby-
lonian culture to spread, among them the
worship of Nabû. The Aramaic treaty texts
from Sefire list Nabû (nb?) and, probably,
Tashmet after Marduk and Sarpanit as di-
vine witnesses (KAI 222:8), but until the
identity of Br-g’yh, the senior party in the
treaty, is clear, the home of these deities is
uncertain. Nabi’s cult is especially well-at-
tested among the Aramaic-speaking commu-
nities of north Syria, with Si? (Sin) and
Nasukb (Nusku). Nabé is frequent in the
onomastica, combined with local, Aramaic
elements from the seventh century BCE on
into Persian times (e.g. Nabû-sagib, Nabû-
zabad, see ZADOK 1977:par. 111221). Aram-
aic personal names composed with Nabû are
‘more numerous than those composed with
‘the name of any other ‘pagan divinity in the
Aramaic papyri from Elephantine and Her-
“‘Mmopolis, and they and another document
mention a temple of Nabû (byt nbw) which `
stood at Elephantine (Syene). His name was
invoked in greetings and in the sanctions on
‘parties who broke an: agreement (see
"PORTEN 1968:164-167, 157, 159). In the
‘Parthian era the cult of Nabû continued in
‘northem Mesopotamia as demonstrated by
“dedications and personal names at Hatra and
“Assur (see VATTIONI 198) no. 340 and In-
“dex of names; AGGOULA 1985 nos. 10, 14
“and Index of names). At Palmyra Nabi and
‘Nanay were worshipped beside Bel,
‘X Nergal and local gods, the temple of Nabû
Xcupying a prime site near the temple of
sel. A marzeah-feast was held there in his
lame, and many men bore names com-
“Pounded with it. In other cities, notably
'ura-Europos and Edessa, people honoured
the god, some writing his name in Greek as
Nafov, others equating him with ~ Apollo.
Still the types of personal name do not hint
at the particular role of Nabû. In Babylonia,
magic bowls and Mandaean texts of the first
millennium CE mark the final stage of the
cult, the Mandaeans recalling his role as god
of wisdom and writing but decrying him as
a false ^Mcssiah.
TIE. Isa 46:1 depicts Bel and Nabû led in
procession, no longer in the splendour of the
New Year Festival on chariots or the
shoulders of their devotees, but on animals
stumbling along the path to captivity, the
once revered statues reduced to objects of
booty. In the Bible Nabû is of no import-
ance, the powerless representative of ‘Baby-
lon, fairest of kingdoms ..: overthrown by
God” (Isa 13:19).
Although a village named Kefar Nabu
existed in Syria and Jebel Siman was once
known as Jebel Nabu (PoRTEN 1968:167,
172-173), there is no compelling reason,
apart from the identical spelling, to associate
the places in Judah (Ezra 2;29; Neh 7:34)
and Moab (Num 32:3 etc.; Moabite Stone
14, written nbh), or the mountain in Moab
where Moses died (Num 33:47; Deut 32:49;
34:1), with the Akkadian god (as do BDB
and HALAT), for. Nabü is not known to have
had devotees in: those regions.
In: Babylon, Daniel's companion Azariah
was given the name Abed-nego (017125,
Dan 1:7) when the other three youths re-
ceived: Babylonian names. That name is
usually explained as a corruption of Ebed-
Nebo, ‘servant of Nabû’, (BDB; HALAT).
However, the second element may be better
understood as ‘the shining one’, from the
base NGH, found in Aramaic personal names
from Assyrian times onwards (ZADOK 1977:
par. 112111128), referring, perhaps, to Nabû
by reference to his planet, Mercury.
IV. Bibliography
B. AGGOULA, Inscriptions et graffites
araméens d’Assour (AION Supp. 43; Naples
1985); W. G. LAMBERT, The Converse
Tablet: A Litany with Musical Instructions,
Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Balti-
609
NAHAR — NAME
more 1971) 335-353; E. MATSUSHIMA, Le
rituel hiérogamique de Nabi, Acta Sumero-
logica 9 (1987) 131-175; *F. PoMPONIO,
Nabû. Il culto e la figura di un dio del Pan-
theon babilonese ed assiro (StSem 51;
Rome 1978); B. PORTEN, Archives from
Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish
Military Colony (Berkeley 1968); M.-J.
Seux, Hymnes et prières aux dieux de
Babylonie et d’Assyrie (LAPO 8; Paris
1976); F. VarrIoNI, Le iscrizioni di Hatra
(AION Supp. 28; Naples 1981); R. ZADOK,
On West Semites in Babylonia during the
Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods
(Jerusalem 1977).
A. R. MILLARD
NAHAR > RIVER
NAHASH -* SERPENT
NAHHUNTE -* LAGAMAR
NAHOR
|. It has been speculated that the city of
Nahor (Gen 24:10) was named after a deity
Nahor. Nahor the grandfather of >Abraham
(Gen 11:22-25; Josh 24:2) and Nahor the
brother of Abraham (Gen 11:26-29; 22:20-
24; 24:15.24.47; 29:5; 31:53) would have
been named after the city of Nahor, and
thus, indirectly, after the god of that name
(Lewy 1934).
H. There is no extra-biblical evidence
whatsoever attesting to the cult of a god
Nahor. Lewy’s argument is based on circu-
lar reasoning. He writes: “In view of the
evidence that the cities of Harràn, Nahur,
and Sarüg bear the names of ancient deities
. it is permitted to conclude that the
parents of the patriarchs in Western Mes-
opotamia are, at least in part, ancient West-
Semitic deities that have later been invested
with a human nature" (Lewy 1934 [tr.
KvdT]). The evidence he refers to is non-
existent. Also, the theory seems to be in-
debted more to the once popular view of
Genesis as a euhemeristic account of ancient
Semitic religion, than to a dispassionate
study of the texts.
III. It is possible that the personal name
Nahor comes from the cityname Nahur,
known from the Mari archives, and situated
in the vicinity of Haran (C. WESTERMANN,
Genesis 1-11 {BKAT V1; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1974] 748). Other suggestions have also
been made, though (Hess 1992). None of
the possible explanations of Nahor’s name
can be used as evidence of a god Nahor.
IV. Bibliography
R. S. Hess, Nahor, ABD 4 (1992) 996-997;
J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens et
l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 47-48.
K. VAN DER TOORN
NAME cd
I. Name (Heb Sém, representing a com-
mon Semitic noun) refers to a designation of
a person, an animal, a plant or a thing. It
also refers to reputation, progeny (as con-
tinuation, remembrance), and posthumous
fame. The name of a person or deity is espe-
cially closely associated with that person or
deity, so that knowledge of the name is con-
nected with access to and influence with—
even magical contro! of—the named. In par-
ticular, God's name, which in some
traditions is specifically revealed, can be-
come a separate aspect of -*God, in such a
way as to represent God as a virtual hypo-
stasis. It is not as developed a hypostasis in
the OT as is God's word or God's wisdom
(Wisdom) or even God's spirit (RING-
GREN 1947), but it is more significant than
the role of God's arm (e.g. Isa 51:9).
Il. Certain deitics in the Ancient Near
East are celebrated for the multiplicity of
their names or titles, e.g. the 50 names of
-Marduk in Enuma Elish, the 74 names of
-'Re in the tomb of Thutmosis I and the
100-142 names of —Osiris in Spell 142 of
the Book of the Dead. The deities may also
have hidden or secret names, so as to em-
phasize their otherness and to guard against
improper invocation by devotees. (Note the
story about how -*Isis persuaded Re to
divulge his secret name, thereby lending
great power to her magic; ANET 12-14.) In
addition, we frequently find aspects or cpi-
thets of particular deities becoming separate
610
NAME
divine entities with separate cults, as also
happens in the case of deities who become
differentiated by reference to different local-
ities or cult centres (e.g. -^Baal-zaphon and
— Ishtar of Nineveh as independent deities).
The separability of aspects is illustrated by
the Egyptian hymn to -*Amun in which “his
ba is in the sky [for illumination], his body
is [resting] in the West (underworld), (and)
his image is in Hermonthis", serving as the
sign of his presence among men (BaRnucQ &
Daumas 1980:224). More pertinently, as
one text says of the deceased. “Your ba
lives in the sky with Re; your Ka has a place
in the presence of the gods, your name
endures on earth with Geb”. Indeed, in the
New Kingdom kings could be as portrayed
offering their name to a deity (RARG 503).
III. In Israel, God’s name is not secret
but public, with specific accounts of the
revelation of the name (Exod 3:13-14; 6:2-
3). In spite of scholarly uncertainty as to
the etymology of God's special name,
-*Yahweh, to the carly Israelites presumably
God's name was not obscure in meaning.
But even with no secret name to be invoked
by the initiate, the name is so closely related
to God that misuse of the name is prohibited
(Exod 20:7; note Lev 24:10-15). Eventually
God's particular name could be uttered only
by the priest in the temple (m. Sot 7:6, Sanh
10:1, Tam 3:8), even though it might still be
written—often in archaic script in the Qum-
ran texts—and a substitute title, such as
'ádóndy. -*'Lord', was otherwise pro-
nounced.
The separation out of God's name as an
independent aspect of God occurs in several
forms. First, there is the occurrence of
phrase— doublets such as “Praise the LoRD"
(quite common) and “Praise the name of the
Lonp" (Pss 113:1; 135:1; cf. 148:5, 13: 149:
3; Joel 2:26); "Sing praises to the Lonp"
(Isa 12:5; Pss 9:12; 30:5; 98:5) "Sing
praises to His Name" (Pss 68:5; 135:3) and
"Sing praises to the glory of His Name" (Ps
66:2); “To give thanks to the Lonp" (Ps
92:2; 1 Chr 16:7; 2 Chr 5:13; 7:6), “To give
thanks to the name of the Lord“ (Ps 122:4;
cf. Pss 54:8; 138:2; 140:14; 142:8). “To give
thanks to His holy name" (Ps 106:47; 1 Chr
16:35) and "Let them give thanks (to) your
great and terrible name, for it is holy" (Ps
99:3); "They will fear the Lonp" (2 Kgs 17:
28; cf. Ps 33:8) and "(They) will fear the
name of the Lorp” (Isa 59:19; Ps 102:16);
“Trust in the Lorp” (Isa 26:4; Pss 4:6; 115:
11), “Let him trust in the name of the
Lonp" (Isa 50:10: cf. Zeph 3:12) and "We
trust in His holy name" (Ps 33:21); "To love
the Lorp your God” (Deut 11:13, 22; 19:9;
30:6, 16, 20; Josh 22:5; 23:11) and “To love
the name of the Lonp" (Isa 56:6).
Secondly, there are references such as
"You (O LORD) are great, and your name is
great in might” (Jer 10:6) and “Glorify the
Lorp ..., (even) the name of the Lorp” (Isa
24:15). Prov 18:10 says "the name of the
LonRD is a strong tower". In the light of
these references, we find God's name ac-
quires mobility. In Exod 23:21, God advises
obedience to the messenger/-*angel, "for my
name is in him"; Ps 75:2 describes God's
name as 'near'; and Isa 30:27, following the
traditional text, says "the name of the Lorp
comes from far off".
The most important separation of God's
name occurs in the apparent Deuteronomic
innovation that although God cannot, in a
seemingly crude, polytheistic fashion, spe-
cifically inhabit the tenU/temple and certainly
cannot be present in the form of a traditional
Near Eastern cult statue (wherein, contrary
to the biblical polemic, the deity is symboli-
cally and graciously manifest or made con-
crete), God’s name can ‘tabernacle’ in the
temple (von Rap 1953; a parallel is the
Priestly notion that God’s kábód, ~*‘glory’,
can be present in the temple). From another
perspective, the presence of God's name,
invisible and without props, provided a
means to respond to "the plundering and
destruction of the Temple" in the early 6th
cent. BCE (METTINGER 1982:79). God's
presence is disconnected from the physical
status of the temple building. In either per-
spective God's name has become virtually
an independent entity, separate from God,
ic. a hypostasis. Yet the name does not
become a fully separate entity, as the cult is
offered “in the presence of (lipné) the
LORD". not "in the presence of the name of
611
NANEA
the Lorp” (VAN DER WoubE 1979:954).
Nevertheless, through the presence of the
name as a virtual entity, God is separate
from the natural order and "superior to all
his creation” (CLEMENTS 1965:95). The
Deuteronomic tradition is consistent with.
this, emphasizing that the temple is built not
as God's house, but as a place for God's
name (2 Sam 7:13; cf. Isa 18:7), a place
where God's name is invoked (Exod 20:
21[24]), as with Shiloh, where God formerly
allowed his name to tabernacle (Jer 7:12).
The temple is built “to/for the name of the
Lonp" (e.g. 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17[3).19[5]; 8:16-
20). There in the temple God has placed his
name (Deut 12:5, 21; 14:24; 1 Kgs 9:3; 11:
36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4.7); there, using the
more distinctive phrase, God’s name 'taber-
nacles’ (SKN; Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2.6.11;
26:2; Jer 7:12; Neh 1:9); it is present, not
merely pronounced (cf. VAN DER WOUDE
1979:954-955). Thus God’s name takes the
role of the cultic symbols such as the ark or
a cult statue, having “a constant and almost
material presence ... at the shrine” (VON
RAD 1953:38; italics added). On postbiblical
Jewish speculations on the hypostatized
name see Fossum (1985).
IV. Bibliography
A. Baruco & F. Daumas, Hymnes et
prières -de l'Egypte: ancienne (Paris 1980);
R. E. CLEMENTS, God and Temple. The
ldea of the Divine Presence in Ancient
Israel (Oxford 1965); J. E. Fossum, The
Name of God and the Angel of the Lord
(Tübingen 1985); O. GRETHER, Name und
Wort Gottes im Alten Testament (BZAW 64;
Giessen 1934); T. N. D. MzrrINGER, TÀhe
Dethronement of Sabaoth. Studies in the
Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConB, OTS
18; Lund 1982);; G. von Rap, Studies in
Deuteronomy (SBT 9; London 1953) 37-44;
_H. RINGGREN, Word and Wisdom. Studies
in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities
and Functions in ‘the Ancient Near East
(Lund 1947); A. S. vAN. DER. WoupDE, DW
sém Name, THAT 2 (1979) 935-963, esp.
953-962.
H. B. HUFFMON
NANEA Novaia ,
I. Nanéa is the goddess in whose
temple Antiochus IV Epiphanes was killed
by the priests according to one tradition
about his obscure death, the letter to Aristo-
bulus, 2 Macc 1:13 (the fullest discussion
remains M. HoLLeaux, REA 18 (1916) 77-
102; cf B. Z. WaAcHOLDER, HUCA 49
[1978] 89-133; criticisms: J. M. Gor».
STEIN, J] Maccabees [AB 41A; New York
1983] 163). Her name is only mentioned
here; her temple had the name Naneion (v
15). This happened in 164 Bce in ‘Persis’,
actually Elymaïs, as is clear from other
sources, like 1 Macc 6:1-4. Pretending to
perform a sacred marriage (sunoikein) with
the goddess, Antiochus’ real intent was to
plunder the treasures, says the text.
JI. Nanéa or Nanaea (Nana in earlier lit,
now often Nanay or Nanaya) enjoyed an
increasing popularity in the Near East, start-
ing in Mesopotamia and expanding over the
Persian empire (AZARPAY 1976). She was
the goddess of erotic love. She was original-
ly (and always remained) a goddess of
Uruk, often mentioned together with An
(Anum) and I]nanna (^Ishtar),.also resid-
ing in Uruk. In Sumerian her name is in-
variably written 9Na-na-a and this remained
the standard writing. Several times we find
in Akkadian context—notably of the Old
Babylonian period and then particularly in
personal names—tbe form 9Na-na-a-a,
probably to be pronounced as Nanay. This is
confirmed by later renderings in other lan-
guages, as in Aramaic (nny or nm cf. M.
HELtTzer, PEG 110 [1978] 8-9 [& lit]) and
Greek (Nanaia, Nanai).
Ur III texts refer to Nanay of Uruk alone
(HemreL 1982); Old Babylonian texts
speak of a triad of feminine gods, An-Inan-
na, Nanay, Kanisurra, attested in Uruk (and
temporarily in Kish). The triad survived
until the Hellenistic period, as ->Ishtar-of-
Uruk, Nanay, Usur-amassa (according "to
CHARPIN 1986:411-413). Numerous texts
from late first millennium Uruk, especially
on prebends, mention her together with
other gods (O. SCHROEDER, SPAW 4?
[1916] 1184-1186; P.-A. BEAULIEU, ASJ 14
612
NANEA
[1992] 53-60: she is the twelfth god). Her
temple in Uruk was named E.hi.li.an.na
‘House of the Allurement of Heaven’ (A.
FALKENSTEIN, Topographie von Uruk [Leip-
zig 1941) 41) and she is described in hymns
and epithets as a symbol of sexual attraction
(Sum. hili, Akkadian kuzbu; cf. the epithet
nin bi.li in inscriptions of Kudur-mabuk and
Sin-kashid, RIME 4 [1990] 275, 451). She
is closely associated with the goddess of
love, Ishtar (R. D. Bicas, TCS 2 [1967] 3],
44). The few Old Babylonian hymns addres-
sed to Nanay include a prayer for a king
(W. W. Harro, BiOr 23 [1966] 242-244;
K. Hecker, TUAT JI/5 [1989] 724-726,
741-743). Hymns of the Assyrian kings
Sargon I1 and Assurbanipal are also known
(SAA 3 (1989] nos. 4, 5). The best known
hymn to Nanay is self-laudatory and syn-
cretistic (REINER 1974).
During the first millennium BCE Nanay
came to be associated with the god of
Borsippa, —Nabü (F. PoMroNio, Nabáü
[Rome 1978] 43, 50, 66-67, 102, 239; A. R.
GEORGE, SAAB 1 [1987] 38). A prelude to
this is the sacred marriage between her and
the god Muati, later identified with Nabi
(Old Babylonian; Lampert 1966). In the
first millennium Nabû was to take a second
place after ^Marduk of Babylon; his con-
sort always remained Tashmetu. An mscnp-
tion of Merodach-Baladan I (1173-1161) al-
ready reflects his association with both
.goddesses in mentioning together "Nabü,
Nanay and Tashmétu” in a curse formula (S.
PAGE, Sumer 23 [1967] 66 III 21; cf. also
Surpu It 155-6); this triad occurs in stock
phrases in late Sumerian litanies. Elsewhere
we find just “Nabû and Nanay” (RA 16
[1919] 130 IV 2; Pomponio, Nabû, 67).
Other texts call her explicitly “spouse of
Nabó" (VAS 1 36 I 5, with RA 16 [1919]
.141; R. Boncrn, AfO Beiheft 9 [1956] 77 §
:49). The elevated status of Nanay in Borsip-
-pa is clear from a late sacred marriage ritual
‘performed in Babylon(!) by Nabû and
‘Nanay in the second month (SBH VII col.
I; with E. MATSUSHIMA, ASJ 9 [1987] 158-
5161). It could be that Tashmētu retained her
¿Status in Assyria as Nabû’s consort, while in
Babylonia Nanay assumed this position
(thus MATSUSHIMA 1980:143-144). Even in
the Aramaic/Demotic Papyrus Amherst 63
we find “Nabû of Borsippa” and “Nanay of
the Ajakku (7’k’)” together (R. A. Bowman,
JNES 3 [1944] 227).
Nanay became increasingly important in
the Persian, Hellenistic, Parthian and Sas-
sanian world. The Persians identified her
with Anahita, a cult promoted by Artaxerxes
Il, according to Berossus (FGH 3 C 1
(1958) 680 F 11; S. M. Burstein, The Baby-
loniaca of Berossus [Malibu 1978] 29 [=
171]; cf WIKANDER 1946). The Bastern Iran-
ians identified her with Armaiti (AZARPAY
1976). The Arameans adopted her in their
pantheons where she survived into the fifth-
sixth century ce (CUMONT 1926; Jacob of
Sarug in his Homily on the Fall of the Idols;
see B. van DEN Horr, OrChr NS 5 [1915]
247-249; S. LANDESDORFER, MVAÄG 21
[1916] 110-111, 114). Her cult is known in
Assur (AGGOULA 1985), Palmyra (Comte
DU MESNIL DU Buisson 1962; HOFTIJZER
1968; M. GawLikowski, ANRW 118.4
[1990] 2645-46), Dura-Europos (CUMONT
1926), Susa (WIKANDER 1946; Le RIDER
1965). To the Greeks, she was — Artemis,
and Nabü was -^ Apollo; Strabo wrote:
"Borsippa is the holy city of Artemis and
Apollo" (16.1.7). A Greek hymn by Isidorus
celebrating Isis informs us "The Syrians call
thee —Astarte-Artemis-Nanaya"; another
hymn names Isis "the Nania in Susa" (M.
Toti, Ausgewählte Texte der Isis- und
Serapis-Religion [Hildesheim/Ziirich/New
York 1985] 77 no. 21:18; 68 no. 20:105-6).
The name Isis can be followed by ‘Nanay’
(G. RoNcni, Lexicon Theonymon rerumque
sacrarum IV (Milan 1976] 736). ‘Nanaion’,
the name of Nanay’s temple in “Persis” (=
Susa) according to 2 Macc 1:15, is also
known from Egyptian papyri where this
sanctuary is mentioned as a depository for
official documents (RoNcHt, Lexicon Theo-
nymon, 812-3).
WI. Without advocating the historicity of
the passage in 2 Macc, we can adduce a few
elements suggesting some reality in its set-
ting. Nanay was indeed an important god-
613
NARCISSUS
dess venerated in Susa (LE Riper 1965).
Her sanctuary was the Nanaion, a name also
known from Egypt where Isis was identified
with Nanaya. A sacred marriage ritual in-
volving Nanay is known for Babylon but her
consort is the god Nabi, not the king, and it
is performed in the second month. The pre-
tended sacred marnage by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes followed by his death took place
in the ninth month, Kislev, according to 2
Macc, and he did indeed die in this month
according to the List of Hellenistic Kings
(RLA VI1-2 [1980) 99-100, rev. 14). Assur-
banipal restored and inaugurated the temple
of Nanay in Uruk on the first of the ninth
month which could imply a regular festival
in Kislev (M. STRECK, VAB VIU2 [1916] 58
Rassam Cyl. VI 107-124).
~ IV. Bibliography
B. AGGOULA, Inscriptions et graffiites
araméens d’Assour (AION Suppl. 43)
(Naples 1985) 18-22; *G. Azarpay, Nana,
the Sumero-Akkadian goddess of Trans-
oxiana, JAOS 96 (1976) 536-542; D. CHAR-
PIN, Le clergé d’Ur au siécle d’Hammurabi
(Genéve/Paris 1986) 254.404.410-413; *F.
CuMONT, Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922-
1923) (BAH IX; Paris 1926) 195-198; A.
DEIMEL, Pantheon Babylonicum (Rome
1914) 187-188 no. 2264; *J. Goopnick
WESTENHOLZ, Nanaya: Lady of Mystery,
Sumerian Gods and Their Representations
(eds. I. L. Finkel & M. J. Geller, Groningen
1997) 57-84; *W. HEMPEL, A Catalog of
Near Eastern Venus Deities, Syro-Mesopota-
mian Studies 4/3 (December 1982) 9-22 [=
59-72], esp. 3. Nanay, 15-17 [= 65-67]; J.
Horrizer Religio Aramaica (Leiden 1968)
45-46; W. G. LAMBERT, Divine Love Lyrics
from the Reign of Abieshob, MIO 12 (1966)
41-56, esp. 43-45; *Comte DU MESNIL DU
BuissoN, Les tesséres et les monnaies de
Palmyre (Paris 1962) 381-385; *E. MaTsus-
HIMA, Problémes des déesses Tashmétum et
Nanaia, Orient (Tokyo 1980) 133-148; *E.
REINER, A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of
Nana, JNES 33 (1974) 221-236; *G. Le
RIDER, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Part-
hes (MAI = MDP 38) (1965) 292-296; *K.
TALLOQVIST, AkkGE 385-386; K. TANABE,
Nana on Lion. East and West in Sogdian
Art, Orient 30-31 (1995) 309-334; J.
TuBACH, /m Schatten des Sonnengottes
(Wiesbaden 1986) 277-279. 387, S. WIKAN-
DER, Feueérpriester in Kleinasien und lran
(Lund 1946) 70-75.
M. STOL
NARCISSUS Nápxtiococ
I. Narcissus is a Greek hero, whose
name is carried once in the Bible by a
Roman (Rom 16:11). The etymology of his
name is probably pre-Hellenic (CHANTRAINE
1980), as of so many plants.
I. The aetiological myth of Narcissus is
only attested in relatively late sources and is
hardly older than Hellenistic times. The
mythographer Conon (FGH 26 F 1.26), who
lived under Augustus but had access to many
local myths, relates the fate of a handsome
youth from Boeotian Thespiae who rejected
all male advances, even of Eros himself.
When his admirer Ameinias committed sui-
cide in front of his door in order to avenge his
unrequited love, Narcissus fell in love with
himself when contemplating his own reflec-
tion in a spring. In the end he also committed
suicide and Thespiae, which had a well-
known cult of Eros (SCHACHTER 1981:216-
219), decided to pay even more honour to the
god Eros. The Thespians thought that the Nar-
cissus flower first grew in that place where
Narcissus spilt his own blood. Ovid (Met. 3.
339-510) embellished the story with many
details, amongst which was Narcissus’ en-
counter with the nymph Echo, which became
extremely popular in Late Antiquity; Plo-
tinus even seems to have used the myth asa
vehicle for his philosophy (HApor 1973).
The myth is most likely to be connected
with the cult of Eros, who also was the god
of homosexual love. The refusal by Narcis-
sus of a lover meant in Greek terms the
refusal of the transition to adulthood be-
cause a homosexual relationship was an
indispensable part of growing up for the
upper-class Greek adolescents (BREMMER
199]). The fatal consequence of Narcissus’
refusal is the falling in love with himself,
614
NARU — NEHUSHTAN
that is the refusal of any meaningful rela-
tionship.
Il. Narcissus does not occur in the Bible
but his name occurs as one of the Romans
greeted by Pau] (Rom 16:11). Among the
names carried by Greeks in Rome Narcissus
was one of the most popular (SOLIN 1982:
1100-1103) and often given to slaves and
freedmen. Paul’s acquaintance, then, may also
have belonged to one of these categories.
IV. Bibliography
J. BREMMER, Greek Pederasty and Modern
Homosexuality, From Sappho to De Sade.
Moments in the History of Sexuality (ed. J.
Bremmer; London 19912) 1-14; P. CHaN-
TRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique de la
langue grecque (Paris 1968-80); S. EITREM,
Narkissos, PW 16.2 (1935) 1721-1733; P.
Hapor, Le mythe de Narcisse et son
interprétation par Plotin, Nouvelle revue de
psychoanalyse 7 (1973) 21-48; H. & R.
KAHANE, The Hidden Narcissus in the
Byzantine Romance of Belthandros and
Chrysantza, Jahrb, Osterr. Byzant. 33
(1982) 199-219; B. MANUWALD, Narcissus
bei Konon und Ovid, Hermes 103 (1975)
349-372; E. PELLIzER, Reflections, Echoes
and Amorous Reciprocity: On Reading the
Narcissus Story, Interpretations of Greek
Mythology (ed. J. Bremmer; London 19882)
107-120; B. Rarn, Narkissos, LIMC VI.1
(1992) 703-711; A. SCHACHTER, Cults of
Boiotia Y (London 1981); H. Soum, Die
griechischen Personennamen in. Rom 1l
(Berlin/New York 1982).
J. N. BREMMER
NARU > RIVER
NECESSITY > ANANKE
NEHUSHTAN pm
.: Y The word néhustan occurs once in
MT, in 2 Kgs 18:4, where it is the name of
“the bronze (or copper) serpent (néhas
_ hannéhdget) that >Moses had made in the
;Wildemess (as related in Num 21:8-9) and
“that King Hezekiah destroyed. The word is a
s€ompound of *nuhuit (Hebrew néhóset),
2
‘bronze, copper’, plus the *-an affix (pre-
served as -à- in Hebrew by dissimilation
from the -o- type. vowel in the previous syl-
lable). The word néhuSrén literally means
‘the (specific) thing of bronze/copper’ (cf.
the similar morphology of liwyatan,
Leviathan). Implicit in this name is a ver-
bal play on nāhāš, ‘snake’, of which
néhuStan is an image. Nehushtan appears to
have been a ritual symbol which effected the
cure of venomous snake bites, and which
was the object of veneration (the burning of
incense) by Israelites in the Jerusalem
Temple courtyard.
II. The use of snake images to effect the
cure of venomous snake bites: is consistent
with the ritual symbolism of snakes in the
ancient Near East (~*Serpent). In Egypt
snake amulets could be worm by the living
or the dead to ward off venomous snakes.
The Uraeus serpent protected gods and
kings from danger; and because of his
snake-nature the king was immune to snake
venom and could cure others. Protective
snake figurines are also found in Mesopot-
amia, including reliefs and amulets of two
snakes entwined, a symbol later inherited in
Greek culture as the healing symbol of
Asclepius. In Canaanite culture snake im-
ages also seem to have had some ntual use;
numerous examples of bronze snake figur-
ines have been excavated, including Late
Bronze Age figurines from Hazor, Gezer,
Megiddo, and Shechem. The most remark-
able instance is a gold-plated bronze snake
found at the Iron I Midianite shrine at
Timna (ROTHENBERG 1988). Also of interest
are two Phoenician engravings of snakes
resting on top of poles (BARNETY 1967;
SCHROER 1987): one is a winged Uraeus ser-
pent engraved on a bronze bowl found at the
eighth century Assyrian royal palace at
Nimrud, and the other is a wingless snake
carved on a stone bow] from the fourth or
third century. These Phoenician emblems
are also likely related to Nehushtan.
XII. In the Bible the bronze/copper ser-
pent is evaluated quite differently in its two
occurrences in Num 21 and 2 Kgs 18. In the
former, the snake image is mandated by
615
NEITH
—Yahweh as a cure for the venomous bites
of the §dardp (lit. ‘burning’) snakes, while in
the latter the image is conceived as a non-
Yahwistic or idolatrous religious object,
which Hezekiah rightly destroys. In the
clash between these two texts we find con-
tested claims about the ritual figurine. lt is
plausible that the cause of this clash was the
prophetic critique of ritual symbols, in
which a number of traditional Yahwistic
concepts and symbols came to be reinter-
preted as idolatrous or ‘Canaanite’, includ-
ing the ‘high places’ (bdm6r), the ‘standing
stones’ (massébét), and the ‘sacred posts’
(asérd, ’Gsérim), which are also destroyed
by Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:4. This reevalu-
ation of traditional symbols, evidenced in
the eighth century prophets and in Deutero-
nomy, may be the motivation for Hezekiah’s
destruction of Nehushtan. The statement in
2 Kgs 18:4 that the Israelites had burned
incense to the statue suggests that the Israel-
ites worshipped it as a god, but the polem-
ical thrust of this remark may be a revision-
ist gloss on ordinary Yahwistic cultic piety.
. The bronze snake probably belonged to the
traditional repertoire of Yahwistic symbols,
this emblem signifying Yahweh's power to
heal (so Numbers 21). Its destruction seems
to have occurred in the wake of a wide-
ranging reconception of religious practice
and symbolism.
IV. Bibliography
R. D. BARNETT, Layard's Nimrud Bronzes
and their Inscriptions, (Erlsr 8; 1967) 3*
and fig. 2; BARNETT, Ezekiel and Tyre,
(Erlsr 9; 1969) 8* and pl. 4; H.-J. FABRY,
néhdset, TWAT 5 (1986) 397-408; B.
HALPERN, ‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The
Development of Israelite Monotheism,
Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (eds.
J. Neusner, et al.; Philadelphia 1987) 77-
115; K. Jaroš, Die Stellung des Elohisten
zur kanaanäischen Religion (OBO 4; Frei-
burg 1982) 151-165; K. R. Joines, Serpent
Symbolism in the Old Testament (Had-
donfield 1974) 61-96; B. ROTHENBERG, The
Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (London
1988) 66 and pls. 11-12; S. SCHROER, Jn
Israel Gab Es Bilder: Nachrichten von dar-
Stellender Kunst im Alten Testament (OBO
74; Freiburg 1987) 104-115; L. STÓRK,
Schlange, LdA 5 (1984) 644-652.
R. S. HENDEL
NEITH
I. Neith (N.t, Nj.t, Gk Nni0) occurs as a
theophoric element in the name MXN,
Asnath, Gk Ao£vv£8, the daughter of Potip-
hera, a priest in Heliopolis, and wife of
Joseph (Gen 41:45, see EL SaYED 1982
11:400-401 doc. 446). The etymology of the
name is not clear, but associations point in
two entirely different directions: 1. both the
name of the goddess and the name of the
crown of Lower Egypt (N.t) might go back
to a fuller form Nr.t, meaning 'the terrible
one’. This meaning connects well with the
typical attribute of Neith: a shield with two
crossed arrows; 2. In its form, N.t the name
resembles the usual word for 'flood, inun-
dation'. This association corresponds to the
central theological aspect of Neith as a god-
dess of ‘watery preexistence’.
II. Neith belongs to the few Egyptian
divinities whose attestation goes back to
protodynastic times. She plays an important
role in archaic documents (EL SAYED 1982
II:docs. 1-117) and must have been the lead-
ing goddess of Lower Egypt. Her role is less
dominant in the Middle and New King-
doms—though she continues to rank among
the great deities—but becomes prominent
again with the rise of the Saite dynasty in
the 7th century BCE. The Greeks identified
her with -*Athena, an interpretation that can
be based on several common traits: both
goddesses are associated with arms and
weapons; both are patronesses of crafts,
especially weaving (Neith is the goddess of
weaving, Athena invented the loom) and
sciences (Neith is associated with magic and
medicine); both are chiefs of cities that were
(or considered themselves to be) closely
related.
In the theology of Neith her bellicose and
royal nature as displayed in her iconography
plays a comparatively subordinate role (but
see EL-SAYED 1982 1:72-76). Much more
616
NEITH
important is her attribute as a cosmogonic
deity. She probably underwent a process of
reinterpretation. Originally, Neith must have
been the personification of a kind of Lower
Egyptian political identity as symbolized by
the red crown and the royal title bjt ‘bee’ or
‘who belongs to the bee’. She often bears
the title “Opener of ways” (EL-SAYED 1982
1:67-69), which shows that she formed a
Lower Egyptian counterpart to the Upper
Egyptian god Upuaut (Ophois) and acted
like him as a leader of the king on his
processions and military or hunting cam-
paigns. But already in the Old Kingdom she
appears in connection with Sobek (Sou-
chos), the crocodile god of water (Pyr. 510;
R. EL- SAYED 1982 II:doc. 197), and with
Mht-wrt (Methyer), the cow-shaped goddess
of preexistence and cosmogony (Pyr. 507-
509; EL Sayrp 1982 ILdoc. 196). Both
associations might of course be much earlier
than their first attestations in the Pyramid
Texts.
In the funerary context, Neith appears as
one of the four tutelary goddesses who pro-
tect the corpse of Osiris and the coffin of
the dead, her partners being Isis, Nephthys
and Serget. Neith and Serqet are goddesses
of protective magic and medicine. As a god-
dess of weaving, Neith is also responsible
for the mummy wraps and other tissues in
the context of mummification (gL SAYED
1982 1:76-80). But there is one important
document which shows the funerary role of
Neith in a different light: the inscription on
the sarcophagus lid of king Merenptah (see
J. ASSMANN, MDAIK 28 [1972] 47-73, 115-
139). In this long text Neith appears as the
‘heavenly cow, mother of >Re and mistress
-of all the other gods whom she appoints to
‚Serve the king in his afterlife. She thus plays
«the role of an omnipotent and all-encompas-
sing super-goddess.
; This role corresponds to her cosmogonic
“attribute as Mht-wrt, ‘the great swimming
‘(cow)’, a deity who like —Atum and.
“Amun personified both preexistence and
im creation. Methyer is said to have created the :
phniverse by means of her seven tzw, a word
‘utterance’. Perhaps already in the Coffin
Texts (EL-SAYED 1974), but certainly since
the New Kingdom texts this term is under-
stood in its linguistic meaning and thus
expresses the concept of ‘creation by
speech’. The seven cosmogonic utterances
of Neith-Methyer acquire a personality of
their own, with a hawk's body, a proper
name and a function in the protection of the
deceased (EL-SAvED 1974). As à personi-
fication of preexistence, Neith is described
as beyond sexuality or bisexual (“two thirds
masculine and one third feminine", see
SAUNERON 1962:110, 113(a); S. SAUNERON,
Le. créateur androgyne, Mélanges Mariette
[1962] 240-242; Corpus Hermeticum 1, 9,
20; Horapollon §12: arsenothelys, see EL-
SAYED 1982 II:674 doc. 1115). The hymns
in the temple of Esna (first centuries CE, see
SAUNERON 1962) praise Neith as creator of
the world, who transformed herself into the
celestial vault, who gave birth to the sum,
who appeared in the shape of the serpent,
the symbol of pharaonic rule, order and jus-
tice (Ma‘at) in front of the sun god, and who
extended the universe in the form of water,
thus forming the netherworld, the > Nile, the
inundation and the vegetation. Her last cos-
mogonic manifestations concern the pharao-
nic state: as the mistress of combat who
drives away the enemies of Pharaoh and as
the lady of the palace who elects and pro-
tects the king. Neith appears as universal
goddess encompassing both the cosmic and
the socio-political spheres. All traditions
consent in ascribng to Neith primordial
antiquity and universal power.
Plutarch writes that Neith-Athena has
been identified by the theologians of Sais
with Isis and that her seated statue bore the
inscription “J am all that has been and is and
will be; and no mortal has ever lifted my
mantle" (De Is.). Proclus, in his commentary
on: the Timaeus, gives a longer version of
this same inscription, adding: "the fruit of
my womb is the sun”. These quotations
might go back to a Greek inscription in the
form of the Greek ‘aretalogies’. But it is
also possible that they translate an Egyptian
a aning originally ‘nod’ but also ‘spell’, | original which can be reconstructed as fol-
| | 617
NEPHILIM
lows: jnk nbt (or: qmit) ntt jwtt / nn kj) wp-
hrj/ jnk jht msjt R*w. A correct rendering
would be: "I am the mistress (or: the cre-
ator) of all that exists and that does not
exist; there is no other (god) except myself
(the Egyptian idiom can also mean: “there is
no other who has opened [= unveiled] my
face”); I am the cow that bore Re”.
YII. The only occurrence of the goddess
Neith in the Bible is jn the name MON,
Asenath, Gk Acevvé®, the daughter of
Potiphera, a priest in Heliopolis (On), and
wife of Joseph (Gen 41:45). It js a common
Egyptian type of name and means 'She
belongs to Neith'. Since Neith is celebrated
as the mother of Re, her cultic presence in
Heliopolis is not unnatural. The author of
Gen 41 merely notes that Joseph came to
marry the daughter of an Egyptian priest.
Later Jewish tradition, ill at ease with a
pagan priest as the father-in-law of the
patriarch, came up with various explanations
(ArrowITZER 1924). Asenath became the
female protagonist of the anomymous
Jewish-Greek work Joseph and Aseneth,
written between the Ist cent. BCE and the
2nd cent. cE. She is presented as a daughter
of Pentephres, satrap of Pharaoh, who pre-
ferred her idols to her suitors. Having seen
Joseph she falls in love; in spite of her
beauty, though, Joseph rejects her. Only
after she has converted to the God of the
Hebrews does the pious patriarch take her as
his legal wife.
IV. Bibliography "
V. APTOWITZER, Asenath, the Wife of
Joseph, HUCA_ I (1924) 239-306; H. Bon-
NET, Neith, RARG (Berlin 1952), 512-517;
D. MALLET, Le culte de Neit à Sais (Paris
1888); S. SAUNERON, Les. fétes religieuses
d'Esna aux derniers siècles du páganisme
(Esna V; Cairo 1962); R. EL-SAYED, REg 26
(1974) 73-82; EL-SAYED, Documents relatifs
à Sais et ses divinités (Cairo 1975); EL-
SAYED, La déesse Neith de Sais, 2? vols.
(Cairo 1982).
J. ASSMANN
NEPHILIM D'^5 i
I. The bald allusion to the Nephilim
(lit. fallen ones) in Gen 6:3 (‘The Nephilim
were on.the earth in those days ... ') fits
uneasily into a context that has always pre-
sented a challenge to exegetes. Although
designated an ‘antiquarian gloss’ (SKINNER
1910:147) the sentence in which it appears
does bind it to the theological scene which
depicts a fresh threat to the God-given dis-
tinction between divine beings and humans.
It raises again the worst fears expressed at
the close of Gen 3 (‘the man has become
like one of us, ... and now he might ... eat,
and live forever’) but in the new shape of
gross physical contact between the sons of
God and the beautiful daughters of humans.
On the face of it, the human race could now
be immune from mortality. The Nephilim
were the mythical semi-divine beings
spawned by these illicit liaisons. WESTER-
MANN (1974:494-497) indicates in detail
that there are insufficient grounds for dis-
turbing the sequence of 6:1-4 as it stands:
6:1-2 describe the upsetting of the bound-
aries that divide divine beings and humans;
6:3 God's judgement stops short of annihi-
lating the evil-doers (just as it did in the Fall
and the First Murder incidents) but curtails
the human life-span; 6:4 prodigies were the
offspring of divine-human mamiages. The
resulting prodigies of the action.in 4b —‘the
sons of God went in to the daughters of
humans’—are referred to in 4a (the Nephil-
im) and again much more clearly in 4b
(> ‘heroes of old ... warriors of renown’).
Outrageous activity of this kind which re-
sulied in violence and. corruption on the
earth provoked God's judgement in the form
of the Flood. The monstrous Nephilim were
swept away by it and humans would not live
forever.
H. The Nephilim are found once more
in the Hebrew Bible in Num.13:33 when
Moses’ spies exaggerate the strength of the
pre-settlement occupants of Canaan by
reporting the sight of the gigantic Nephilim
before whom they felt like grasshoppers (cp.
the Amorites ‘whose height was like the
height of cedars’ Am 2:9). Allowing for the
618
NEPHILIM
awe felt by nomads for settled folk and its
resultant hyperbole, the postdiluvian desig-
nation does refer to an ancient race of great
stature but without the mythological over-
tones of the semi-divine beings or demi-
gods characteristic of the primeval period.
The Nephilim have been 'historicised' and
transferred to the still distant heroic period
of pre-settlement Canaan. However, some-
thing of the flavour of the older sense of the
term might be preserved in Ezek 32:27
where the warrior nations ‘fall’ (pl) down
into —Sheol but are not privileged to lie
with the gibbórim népilim, ‘the fallen war-
nors', or as KRaELING (1947) and ZiMw-
MERLI (1969) would have it, the Nephilim
(népilim) warriors, mythical semi-divine
beings in the manner of Babylonian and
Greek myths. Certainly npl is a keyword in
Ezek 32 and exploits the etymological
significance of Nephilim.
GUNKEL (1910:58-59) thought that the
term Nephilim in Gen 6:4a, obsolete at the
time of the writer, was explained and at the
same time given a historical dimension in
6:4c: ‘these were the heroes ... of remote
antiquity’. The Versions emphasise thc:
heroic qualities of the Nephilim, calling
them —'giants’ (LXX and Vg gigantes).
The Aram. cognate npyľ ‘giant’ occurs
several times in the Dead Sea Scrolls: in the
Targum of Job 38:31 it translates the name
of the constellation -*Orion (Heb késil )
which was regarded as early as Homer (Od.
5.121) as the image of a gigantic hunter.
Appropnately the Enochic Book of the
Giants attests the Nephilim several times;
once they are called ‘the Nephilim of the
earth’ or the ‘earthly Nephilim’ (apyly ?r^;
4QEnGi 3:8) possibly drawing attention to
the restricted arena of their activities i.e. the
earth, despite their heavenly origin. 7g. Onq.
has gbry’ ‘mighty ones* in agreement with
Gen. Rab. XXXI 7 (gbrym) and Tg. Neof.
ABERBACH points out that this official
Targum conspicuously avoids the ‘fallen
—angels’ tradition which exploited the plain
etymology of the word, from npl ‘to fall’.
Others connect it with népel ‘miscarriage’
and so meaning dead persons and thence
ghosts or spirits of miscarriage, or even
(spirits of) children born dead, miscarriages
or the like regarded as ill-omened (SCHWAL-
Lv, ZAW 18 (1898) 142-148; KB 624). Tg.
Ps.-J. has no such qualms and actually
names the angels who fell from heaven
(Shamhazai and Azael) In 7 Enoch, the
parallel account to Gen. 6:1-4, ‘the angels,
the sons of heaven’ saw and desired the
daughters of men. Semyaza (= Tg. Ps.-J.
Shamhazai) appears as their leader; they all,
two hundred of them, ‘came down’ (6:6)
and acted promiscuously with earthly
women (7:1), polluting the carth with their
monstrous progeny, the Nephilim (9:9;
10:9). The ambivalent nature of the mysteri-
ous Nephilim stems from the far from clear
identification of their parents in the Genesis
pericope, the ‘sons of the gods (or of God)’.
Were these superhuman creatures, demi-
gods, like Gilgamesh who was said to be
two-thirds god and one-third human, or can
they be regarded as completely human,
stemming from the aristrocratic line of
-*Seth? Or are they rulers in the manner of
Keret, king of Ugarit, or David, king of
Israel, whose traditional epithets derived
from sacral kingship? Most modern exegetes
recognise the validity of the first interpre-
tation which is supported by a consistent
picture of God's heavenly court and -*coun-
cil in the Hebrew Bible (Pss 29:1; 82:6;
89:6; Job 1-2; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Isa 6:1-8).
The NT notion of the fallen angels who like
- Satan (Luke 10:18) plummeted to earth
because they failed to recognise their po-
sition in the divine hierarchy (2 Pet 2:4;
Jude 6) has clear allusions to the Nephilim.
The antipathy of the translator in Targum
Ongelos towards the proliferation of angelic
powers and in particular, the angels who fell
from grace, espoused in the Palestinian Tar-
gums and in the Enochic traditions might be
due partly to the popularity of this kind of
material in the early Judaco-Christian com-
munity. Certainly the view that the ‘sons of
God’ were angels was replaced in second
century CE mainstream Judaism by the the-
ory that they were righteous men. Etymo-
logically, the basis of Nephilim is trans-
619
NEREUS
parent. This explains the wealth of allusions
which exploits the fall from heaven or the
fall from Edenic bliss.
III. Mythological analogies from the
ancient world have been drawn on as back-
ground to the original Hebrew. From clas-
sical mythology, e.g. the incident in which
~Zeus, with the help of thunder and light-
ning, hurled Cronos and the other —Titans
from heaven, has been noted, and KRAELING
(1947) drew attention to the Mesopotamian
Atrahasis legend in which the decision to
destroy humans by means of a flood follows
a population explosion on earth which
threatened the equilibrium that existed
between gods and men. Ezek 32 with its use
of the keyword npl delineating the fate of
fallen warriors who go down to Sheol with
their weapons of war suggests that the
Nephilim were the Fallen, i.e. their status as
extinct during the period when the events
are recorded. As such they are associated
with the massed community of the dead, the
>Rephaim (Deut. 2:11; Ps 88:11; Isa 14:9).
DRAFFKORN KILMER has argued that the
Nephilim are to be identified with the pri-
meval apkallu ‘sages, experts’ of Mesopot-
amian tradition whose responsibility it was
to maintain cosmic order. According to
Berossus they brought to mankind the divine
power of wisdom and all the benefits asso-
ciated with civilized life; Berossus Book Il
1:1-11 (BURSTEIN 1978:18-19).
WESTERMANN (1974:511-512) points out
that in Gen 6:4 the Nephilim were identified
with the ‘heroes that were of old, warriors
of renown’ and that there was nothing
mythical here. But the Nephilim of 4a, in
the light of Ezek 32:27, are clearly mythical.
He concludes that two narrative conclusions
were blended in 6:4, one following the
mythical line, the other simply the ctiologi-
cal line. The thrust of the mythical line was
the telling of the story of the transgression
of the divine order which ensured the sepa-
ration of gods and men in accordance with
the theme of similar stones in the primeval
narrative (cp. Gen 3 and 11). Later traditions
‘historicized’ the Nephilim and transformed
them either into the legendary precursors of
the Israelites in Canaan or elaborated the
tradition of fallen angelic beings who were
actively engaged in stirring mankind into
rebellion against divine authority.
IV. Bibliography
M. ABERBACH & B. GROSSFELD, Targum
Onkelos to Genesis (Denver 1982); P. S.
ALEXANDER, The Targumim and Early Exe-
gesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6, JJS 23
(1972) 60-71; S. M. BURSTEIN, The Babylo-
niaca of Berossus (SANE 1.5; Malibu
1978); U. Cassuto, The Episode of the
Sons of God and the Daughters of Man,
Bible and Oriental Studies, Vol I. Trans I.
Abrahams (Jerusalem 1973) 17-38; A.
DRAFFKORN KILMER, The Mesopotamian
Counterparts of the Biblical Nephilim, in:
Essays and Poems in Honor of Fl.
Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday. July 28, 1985
(Winona Lake 1987) 39-43; H. GUNKEL,
Genesis (Gottingen 1910); E. G. KRAELING,
The Significance and Origin of Gen. 6:1-4,
JNES 6 (1947) 193-208; J. T. MILIK, The
Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of
Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford 1976); J. SKINNER,
Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh 1910); C.
WESTERMANN, Genesis 1-11] (Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1974; ET London 1984); W.
ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, Il Teilband (Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1969; ET Philadelphia 1983).
P. W. Coxon
NEREUS Nnpeùús
I. Nereus is a minor Greek god, whose
name may be connected with Lithuanian
nérti ‘to dive’ (CHANTRAINE 1980). As a
theophoric name, it occurs once in the Bible
(Rom 16:15). It is also the name of Job’s
brother in Test. Job 51:1. It remains unclear
why the author of this Jewish pseudepigraph
chose precisely this name.
I]. Nereus has only a shadowy role in
Greek mythology. He is a typical ‘Old Man
of the Sea’, a category which is usually
anonymous in Homer (/l. 1.358, 18.141
etc.), who also uses it for other sea-deities
like Proteus (Od. 4.365) and Phorkys (Od.
13.96). These deities, and comparable ones
like Glaucus, Thetis and Triton, have the
620
NERGAL
gift of prophecy and the ability to change
shapes. In the background is the belief in a
Master of the Animals, a protector of all
animals or those of one species (BREMMER
1983:129), but the feature of prophecy is a
typical Greek development, which the
Greeks themselves seem to have connected
with the god's knowledge of the ‘depths of
the whole sea’ (Od. 4.385). In Pelopon-
nesian and Athenian iconography Nereus is
indeed represented as an old man, but the
earliest certain appearance in Greek art
shows him fish-tailed (PiPiL1 1992:835-837).
Nereus' main qualities are his fight against
—Heracles and his fatherhood of the
Nereids. Nereus' fight with Heracles was a
favourite theme of archaic Greck art (PiPiLI
1992). It is a ‘double’ of Heracles’ fight
with another shape-changing deity, Pericly-
menus. The theme of the fight against a
Master of Animals goes back to the earliest
Indo-European mythology and, eventually,
finds its origin in shamanistic myths and
rituals concerning the quest for food
(BURKERT 1979:95-96).
The Nereids were the nymphs of the sea,
who also possessed the gift of prophecy and
shared an oracle with Glaucus on Delos
(Aristotle fr. 490). The way they are men-
tioned both by Homer, who does not
mention Nercus himself, and Hesiod, strong-
ly suggests that they already existed before
Homer (Epwarps 1991:147-149; WACHTER
1990). The Nereids received sacrifices from
the Persians (Herodotus 7.191) and Alexan-
der the Great (Arrian, Anabasis 1.11.6), and
Pausanias (2.1.8) observes that they had
altars at various places in Greece. On the
other hand, a cult of Nereus is hardly at-
tested. Ovid (Metamorphoses 11.359-61) is
the only source to mention a temple for
Nereus and the Nereids. Pausanias (3.21.9)
identified a cult for an ‘Old Man’ in
Gytheion with Nereus, but that is clearly his
personal interpretation. Yet in the second
century people apparently still dreamt of
him (Artemidorus 2.38). Given Nereus’
shadowy existence, one may well wonder
whether Hesiod did not invent him as a
father for the pre-existing Nereids.
HI. In the Bible Nereus occurs as one of
the members of the Roman congregation,
who is greeted by Paul (Rom 16:15). In
Rome Nereus is quite a popular name
among the Greek population (SOLIN 1982:
394-395) and often carried by slaves and
freedmen, as ‘Nereus and his sister’ may
well have been.
IV. Bibliography
J. BREMMER, The Early Greek Concept of
the Soul (Princeton. 1983); W. BURKERT,
Structure and History in Greek Mythology
and Ritual (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London
1979); P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étyino-
logique de la langue grecque (Paris 1968-
80); M. W. Epwarps, The Iliad: A Com-
mentary V (Cambridge 1991); M. Pipivi,
Nereus, LIMC VI.1 (1992) 824-837; H.
SOLIN, Die griechischen Personennamen in
Rom | (Berlin/New York 1982), R. Wacn-
TER, Nereiden und Neoanalyse: Ein Blick
hinter die Ilias, Würzburger Jahrbücher für
die Altertumswissenschaft NF 16 (1990) 19-
31.
J. N. BREMMER
NERGAL 5715
I. Nergal with his city Cutha is men-
tioned in 2 Kgs 17:30 within the description
of the cults of the foreign settlers in
Samaria. The particular relevance of Nergal
in this context is to be explained by the fact
that inhabitants of Cutha had been settled in
Samaria while Samarians had been deported
to Assyria (H. WINCKLER, Die Keilschrift-
texte Sargons {Leipzig 1889] 100:23-24; C.
J. Gaon, Iraq 16 [1954] 179-180 iv:25-41;
BECKING 1992:25-31.97). The deity also
occurs as theophoric element in the personal
name Nergal-sharezer (Jer 39:3,13).
II. An early attestation of Nergal and
Cutha, a northern Babylonian city some 20
miles north-east of Babylon, is in Naram-
Sin's Basetki inscription (Sumer 32 [1976],
pl. facing p. 59). A further Naram-Sin
inscription (LAMBERT 1973:357-363) must
also be mentioned since it concerns building
operations for Erra (= Nergal, see below)
with his spouse Laz in his temple Emeslam
621
NERGAL
in Cutha. The much later Epic of Erra also
indicates the interchangeability of the names
Erra and Nergal. In addition to other evi-
dence to be inferred from the Epic, there is
the fact that the two names occur in ap-
position (V 39-41). Nergal was understood
by ancient scribes as ‘Lord of the nether-
world’ (*EN-ERIj,-GAL) This is shown
clearly by the Emesal 4umun.urugal, which
demonstrates that this opinion existed in
ancient times, irrespective of the actual ori-
gin, etymology or even language of the
name. Whatever the etymology of the name
Erra (see ROBERTS 1972:11-16: ‘parched
earth’), it appears that a Semitic deity asso-
ciated with plague, pestilence, war and sud-
den death has been merged with a Sumerian
deity with broadly similar characteristics. A
Babylonian etiological myth, Nergal and
Ereshkigal, explains how Nergal became
spouse of Ereshkigal, already the lady of the
underworld.
In the Ur III period Nergal's name or
aspects included Meslamtaca, a name he
bore in direct relation to his temple of
Emeslam in Cutha, the name meaning ‘the
one who comes out of Emeslam'. In the
wider context of Sumerian mythology Ner-
gal was regarded as the son of Enlil of Nip-
pur. In this respect he took on the epithet
‘avenger of his father, Enlil’, an epithet
which he shares with Ninurta, a deity which
could along with Zababa, already be identi-
fied with Nergal in the Old Babylonian
period. In the Old Babylonian period the
cult of Nergal is widely attested, e.g. in
Dilbat, Isin, Larsa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur,
Uruk. An aspect of Nergal as god of war
appears in Old Babylonian texts in which
the deity is asked to break the weapons of
the enemy. Already at this time the cult of
Nergal had spread to Mari and Elam. Nergal
and the theology of his cult was taken up
and expounded in the learned works of the
Babylonian scribes.
The character of the deity can be encap-
sulated from the point of view of the syn-
cretistic Babylonian theology of the later
period. In a hymn to -*Marduk (KAR 25, II
3-10) Nergal is explained as the ‘might’ of
Marduk, while in a syncretistic list Nergal is
‘Marduk of battle’ (CT 24, 50b obv. 4). The
worship of Nergal was an important part of
official Assyrian cult in Neo-Assyrian times.
In the later period Nergal is attested in a 3rd
century BCE, Phoenician-Greck bilingual
from Piraeus (KA/ 59), at Palmyra, and
appears in Hatra in inscriptions dating from
the first and second centuries CE.
III. Since Cutha is nowhere mentioned in
the inscriptions of Sargon II, it is unlikely
that the deportation of its inhabitants was
conducted by this king. A conquest of Cutha
accompanied by deportations is known from
the reign of Sennacherib 703 sce (L. D.
Levine, JCS 34 [1982] 29-40; BECKING
1992:97) which would imply a relatively
late date for the repopulation of the Samar-
ian area by Cuthaeans. From the scarce
information of 2 Kgs 17:30 it can be in-
ferred that the settlers from Cutha erected an
image of Nergal implying that they were
allowed to continue their traditional religion.
The deity also occurs as a theophoric el-
ement in the personal name Nérgal Sar-eser,
Nergal-sharezer, ‘May Nergal protect the
King’ (Jer 39:3, 13), thought by some to be
Neriglissar, king of Babylon, 560-556 BCE
(HALAT 683; W. L. HotLLADAY, Jeremiah,
vol. 2 {Minneapolis 1989] 291). A witness
Nergal-shar-usur, PU.GUR.20.PAP, iS men-
tioned in a Neo-Assyrian contract for the
selling of a parcel of land excavated at
Gezer (649 BcE; BECKING 1992:117-118)
IV. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria (SHANE
2; Leiden 1992); E. DitorME, Les religions
de Babylone et d’Assyrie (Paris 1945) 38-44,
51-52; W. G. Lampert, Studies in Nergal,
BiOr 30 (1973) 355-363; LAMBERT, The
Name of Nergal Again, ZA 80 (1990) 40-52;
J. J. M. Roserts, Erra - Scorched Earth,
JCS 24 (1972) 11-16; ROBERTS, The
Earliest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore 1972);
P. SrEINKELLER, The Name of Nergal, ZA
77 (1987) 161-168; E. von WEIHER, Der
babylonische Gott Nergal (AOAT 11; Neu-
kirchen Vluyn 1971).
A. LIVINGSTONE
622
NIBHAZ — NIGHT
NIBHAZ i723
I. Nibhaz is a deity who, like -*Tartak,
was ‘made’ by the men of Awwah (var.
Ivvah, 2 Kgs 19:13) when the Assyrians
settled them in Samaria, 2 Kgs 17:31.
II. Identification of Awwah with a place
written in cuneiform as Ama or Awa is
strengthened by the occurrence beside it of
Amatu in texts of Sargon II, probably the
Hamath of 2 Kgs 17:30 (H. WINCKLER, Die
Keilschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig 1889]
46:273-277; cf. BECKING 1992:98-99), a col-
location observed by Driver (1958:18) and
developed by ZADOK (1976:117-123). These
towns lay in Babylonia, east of the Tigris, in
the area occupied by the Chaldaean Bit
Dakkuri tribe, with other places called by
West Semitic names. By the end of the
eighth century BCE the whole of Babylonia
had a very mixed population of village
dwelling tribesmen, the result of earlier
migrations and of Assyrian deportations.
Sargon I] warred against Merodach-Baladan
in that region, so transportation of some of
the populace from there to another con-
quered territory, Samaria, would be normal.
This eastern location for Awwah links neat-
ly with the comparison between Nibhaz and
the divine name Ibnahaz found in a list of
Elamite gods equated with the Babylonian
Ea (-*Aya), god of fresh water and wisdom
(L. W. KiNc, CT 25 [1909] pl. 24). ob-
served by F. HoMMEL (OLZ 15 [1920] 18).
A name which has been taken as the origin
of Tartak follows in the same list.
Between the Tigris and the Zagros in
Babylonia there had long been a mingling of
peoples and languages, so the presence of
West Semitic speakers who took up the
worship of local, Elamite deities is not sur-
prising. Regrettably, nothing is known about
Ibnahaza. This explanation is preferable to
the strained attempt to derive Nibhaz from
mizbeah, ‘altar’, by a series of phonological
shifts, influenced by the occurrence of Greek
Maôßaxw (J. A. Montcomery & H. S.
GEHMAN, Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951]
474; J. T. Mii&, Bib 48 [1967] 578, 606).
The Masoretes noted their uncertainty about
the strange name by writing the last letter
larger than the others, thus probably giving
rise to the rabbinic reading Niblian, ex-
plained as a barking dog, from the root NBH
(b.Sanhedrin 63b). The LXX eblazer should
be treated as no more than a blundered ren-
dering of a name incomprehensible to the
translators.
III. From the use of the verb ‘Sh, ‘to
make’, it can be inferred that an image of
Nibhaz was erected by the people from
Awwah in Samaria. The fact that they were
apparently allowed to erect such an image
could hint at a liberal attitude of the
Assyrians regarding religious symbols of
exiled people (M. Cogan, Imperialism and
Religion [Missoula 1974]).
IV. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria. An His-
torical and Archaeological Study (SHANE
2; Leiden 1992) 98; G. R. Driver, Geo-
graphical Problems, Er/sr 5 (1958) 16-20;
W. J. Furco, Nibhaz, ABD 4 (1992) 1104;
F. HoMMEL, Ethnographie und Geographie
des Alten Orients (München 1926) 987; R.
ZADOK, Geographical and Onomastic Notes,
JANES 8 (1976) 114-126.
A. R. MILLARD
NIGHT 575 N&
I. Heb Jayla is based on a common
Semitic vocable for ‘night’; cf. Ug JI, Old
South Ar //, Canaanite /felJa (EA 243:13),
Ar lail(at), Akk lilidtu (‘evening’). The term
is not used in the formation of personal
names in East or West Semitic onomastica.
Outside the Hebrew Bible, ‘night’ is some-
times ascribed divine status.
I]. ‘Night’ was deified in some areas of
the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean
world. It was occasionally venerated as a
god in Hatti (4/§pant-), just like ‘good [i.e.
lucky] day’ (Goetze 1951:473). In the
Aramaic Sefire treaties /ylh is paired with
ywin—-'Day and Night'—in a list of gods
and other quasi-divine ‘natural elements’
before whom the treaty is sworn by the con-
tracting parties, similar to elements listed in
Hittite treaties (KA/ 222 IA:12; FITZMYER
1967:38-39); however, night docs not appear
623
NIKE
as a divine witness in treaties from Hatt. It
was not deified in Mesopotamia (Sum geg,
Akk miSu/musitu), although it was occa-
sionally personified (e.g. Magli 1 2). Accord-
ing to Greek mythology (Hesiod, Theog.
123-124) the goddess NOE was born of
Chaos and gave birth to such evils as "Epic
(‘Strife’) and Néveotc (‘Retribution’). In the
later Orphic cosmogony ‘night’ played an
even more important role, although its place
in the genealogy of the early gods varies in
the sources (VON GEISAU 1972:220).
III. There is no convincing evidence for
a deification/demonisation of ‘night’ in the
Biblical books. M. DAHoop had posited
such a meaning in Job 27:20 (laylá génabtó
süpá, "Night kidnaps him like the whirl-
wind” [TROMP 1969:96 n.76)), but his view
has won no support (the subject 1s süpá, not
layla). In contrast to ‘darkness’, which
belongs to the chaotic elements that charac-
terize the period before creation (Gen 1:2),
night is part of the ordered cosmos, espe-
cially when paired with ‘day’ (Gen 1:4;
8:22; Ps 74:16). On the other hand, it never
completely loses overtones of chaos and the
sinister, particularly as the setting for the
operation of forces hostile to mankind.
According to Ps 91:5 > Yahweh protects the
psalmist..from,.the — ‘terror of the night’
(pahad láylá), an expression that may allude
to demonic forces. Similarly it is at night
that —Jacob is accosted by a supernatural
being with whom he wrestles till daybreak
(Gen 32:22-24). A night-time setting is im-
plied for Yahweh’s ‘demonic’ attack upon
—Moses (Exod 4:24; note bammalén, ‘at the
lodging-place’). According to the gospels
Jesus is arrested at night, whose connec-
tion with the forces of evil is signalled by
Luke’s reference to “the power of darkness”
(22:53) After noting that —Satan entered
into Judas Iscariot at the Last Supper
(13:27), John adds suggestively, “Now it
was night” (13:30).
Night is also a time of danger for the
righteous, the time when the wicked typical-
Jy perform their lawless deeds (FreLps
1992), especially thieves (Job 24:14; Jer
49:9; Obad 1:5; Matt 24:43; 1 Thess 5:2). It
624
is no coincidence that the wily woman of
Proverbs 7, the antitype of Lady ^ Wisdom,
also plies her trade at night (v 9). In Rom
13:13 Paul contrasts upright conduct symbol-
ised by daytime (“Let us conduct ourselves
becomingly as in the day”) with immoral
behaviours associated with night (reveling,
drunkenness, debauchery, etc.).
it was undoubtedly these negative, 'cha-
otic’ associations of night that motivated the
author of Revelation to declare that with
God's final victory night—like the sea, the
primary symbol of chaos (21:1)—shall be no
more (22:5; cf. 21:25). (See also Lilith.)
IV. Bibliography
W. W. Aeros, The Motif of ‘Night as Dan-
ger’ Associated with Three Biblical Destruc-
tion Narratives, “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies
in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near
East presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (eds.
M. Fishbane & E. Tov; Winona Lake 1992)
17-32; J3. A. Frrzmyer, The Aramaic
Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr 19; Rome
1967), H. von Gersau, Nyx, KP 4 (1972)
219-220; A. GOETZE, On the Hittite Words
for ‘Year’ and the Seasons and for ‘Night’
and ‘Day’, Language 27 (1951) 467-476; N.
J. Tromy, Primitive Conceptions of Death
and the Nether World in the Old Testament
(BibOr 21; Rome 1969).
M. L. BARRÉ
NIKE Nixn
I. Nike was the Greek deity of victory
whose popularity grew rapidly in the mid-
sixth century BCE Greek world. Lacking any
extended myths and rarely worshipped, she
was hardly an independent deity in her own
right; she was a feature or attribute of
— Athena: and thus esteemed and revered as
the giver and rewarder of victory. Several
names in the New Testament reveal etymo-
logical connections with niké: e.g. Nikanor
and Nikolaos in Acts 6:5; Nikodemos m
John 3:1-9; 7:50 and 19:39, as well as a
group of people, called Nikolaitans in Rev
2:6 and 15. In addition, the concepts of con-
quering, winning, and victory are found
throughout the New Testament: as in the -
BERAE aes o
NIKE
discussions of the whole armor of God in
Eph 6:10-17 and in running the race in Phil
2:16, put in the context of faith.
IJ. The earliest mythical reference to.
Nike is in Hesiod, Theogony 375-404, where
she is the daughter of the Titans Styx
(daughter of Okeanos) and Pallas. Having
helped —Zeus fight the war against the
Titans, she and her parents and siblings,
Kratos or Strength and Bia or Force, dwelt
on. Olympus with Zeus. Herodotus 8.77
reports that according to an oracle of Bacis,
Zeus and Nike would bring about the day
when Greece would be free from the
Persians. Later literary references are numer-
ous. Fhe chorus in Sophocles’ Antigone
147-148 attributed the Theban victory over
the seven warriors from Argos to Nike’s
response to the Theban call. In his conflict
with Philoctetes, Odysseus requested guid-
ance from — Hermes and asked Nike Athena
Polias to preserve him (according to
Sophocles, Philoctetes 133-134).
. Euripides referred twice to Athena Nike
on the subject of conflict. In the context of
the tension between Athens and Delphi, the
chorus in the fon 457 appealed to Athena
Nike to leave Olympus and come to Delphi
in order to establish that Creusa’s lover and
thus Jon’s father was —Apollo: thus pro-
viding the Athenians with support for their
praise of Apollo for fathering the Athenian
people. Later, in 1528-1529, Creusa herself
‘swears by Athena Nike to her son Jon that
Apollo was his father, the very Apollo who
fought with Zeus against the race of
~Giants and who reared Ion. In such pas-
Sages, Athena Nike was treated as a deity
‘who brought victory in social or military
conflict. Nike appears in comedy as well as
tragedy. The chorus in Aristophanes'
‘Knights 589-591 prays to Pallas Athena
Nike for victory as well as an omen as a
‘Sign of: victory: le. as the guardian of
‘Athens, a land most noble.in war and art.
čë In addition to giving victory in military
dnd. social conflict, Nike gave and rewarded
Victory in civic contests. Pindar’s Nemean
y 15-76 and Isthmian 2,26 depicted a victori-
as athlete as taken into her arms or falling
upon her knees. Bacchylides wrote about an
aspect of Nike that is familiar from vase
painting, a figure crowning those who com-
pete successfully in poetic as in athletic con-
tests (10.15-18), standing beside Zeus to
assess the courage of human beings (11.1-
2), and accompanying victorious horses at
Olympia (3.5-7). Similarly, Euripides ended
Phoenician Women, Orestes, and Iphigenia
in Tauris with prayers for the protection and
. crown of Nike.
Artistic representations of Nike in Greek
temples are. numerous. Pausanias mentions
temples to Athena Nike in Megara (1.42.4)
and Olympia (5.26.6) as well as to Athens
(1.22.4). Images were placed on the roofs of
many temples and treasuries; 31 examples
of such sculptures have been found in
Greece, dating from the late sixth and fifth
centuries, with most found in Delphi,
Athens, Corinth, and Olympia. A winged
form shows her pouring a libation, crowning
an athlete, or leading animals to an altar to
be sacrificed as an offering for victory. A
wingless form is also known: with the nght
arm and knee raised and the torso slightly
turned as in a running pose. A Nike, located
on the Athenjan Acropolis, commemorated
Kallimachos for his victories in the games;
and for his victories as a general in the
battle of Marathon (Bo^RDMAN 19912:86-
87, fig. 167). Another came from Olympia.
It celebrated a military victory and is signed
by the sculptor, a certain Paionios of Mende
(BOARDMAN 1991b:176, fig. 139). The
famous Nike of Samothrace alighting on the
prow of a ship commemorates a victory at
sea (BOARDMAN 1964: illus. 197).
A temple of Athena Nike, built on the
bastion of the Athenian Acropolis late in the
fifth century BCE, was incorporated into the
Panathenaic festival, instituted in the mid-
sixth century. This festival, which combined
religious rites and athletic contests, glorified
Athens and Athena. To judge from the
temple balustrade and the friezes empha-
sizing war, worship, and victory, Athena
was remembered for the help she provided
Zeus in the battle of the gods against the
-*giants, On the Acropolis, statues of Athe-
625
NILE
na were devoted to several of her aspects: |
Athena of the city (polias); the virgin (par-
thenos);, the worker (ergane); the war-like
(promachos); of health. (hygieiay, and vic-.
tory (nike). The image of Athena in the
Athena Nike temple was wingless: and was
thus more likely to have been a votive than -
a victory statue.
The literary, artistic, and archaeological
materials lead to the conclusion that Athena
Nike provided help in two types of contest:
military conflict and civic competition. We
can notice a distinction between Nike and
Athena, because Nike appears independently ©
in Hesiod. She is, however, neither wor-
shipped nor a subject of mythology accord-
ing to our best evidence, while Athena is
widely worshipped and is a rich subject of
myths. Where Athena is worshipped, her
image is wingless. We may also observe,
however, a close association of Nike and
Athena, for Athena conferred victory on
many occasions and thus would be pre-
sented as a winged figure leading in con-
quest and alighting upon the victors.
WI. Bibliography
J. BOARDMAN, Greek Art (London 1964);
BOARDMAN, Greek Sculpture: The Archaic
Period (London 1991{a]); BOARDMAN,
Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period
(London 1991 bj); L. R: FARNELL, The Cults
of the Greek States 1 (Oxford 1896) esp.
258-376; M. Y. GOLDBERG, Archaic Greek
Akroteria, AJA 86 (1982) 193-213; J. NEiLs,
Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival
in Ancient Athens (Princeton 1992); K.
SHEEDY, The Delian Nike and the Search
for Chian Sculpture, AJA 89 (1985) 619-
626.
L. J. ALDERINK
NILE mW o .
J. The name of the Egyptian river Nile
is attested many times in the Bible e.g: Gen.
41:1-3.17-18; Ex: 1:22; 2:3; 7:15-25; 8:3.
. 9.11; Jes 19:5-9; Jer.46:8; Ez 30:12; Amos
8:8. Yéor, the Hebrew nare of the Nile 3s a
loanword; it is a derivation from the Egypt- `
jan word itrw: the river, i.e. the Nile. This
626
word has dropped its z at an unknown date
in the course of the history of Egyptian lan-
guage, probably much earlier than the New
Kingdom when the first variant in writing is
found without : (Wb I, 146; pe Bucx 1948;
1). The Coptic phonetic writing eioor con-
firms a pronunciaüon of the word in Egypt
corresponding with the Hebrew Yr.
The Greek name Neilos is also a loan-
word derived from itrw. The n presents the
definite article m regularly used, in Late
Egyptian and onwards. Egyptian post.
vocalic r was weak. The Fayumic Coptic
dialect writes the root in the form taal
Whether the final o of Neilos should repre-
sent the plural ending w of itrw rather than
the plural adjective ‘7 “great” is debatable
(SMITH 1979:163; Lurr 1992:403-411).
-IL The Egyptian word for river or Nile
itrw contains the word fr meaning season or
time. The name of the Nile then, would
mean something like the ‘Seasonal One’, the
“Recurrent One’ or the ‘Periodic One’
(KADISH 1988:194). This name refers to the
recurrent, periodic or annual flooding of the
Nile or inundation called Hapy. The differ-
ence between the minimum and the maxi-
mum waterlevels could be ca. 7 metres in
Assuan. The rising of the Nile began in
June, the maximum height was reached in
-September-October. The Nile valley and
Delta were turned into an enormous lake for
6-10 weeks. Only the sandy higher places
and settlements on tells remained dry as the
desert did. The retreat of the floodwaters
began in November and the Nile reached its
lowest point in April. The rising and falling
of the Nile was well-known in Israel (Amos
8:8; Jer 46:7, Ez 30:12 etc.) The Greek
saying that Egypt is a gift of the Nile (Hero-
dotus H 5) is famous. The river itself, how-
ever, was not venerated as a god. The term
Nile god -found in. modern publications
reférs to Hapy, the Inundation of the Nile.
‘He’ is the personification: of the fertility in-
lierent in the Nile. He was depicted as an
- obese human figure with a clumb of papyrus
on his head and. with a huge paunch and
pendant breasts, the image of welfare and:
prosperity. He was often called father of thg:
gr
EDL EAI ae
NIMROD
i MÀ
gods. He was honoured with offerings,
hymns and festivals.
III. Bibliography
J. BAINES, Fecundity Figures (Warminster
1985); A. DE Buck, On the Meaning of the
Name H{py, Orientalia Neerlandica (Leiden
1948) 1-22; K. W. Burzer, Nil, LdA IV
481-483; G. E. Kapisu, Seasonality and the
Name of the Nile, JARCE 25 (1988) 185-
194; D. Kurtn, Nilgott, LdÀ IV 485-489;
U. Lurr, Neilos. Eine Anmerkung zur Kul-
turellen Begegnung zwischen Griechen und
Agyptern, The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt.
Studies Presented to L. Kakosy = Studia
Aegyptiaca 14 (Budapest 1992) 403-410; H.
S. SurrH, Varia Ptolemaica, Glimpses of
Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of H.W.
Fairman (Warminster 1979) 163-164.
H. TE VELDE
NIMROD "1
L In the Hebrew Bible, Nimrod is the
name of a Mesopotamian -hero known to
have been a famous hunter as well as the
founder of major Mesopotamian cities and
of the first state in (post-diluvian) primaeval
times. The name Nimrod might be inter-
preted as a Ist pl. qal of the root MRD (‘to
rebel’, i.e. ‘we shall rebel’) and has indeed
been understood in this sense by Jewish tra-
dition, which considered Nimrod to be a
paradigm of god-offending hybris. This dis-
torting negative valuation, underscored by
an artificial etymology, is not yet found in
the biblical texts, however. The name Nim-
rod most probably derives from that of a
major Mesopotamian deity, i.e. Ninurta
(Sum 4Nin-urta ‘Lord of arable -*Earth’,
Akk Ninurta, Inurta, Nurti, Urti etc.). This
etymological derivation alone could support
an identification of the Biblical hero either
with the Mesopotamian god or with a king
such as the Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta I (ca.
1243-1207 BCE, as suggested by SPEISER
1958, but see below). Still, the precise de-
velopment from the Sumerian prototype to
its Hebrew affiliate remains unclear as
potential intermediates (c.g. for a shift from
*nwrt » *nmnrt » nmrd) are still lacking
while attested variants (such as ?n$t on Ara-
maic dockets or "nr? in Aramaean and
Ammonite inscriptions of the 7th century
BCE: Sefire I A 38, KAI no. 55; cf. H. TAD-
MOR, JEJ 15 [1966] 233-234) represent sepa-
rate developments.
For the time being, the ultimate
identification of Nimrod with Ninurta seems
the most reasonable one. However, it does
not rest upon linguistic reasoning, but re-
presents a majority view based on circum-
stantial arguments such as the comparison of
the Mesopotamian god’s image and func-
tions with those of the biblical hero. Among
alternative proposals, obsolete historical
identifications such as Nazimaruttas (a Kas-
site king of ca. 1300 BCE), Amenophis III
(Nb-m3‘t-r called... Nibmu'areya. in. the
Amarna correspondence) may be disposed
of. but one should note an ingenious hy-
pothesis linking Nimrod to the Babylonian
god -Marduk (LipiSski 1966). Impossible
on strictly philological grounds, it postulates
a deliberate scribal manipulation (riqqûn
sôpherîm: deletion of the final kaph, addi-
tion of a prefixed nun) but does not explain
why the scribes should have left unchanged
the name of Marduk, e.g. in Jer 50:2.
II. Ninurta is thought to have been a god
of fertility, responsible for growth in field
and herd and even among the fish. Son of
Enlil, the lord of the gods, he belongs to the
cultic tradition of Nippur. Another god
called Ningirsu, whose main centre was the
town of Girsu/Talló near Lagash shares the
same functions as Ninurta, and the two seem
to have been basically identical, although a
god-list may consider them to be brothers.
Their virtual identity has found different
interpretations: while most authors hold
Ningirsu to be a local variant or specifi-
cation of Ninurta, vAN Duk (1983) has
argued that the latter was originally a war-
rior god who progressively took over
Ningirsu’s prerogatives, thus entering late
into the domain of agriculture. At any rate,
Ninurta is then called ‘ploughman of Enlil’
in Sumerian hymns and gives advice on the
cultivation of crops in the so-called *Sumer-
ian Georgica'. But he also acts as a cham-
627
NIMROD
pion warrior against various kinds of inimi-
cal monsters who try to impede the institu-
tion of irrigation, agriculture and civilization
in general. One major myth about Ninurta,
going back to the 3rd millenium, is a com-
position called Lugal-e ‘King, a storm
whose radiance is princely...' (vaN DUK
1983; cf. BorrÉRo & KRAMER 1989, no.
20) it relates several battles of Ninurta
against the ‘Slain Heroes’, the Asakku mon-
ster who is vanquished by a deluge, and
other adversaries killed ‘in the mountain’
such as the seven-headed serpent, the six-
headed ram, the lion, the bison, the buffalo
etc. (Dragon, Tannin and cf. ANEP
671). Just as with Ninurta’s other combat
against the Anzü bird-monster (BorrÉRo &
KRAMER 1989, no. 22), the whole issue not
only mirrors contradictory forces of nature,
but also the political and cultural antag-
onism between Mesopotamia and the north-
eastern mountain regions, the so-called
‘rebel lands’, claiming divine protection and
superiority for the Mesopotamian civiliza-
tion. As a result of Ninurta's victory, irriga-
tion and agriculture are instituted in Lugal-e,
while in the Anzü myth, Ninurta is granted
kingship by the other gods (cf. H. W. F.
SAaGGs, AfO 33 [1986] 1-29), a promotion
also told in independent compositions such
as ‘The Return of Ninurta to Nippur’ (or
Angimdimma: J. S. Cooper, The Return of
Ninurta to Nippur [AnOr 52, Rome 1978):
cf. BorrÉRO & KRAMER 1989, no. 21).
Not surprisingly, Ninurta who has gardu
‘fierce’, ‘heroic’ and garrddu ‘warrior’,
‘hero’ among his standard epithets (note S.
MAUL, “wenn der Held (zum Kampfe) aus-
zieht...". Ein Ninurta-Er$emma Or. n.s. 60
[1991] 312-334), is attested as a patron god
of royal war and hunt from Middle Assyrian
times on. In the 9th century BCE, at the time
of Assurnasirpal Il, Ninurta became the
main deity of the capital city Kalah. Astron-
omers of the 8th-7th century added further
connotations, identifying Ninurta (or Pabil-
sag) with Sagittarius or, alternatively. asso-
ciating Ninurta with the planet Sirius (called
Suküdu 'arrow"), the major star of Canis
maior (Akk qastu "bow'). Numerous Neo-
Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian cylinder scals
show a divine hero drawing his bow against
various kinds of monsters, some of them
clearly identical with the Anzü on a famous
monumental relief from the Ninurta temple
at Kalah. It is probable that some of them
are related to Ninurta's combats, and as
such seals have found their way to Palestine
(O. KEEL & C. UEHLINGER, Gottinnen, Gét-
ter und Gottessymbole (QD 134, Freiburg
i.Br. 19932] §§ 169-170), pictorial sources
may well have contributed to Ninurta/
Nimrod's heroic hunter image. Similarly,
the Labours of -*Heracles contain clear
reminiscences of the Mesopotamian Ninurta
tradition.
III. As they stand, the biblical texts men-
tioning Nimrod show no awareness of his
ultimately divine identity. The god Ninurta
is probably meant in 2 Kgs 19:37 par Isa
37:38 relating the murdering of Sennacherib
‘in the temple of his god -*Nisroch', since
Nisroch is best understood as a textual cor-
ruption from Nimrod (graphically 2 > 0, 7
» 7]. But wherever the texts retain the name
Nimrod, they have in mind a human hero of
(post-diluvian) primaeval times.
The main biblical reference is Gen 10:8-
12, a secondary addition to the so-called
Table of Nations. As it stands, the text con-
siders Nimrod to be a son of Kush (v 8a)
and grand-son of -*Ham, the father of the
African branch of humanity. However, this
presentation does not fit Nimrod's otherwise
clearly Mesopotamian location and image, a
problem which is not solved by an emen-
dation of Kush to Put (as suggested by
NAOR 1984). The confusion simply results
from a blending of two independent tra-
ditions: the Table of Nations where Kush
stands for Nubia, and the Nimrod passage
from another source mentioning another(!)
Kush, probably the eponym of the Kassites
(Akk kaššu, Nuzi kuššu). V 8b considers
Nimrod to have been the first ‘hero’ on
earth (gibbór, -*Mighty Ones)—c«learly an
echo of Ninurta's epithet. V 9 speaks about
his proverbial prowess in hunting (gibbór-
sayid) 'before —Yahweh'. Later tradition
inferred an opposition of Nimrod against
628
NIMROD
Yahweh interpreting lipné ‘before’ as ‘over
against’, but the text definitely does not sup-
port this interpretation; it rather sees a posi-
tive relationship between the (major) god
and the hero, mirroring the Enlil - Ninurta
relationship of much carlier Mesopotamian
sources. The only facets of the biblical por-
trait which are not directly rooted in the
Ninurta tradition are his kingship in Babel,
Uruk and Akkad (Gen 10:10) as well as the
building account concerning Assyrian cities
such as Nineveh and Kalah (vv_ 11-12).
Together with heroism in war and hunting,
these underline the royal characteristics of
Nimrod (note mamlakté in v 10). While they
are undisputably of Mesopotamian origin,
too, it is not possible to identify either the
ultimate source (a lost chronicle of the 7th
century?) or to identify Nimrod with one
single monarch of Mesopotamian history.
Similarly, neither do we know the interme-
diaries (Phoenician?, cf. the hellenistic Ninos)
by which the whole tradition reached a post-
exilic Judaean historiographer, nor can we
ascertain whether the telescoping of various
aspects of Mesopotamian religious and royal
fame into one legendary founder hero was
realized by the biblical author or already
prepared by the latter's sources. Mic 5:5
(post-exilic?) offers interesting complement-
ary information insofar as it considers Nim-
rod to be the heroic founder of Assyrian
military strength. In contrast, 1 Chr 1:10
merely represents a short excerpt from Gen
10:8-9.
IV. Nimrod is a quite prominent figure in
Jewish (later Christian and Islamic) tradition
(cf. VAN DER Horst 1990; UEHLINGER
1990). Following Gen 10, he was regarded
as the first post-diluvian king, founder of
state and city builder, but his positive bibli-
cal image was radically altered. The LXX of
Gen 10:8-9 considered Nimrod to have been
a giant and translates ‘before Yahweh’ by
enantion kyriou tow theou, which Philo
(Quaest. in Gen 2, 82) and subsequent tra-
dition interpreted as ‘in opposition against
God’. One may note a general influence of
Greek tradition about the -*giants' revolt
against the Olympian gods (Philo, Quaest.
in Gen 2, 82; Conf. 4-5; cf. the anonymous
author cited in Praep. Ev. 9, 17, 2-3; Sib.
Or. 1, 307-318). This and etymological elab-
oration on Nimrod’s name (Philo, Gig. 66;
Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 10:8-9; b.Erub. 53a) made
him appear as the prototype of tyrannical
hybris (cf. explicitly Josephus in Ant 1, 113-
114). Early midrash further associated Nim-
rod with idolatry and made him the insti-
gator of the building of the Tower of Babel
(already Philo, Quaest in Gen 2, 82; on
Praep. Ev. 9, 18, 2, sec UEHLINGER 1990:
91-92 n. 225), who persecuted -Abraham
because the latter refused to join his project
(Ps-Philo, LAB 6; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 11:28;
cf. Wis 10:5; 4 Ezra 3:12). As a result, the
valiant Mesopotamian hero defending arable
land against dreadful monsters of chaos was
finally turned himself into “a deceiver,
oppressor and destroyer of earth-born crea-
tures” (Augustine, Civ. D. 16, 4). As such
he has remained famous in literature and art
through the ages. Islamic legend and topo-
nymy—partly based on local traditions of
Babylonian Jews which may be traced back
to the 3rd century cE—maintained the
memory of the famous builder at various
places such as, e.g. Birs Nimriid (ancient
Borsippa) and Tall Nimrüd (ancient Kalah).
V. Bibliography
S. ABRAMSK!, Nimrod and the Land of
Nimrod, Beth Mikra 25/82-83 (1980/1) 237-
255, 321-340 [Heb]; J. BorrÉgo & S. N.
KRAMER, Lorsque les dieux faisaient
l'homme (Paris 1989) 338-429; I. M.
CECCHERELLI, Nimrod, primo re ‘universa-
le’ della storia, BeO 36 (1994) 25-39; *J.
vaN Dux, LUGAL UD ME-LAM-bi NIR-
GAL (Leiden 1983); D. O. EDZARD, Ninur-
ta, WbMyth V1 (1965) 114-115; E. LiPiNSKI,
Nimrod et Assur, RB 73 (1966) 77-93; P.
MACHINIST, Nimrod, ABD 4 (1992) 1116-
1118; M. Naor, And Cush Begot Nimrod
(Gen 10:8), Beth Mikra 30/100 (1984) 41-47
[Heb]; E. A. SPEISER, In Scarch of Nimrod,
Erlsr 5 (1958) 32*-36*; SpEISER, Oriental
and Biblical Studies (Philadelphia 1967) 41-
52; *K. VAN DER TOORN & P. W. VAN DER
Horst, Nimrod before and after the Bible,
HTR 83 (1990) 1-29 [& lit] (the second part,
629
NINURTA —
with minor changes, also in P. W. VAN DER
Horst, Nimrod after the Bible, Essays on
the Jewish World of Early Christianity
[NTOA 14; Fribourg/Géttingen 1990] 220-
232); C. UEHLINGER, Weltreich und «eine
Rede» (OBO 101; Fribourg/Góttingen 1990)
[index s.v. & lit; UEHLINGER, Nimrod,
NBL Lfg. 11 (1995^) (fc.].
C. UEHLINGER
NINURTA -* NIMROD; NISROCH
NISROCH T
I. The name Nisroch appears in 2 Kgs
19:37 (// Isa 37:38) where it apparently
designates an Assyrian deity, since king
Sennacherib is said to have been assassin-
ated "when he was praying (in) the temple
of Nisroch, his god".
II. The identity of this deity has been a
subject of much scholarly debate, since the
sources relating to the Assyrian pantheon do
not attest a god of such a name. On the
other hand, it seems improbable that the
biblical author simply invented an Assyrian
divine name. Therefore, many scholars have
tried to equate Nisroch with one of the
known Assyrian gods. Among the suggested
candidates, Enlil/Mullil, whom Neo-Assyr-
ian state religion identified with the national
god Assur, could probably have been con-
sidered as ‘Sennacherib’s god’ by a Judaean
author, but the equation with Nisroch is
impossible on philological grounds. In con-
trast, the name of Nusku could lie behind
Nisroch—the latter being the result of a
scribal error at some point in the chain of
transmission; yet his identification with
Nisroch is improbable for religio-historical
reasons: although of some importance in
Neo-Assyrian religion (where he was con-
sidered the vizir of —Sin, see D. O. Ep-
ZARD, WbMyth Vl 116-117; B. MENZEL,
Assyrische Tempel [StP 10; Rome 1981], I
80, 88, 110), Nusku, the Assyrian god of
light, was not a major god of the state pan-
theon and apparently did not have a temple
of his own; moreover, why should he be
called 'Sennacherib's god' when he is men-
NISROCH
tioned only most sporadically in inscriptions
of that king? -*Marduk is out of the ques-
tion, since the policies of Sennacherib are
known to have been directed against this
major god of rival Babylon. The hypothesis
which interprets the name Nisroch as a
conflation of Assur and Marduk is to be
rejected as pure speculation. Though the god
Assur took over epithets and functions of
Marduk after Sennacherib’s conquest and
flooding of Babylon, and even if the statue
of Marduk was put in the Assur temple until
early in the reign of Ashurbanipal, the god
Assur never usurped Marduk’s name and a
dyad Assur-Marduk is not attested in the
sources. Finally, a recent suggestion to
understand nisrok simply as ‘idol’ (nesek or
nisók, with an enclitic r functioning as 'sig-
nal letter’ pointing to the god Assur [VERA
CHAMAZA 1992:248-249]) is philologically
untenable. These considerations leave Nin-
urta as the most serious candidate for the
identification with Nisroch.
All the proposals surveyed so far concur
in that they consider Nisroch to be the name
of a deity. According to a recent ingenious
interpretation offered by LipiNski (1987),
however, béi-nisrok would be an intentional
correction of original byt-srkn or byt-srk,
considered by LiPINSKI to be a toponym
which he equates with Assyrian BÀD-
Sarrukin. The latter is a transcription of
Dür-Sarrukin, i.e. the name of Sargon II's
famous capital identified with modern
Horsabad. A Judaean scribe would have
misunderstood srk(n), i.e. the name of Sar-
gon, as a divine name and changed it to nis-
rok by adding a ni-prefix, a procedure also
applied, according to LIPINSKI, in the case
of the divine names —Nimrod and —Nibhaz
(2 Kgs 17:31). Finally, one correction cal-
ling for another, LipINSKI suggests that Sen-
nacherib might not have been 'in prostra-
tion' (mistahaweh) in front of a god but
simply engaged in a ‘banquet (miiteh)
when he was murdered.
Too much speculation cannot create his-
tory, and LIPINSKI’s proposal has to be re-
jected for several reasons: First, BAD is
merely a logogram for Akk düru and was
630
NISROCH
read /dir/, so that there is no link with Heb
byt at all. Second, we know from Isa 20:1
that in Hebrew the name of Sargon was
transcribed srgn (A. R. MILLARD, JSS 23
[1976] 8). Third, at the time of Sen-
nacherib’s death in 681 sce, Dur-Sharrukin
had already lost much of its prestige. After
the death in battle of its illustrious but
somewhat improvident founder, it was rel-
egated to the rank of a minor provincial
town, if not almost abandoned. Why should
Sennacherib, who had ostentatiously chosen
Nineveh as his new capital, have gone ban-
queting to such a lost place? As a matter of
fact, the murder of Sennacherib is partly
elucidated by a nearly contemporary docu-
ment from Nineveh (ABZ 1091, see S. PAR-
poLA, The Murderer of Sennachernib, Death
in Mesopotamia [Mesopotamia 8; Copen-
hagen 1980] 171—182; and see S. ZawADz-
Ki, Oriental and Greek Tradition about the
Death of Sennacherib, SAAB 4 [1990]
69-72) mentioning a conspiracy against. the
king’s life fostered by his son Axda-Mulissi,
the Biblical Adrammelek. The assassination
‘took place either at Niniveh, if we follow an
‘implicit reference by Sennacherib’s grand-
‘son Ashurbanipal (VAB VIJ/2 38 iv 70-73),
sor at Kalhu if biblical bét-nisrok should
irefer to the latter town's famous Ninurta
temple (see VON SODEN 1990).
cae WII. With reasonable certitude, the Assyr-
jan deity who hides behind the name Nis-
soch may be identifed with Ninurta. The
‘spelling 70) is probably best understood
fas a textual corruption from "17131 (graphi-
*eally > 0, 1 >), philological specula-
stions thus being dispensable. TWA ultimate-
Jy relates to Ninurta (~Nimrod). A major
‘patron of war affairs in the Assyrian pan-
itheon and known otherwise in Palestine,
‘Ninurta does not occupy a favourite position
sin Sennacherib’s cultic policy but could
snevertheless be called ‘Sennacherib’s god’
iby the biblical author. A letter from Ninurta
saddressed to an unnamed Assyrian king
SAA IH no. 47 obv.) may relate to the
ibrowing . tension against Sennacherib to-
ears the end of his reign; in this letter, the
iod informs the king that he is angry and
RA
es
Gy.
Y
distressed in his temple and seems to com-
plain about some disregard. Unfortunately
very fragmentary, this letter apparently was
considered a useful reference text to be kept
in the archives, as the actual tablet which
preserves the only extant copy dates to the
reign of Ashurbanipal. While von SoDEN
(1990) thinks that the letter was written after
the murder and was originally sent to Esar-
haddon, it may well antedate the crime and
express a warning for the king, if it is not
actually a trap and part of the conspiracy
against Sennacherib.
With regard to the biblical account, at
any rate our most explicit source, one
should note that 2 Kgs 19:37 represents the
author’s closing remarks of his report about
Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah. The
Rabshakeh’s speeches and Sennacherib’s
letter to Hezekiah tend to drive a wedge
between the Jerusalemites and their king,
and between Hezekiah and -* Yahweh, “your
god in whom you trust” (2 Kgs 19:10),
pressing the Judaeans to choose between
Yahweh and the great king of Assyria. The
latter are thus designed as the real antag-
onists of the story, and its end makes clear
to whom the victory belongs: not only does
Yahweh overpower the Assyrian army, but
Sennacherib who attempted to challenge the
one universal god (2 Kgs 19:15.19) is per-
sonally punished. Murdered by his own sons
while praying to 'his god' who cannot help
him, he meets a destiny which was decided
and announced by Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:7).
Sennachenb's forlorn trust in a powerless
god marks a final counterpoint to Israel’s
trust in the one true god. Note that an alter-
native theological interpretation, attested by
a stela of Nabonidus from Babylon (VAB 4,
272 1 35-41), gave Marduk the ultimate cre-
dit for the conspiracy against Sennacherib.
Originally the result of a scribal accident,
the name Nisroch, once fixed, allowed elo-
quent second thoughts. Since Aramaic S/SRK
denotes ‘appendage’, ‘burdock’, ‘catch’ etc.,
it could be understood as a Ist pl. verbal
form meaning ‘we shall catch up’, ‘we shall
trap’.
631
NOAH
IV. Bibliography
A. K. Grayson, Nisroch, ABD 4 (1992)
1122; E. G. KRAELING, The Death of Sen-
nacherib, JAOS 53 (1933) 335-346; C. F.
LEHMANN-HaAUPT, Zur Ermordung San-
heribs, OLZ 21 (1918) 273-276; J. P. Let-
TINGA, A note on 2 Kings xix 37, VT 7
(1957) 105-106; E. LiriNsKn — Bet-
Samuk(in) Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de
la Bible (Maredsous 1987) 208-209; A.
UNGNAD, Die Ermordung Sanheribs, OLZ
20 (1917) 358—359; G. W. VERA CHAMAZA,
Sanheribs letzte Ruhestitte, BZ 36 (1992)
241-249; W. voN SODEN, Gibt es Hinweise
auf die Ermordung Sanheribs im Ninurta-
Tempel (wohl) in Kalah in Texten aus
Assyrien?, NABU 1990, no. 22.
C. UEHLINGER
NOAH fT Nae
I. The etymology of the name Noah has
never been satisfactorily explained. It is
usually connected with the verb root NWH
‘rest, settle down’ (of the ark Gen 8:4),
‘repose, be quiet’ (after labour Exod 20:11)
and so Noah may mean ‘rest’ possibly in
association with the resting of the ark on the
mountains of Ararat after the flood. The root
appears in Akk náhu to rest, as in inüh
tümtu ... abübu ikla *the sea subsided ... thc
flood ceased' in the Babylonian account of
the flood (Gilg. xi, 131) and Notu (1951:
254-257) has identified Nah as a theophoric
element in personal names as early as the
19th-18th centuries BCE.
II. Noah appears as the tenth and last
name in the great primordial genealogy of
Gen 5 and is unique in the list in having a
name explanation: “Out of the ground that
the Lorp has cursed this one shall create
relief. (yénahdámeéná) from our work and
from the toil of our hands” (Gen 5:29). The
explanation closely resembles the reason
given for the creation of mankind in Enuma
Elish when Ea "imposes [on men] the ser-
vices of the gods to set the gods free" (VI,
34). In the biblical story, Noah is cast as a
pioneer figure in the cultivation of the
hitherto stultified earth. The folk definition
from NHM in the MT, however, is unsound
etymologically: hence the LXX reading dia-
napausei hémas which makes better sense
and presupposes the Hebrew yénihenit ‘he
will give us rest’. Relief from the worst
effects of divinely cursed earth (Gen 3:17-
19) is held in abeyance until the flood has
cleansed it of the progeny of the Sons of
God and the daughters of men. When this
has been effected, Noah is blessed in the
manner of the first man (‘Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth’ Gen 9:1) and as
a man of the soil becomes the first to plant a
vineyard (Gen 9:20). WESTERMANN (1974:
487-488) supports the idea that the relief
brought to Noah in Gen 5 is the science of
viticulture which would act as a refreshing
antidote to the cursing of the earth and the
punitive burden of physical labour imposed
on mankind in 3:19. Other contexts in the
Hebrew Bible refer to wine as the symbol of
comfort and joy (Judg 9:13, Ps 104:15, Prov
31:6-7 and Jer 16:7). The beneficial evolu-
tion to viticulture is not negated by the inci-
dent of Noah’s drunkenness in 9:21. The
only culpability here attaches to -*Ham's
filial failure to cover his father when he saw
him lying naked in his tent. In the Ugaritic
legend of Aghat it is the dutiful son who
‘takes him (i.e. his father) by the hand when
he is drunk, [and] carries him when he is
satiated with wine' (e.g. KTU 1.17 i:30-32;
11:20-22; cf. 1.114:15-19).
Noah in his role as flood survivor has
illustrious counterparts in ancient Mesopot-
amian literature. In the Sumerian Flood
myth, the main text of which dates from the
OB period, Ziusudra, a humble and pious
king, is secretly forewarned of the gods’
decision to send a flood, is saved and
granted eternal life. A fuller account is
given in the Akkadian Myth of Atrahasis
which survives in several fragments from
the Old and Neo-Babylonian period and also
in Neo-Assyrian tablets. The ‘exceedingly
wise’ Atrahasis is informed in a dream by
the god Enki of the coming deluge and sur-
vives by building himself a boat. As with
Ziusudra, eternal life is bestowed on him
and he is granted a place ‘among the gods’.
632
NOBLE ONES
The best-known version of the Flood-myth
which contains numerous analogies to the
biblical acount is contained in the eleventh
tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The hero
Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality,
seeks out Utnapishtim, Noah's counterpart,
who in the first person tells him the story of
the universal flood and how he survived it.
HI. In contrast to the universal degener-
acy of contemporary society, Noah is de-
scribed in Gen 4 as ‘a righteous man, blame-
less in his generation’, who like —Enoch
before him, ‘walked with God’ (6:9; cp.
5:24). Early Jewish sources revelled in the
exploits of these primordial —heroes and
though Enoch was the prime target of their
speculation, his great grandson Noah, the
father of Shem, Ham and —Japheth whose
offspring were to people the new world after
the flood, was also of special interest.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls 7 QapGen (col.
I-V) used Gen 5:28-29 as the basis for hag-
gadic expansions on the birth of Noah. The
Aramaic text consists of a description of
Lamech's uneasiness that Noah's conception
was 'due to the -*Watchers, or ... to the
Holy Ones, or to the -Nephilim' (Il, i).
Bitenosh his wife thereupon pleaded her
innocence stating that no Watcher or 'any
one of the sons of heaven’ (II, 16) had
implanted seed in her. At length Enoch, the
great sage of primordial Jewish history,
assuaged his fears.
I Enoch contains a variant tradition of the
commotion occasioned by Noah’s birth
which depicted his body as ‘white like snow
and red like the flower of a rose ... the hair
of his head white like wool and his eyes like
the rays of the sun’ (106:2.5.10). Enoch
reassured Lamech, Noah's father, that these
amazing physical characteristics were not
due to angelic interference but did mark
Noah out as an extraordinary individual
‘through whom the Lord will do new things
on the earth’ (106:13). The allusion here is
to the fresh start Noah and his three sons
will inaugurate on the carth after the flood
has swept away the old corrupt generations
of humanity.
In the NT the eschaton will recapture the
sense of urgency of the days of Noah (Matt
24:36-39). As the Flood marked an end of
the old order and the start of the new, so the
eschatological appearance of the —Son of
Man will be cataclysmic. Like Noah of old,
the end will be swift and sudden and pre-
cipitate universal judgement on the wicked.
In a puzzling passage in I Pet the apostle
has Christ go and make a proclamation to
the spirits in prison who ‘in former times
did not obey, when God waited patiently in
the days of Noah, during the building of the
ark’ (3:19-20). Here the Flood is made anal-
ogous to Christian baptism imaging salva-
tion by means of water. Noah, who in Ezek
14:14.20 is listed with -Daniel and Job as
paragons of righteousness, is held up as a
‘herald of righteousness’ (dikaiosunés
kéruka) in 2 Pet 2:5. The latter expression
has been compared with the “teacher of
righteousness” known from the Qumran
sources (VERMES 1950:73)
IV. Bibliography
J. A. FITZMYER, The Genesis Apocryphon of
Qumran Cave I. A Commentary (Rome
1966); W. G. LAMBERT & A. R. MILLARD,
Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the
Flood (London 1969); G. Leicx, A Diction-
ary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology
(London 1991); M. NorH, Noah, Daniel and
Hiob in Ezechiel xiv, VT | (1951) 251-260;
G. VERMES, La communauté de la Nouvelle
Alliance d'aprés ses écrits récemment
découverts, ETL 21 (1950) 70-80; C. Wes-
TERMANN, Genesis l-11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn
1974; English Translation: London 1984).
P. W. Coxon
NOBLE ONES DTN
I. In the OT the adjective "addir is used
in describing > Yahweh (Exod 15:11; 1 Sam
4:8; Pss 8:2.10; 76:5) and also of persons or
things of more than normal stature or
strength, like the sea (Ps 93:4), the mighty
cedars of the Libanon (Ezek 17:27), mighty
people (Ezek 32:18), or kings (Ps 136:18).
In Ps 16:3 it seems to denote pagan deities
(TouRNAY 1988:335).
II. In the ancient Ugaritic legend of
Aqhat the ’adrm are mentioned together
with the king fulfilling his usual duties
633
NOMOS
(KTU? 1.17 v:7). They reside on the thresh-
ing-floor. According to KTU? 1.20-22 this is
also the terminus of the invoked spirits of
the deified royal ancestors called rpum (cf.
-Rephaim). In a Phoenician inscription on
a sarcophagus from the Persian period
(Byblos 13:2) the adjective ?dr is used for
Og, who is known from Josh 12:4 as ‘the
last of the Rephaim'. In this Phoenician
inscription he appears to be worshipped as a
chthonic deity (ROLLIG 1974:5-6, SPRONK
1986:210-211).
Ili. This chthonic aspect is also present
in Ps 16 referring to ‘the saints who are in
the —earth (ie. the netherworld). This
expression stands in poetic parallelism with
‘the noble ones who only have delight in
themselves’. So these Noble Ones are prob-
ably to be sought in the netherworld as well
(SPRONK 1986:334). With regard to the
interpretation of the Hebrew text of this
verse there are still many unsolved pro-
blems, but we can safely assume that trust in
Yahweh is contrasted here with the hope for
the help of powers from the netherworld.
Ezek 32:18-32 can also be read against
this background. It describes the descent of
the mighty (addirim) peoples into the
netherworld. The only thing that can be said
of them now, is that they are slain, fallen by
the sword. Contrary to what was believed in
Canaanite religion, nothing good can be
expected from them anymore.
IV. Bibliography
G. W. AHLSTRÖM, TIN TWAT I (1973) 78-
81; W. RórLLIG, Eine neue phoenizische
Inschrift aus Byblos, NESE 2 (Wiesbaden
1974) 1-6; K. SPRONK, Beatific Afterlife in
Israel and in the Ancient Near East (AOAT
219; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986); R. Tovur-
NAY, Le Psaume 16 1-3, RB 95 (1988) 332-
336.
K. SPRONK
NOMOS vóuos
l1 Usually, in the Greek Bible the word
nomos, law, Js used to refer to the OT and
Jewish —Torah as a set of rules for life.
(For a general treatment of the role of the
634
law in Jewish writings of the Second
Temple Period see the overview of
SANDERS 1992; the NT material is dealt
with by HUBNER 1981.) In the letters of
Paul and in the Jewish apocalypse 4 Ezra,
however, the word sometimes seems to
designate a supernatural power or agent.
Jl. The word nomos is not often used as
a personification (cf. LSJ s.v.). For Pindar
(cf. Frag. 169—also quoted by Plato, Gorg,
484b) the Law is the king of all, both mor-
tals and immortals (cf. also Euripides, Hecu-
ba 800). In the Crito, Plato presents the
personified Jaw in dialogue with Socrates
(50a), in the letters he can even call it theos
(Ep. VIII 354e). Dio of Prusa (Or. 1:75),
when describing the female deities Royalty,
Justice and Peace, writes: "But he who
stands near Royalty, just beside the scepter
and somewhat in front of it, grey-haired and
proud, has the name of Law; but he has also
been called Right Reason, Counselor, Co-
adjutor, without whom these women are not
permitted to take any action or even to pur-
pose one" (transl. LCL).
In Jewish literature from the Second
Temple Period the identification of Law and
— Wisdom (sophia) is made by: Sir (cf. 24:
1-6, 23) and presupposed in some of the
Pseudepigrapha (cf. Pss. Sol. 4:10-11; 4
Ezra 8:12; 13:54-55; Syr. Bar. 38:2-4; 48:
"24; 51:4; 77:16). Like Wisdom, the Law is
sometimes depicted as an acting subject:
“The Law does not perish but remains in its
glory” (4 Ezra 9:37). In the final judgement
the Jaw is like fire, an instrument to destroy
the sinners (13:38). It will then demand its
right (Syr. Bar. 5:2; 48:27). Although the
divine origin of the law is generally presup-
posed (cf. Syr. Bar. 4:1; 4 Ezra 3:19; 5:27;
7:81; 9:36; Jub. 2:33; 6:14; Sib. Or. 3:719-
20, 757; Josephus, Ant. 3:286; 20:44; Philo,
Decal. 18), ‘the Law’ is not a god, nor do
Jewish texts use nomos as a divine name.
IU. In tbe NT nomos can refer to the
Jewish religion (cf. Acts 18:15; 23:29).
Christian authors, however, used the ex-
pression nomos to refer to aspects of their
own faith. In order to do this, nomos 1$
qualified by Paul. He thus can refer to the.
NYMPH
love commandment—which is the fulfill-
ment of the law as law of -Christ (Gal 6:2:
this should not be confused with those
instances where nomos refers to a basic
principle as governing power: the ‘law’ that
causes faith [Rom 3:27], the ‘law’ of the
Spirit that causes life in Christ [Rom 8:2]).
The apostle Paul uses the expression ho
nomos to refer to the Torah, the ‘law of
-*Moses' (1 Cor 9:9). The reference is not
restricted to the books of Moses, however.
In Rom 3:19 nomos designates all of the
holy scriptures of Judaism. In this utterance
Paul assigns ho nomos an active role: it
‘speaks’ (cf. also 1 Cor 9:8). The law and
the prophets testify to the dikaiosyné theou
(Rom 3:21). The active role of the law is
also expressed by the phrase ‘by the law’
(dia nomou). Taking into account Rom 4:15
(‘The law causes -*wrath’), the law not
only is the means by which God will judge
sinners (Rom 2:12) and by which -*sin is
known (Rom 3:20; 7:7), the law is also the
agent through which mankind is drawn into
God's judgement. Paul thus can say the law
killed him (Gal 2:19). In 1 Cor 9:20 and Gal
4:21, hypo nomon has no negative conno-
tations; it simply designates the Jews or
those who want to live like Jews. In Gal
5:18 and Rom 6:14-16. though, hypo nomon
is opposed to being led by the Spirit or to be
in the realm of God's grace (hypo charin).
Like -*sin, the nomos reigns over those
human beings (Rom 7:1) who are not in the
realm of God's grace in Christ. They are
hypo nomon (cf. also Gal 3:23; 4:4-5) or
hypo hamartian (e.g. Gal 3:22). The law is a
transsubjective active power that enslaves
mankind (Gal 4:4-5). Humans are detained
by the law (Rom 7:6); it makes them prison-
ers of war (Rom 7:23); scripture locks them
up (Gal 3:22); the law keeps watch over
them (Gal 3:23). Although the law has the
characteristics of a ruling power in Paul’s
letters, it is neither a deity nor a -*demon.
According to Romans, it is rather the holy
law of God (Rom 7:12) that is in the power
of sin (Rom 7:13; cf. 8:3). Through Christ's
death the believer is freed from the bondage
of the law (Gal 2:19-20; Rom 7:4, 6).
IV. Amongst the Apostolic Fathers the
expression ‘the new Law of our Lord
—Jesus Christ is in use (Barn. 2:6; cf.
Ignatius, Magn. 2). Hermas gocs further and
identifies the Law, which was given unto the
whole world, with the -*'Son of God', who
is preached unto the end of the earth (Sim.
8:3 (2 69:2]. The identification of Christ
with the Law (cf. Kerygma Petrou in
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1 182:3; II
68:2; VII 16:5) has a different background,
be it Jewish (e.g. Justin, Dial 11:2; 43:1) or
Stoic (e.g. Acta Johannis 112). In Patristic
texts, the law is understood to be divine (cf.
G. W. H. Lampre, A Patristic Greek Lexicon
[Oxford 1961] 921).
V. Bibliography
H. HÜBNER, vópog. EWNT 2 (1981) 1158-
1172 [& lit: *H. KrEiNKNECHT & W.
GurnROD, vópog, TWNT 4 (1942) 1016-
1029, 1040-1084; E. P. SANDERS, Law in
Judaism of the NT Period, ABD 4 (1992)
254-265; N. WAGNER, Nomos (vópos).
ALGRM HI/1 (1897-1903) 455.
C. BREYTENBACH
NYMPH Nopon
Il. Nymphai are minor Greck gods, who
appear once in the NT as a theophoric el-
ement (Col 4:15). Greek nymphé means
‘young girl’, ‘bride’ and ‘clitoris’ (WINKLER
1988:181-184), but its etymology is obscure
(CHANTRAINE 1980). .
Il. In the /liad (6.420 etc.) the Nymphs
are the daughters of -*Zeus, the divine
father par excellence, and this is the most
common genealogy, although their con-
nection with water (below) led to many
“rivers also being seen as their father
(HEgRTER & HEICHELHEIM 1936:1529-1530).
It fits in with Zeus’ fatherhood that the
Nymphs are called ‘goddesses’ (//. 24.615-
6), but later times also considered them
mortal or only ‘long-living’ (Sophocles,
Oed. R. 1099). They are young and beautiful
(Od. 6.108); their number could vary great-
ly, from two to the inflated numbers of
Roman times (1000: Virgil, Aeneid 1.499-
500). The confusing multitude of Nymphs
635
NYMPH
was systematized in Hellenistic times and
various categories were distinguished, such
as Naiades, Oreades and Dryades (HERTER
& HEICHELHEIM 1936:1582-1583).
The collectivity of the Nymphs may be
best seen as the reflection of young girls on
the eve of adulthood (CALAME 1977:70-74).
In the Archaic period the goddess most fre-
quently associated with the initiation of girls
was —Artemis, whose initiatory sanctuaries
were preferably situated in the country in
marshy or watery surroundings. The images
of Nymphs dancing on meadows or Artemis
wandering through the woods and valleys in
the company of Nymphs (Od. 6.105-109), as
in the myth of Callisto (HENRICHS 1987:
258-267) thus reflect the initiatory dances,
the situation outside civilisation and the aris-
tocratic leadership of female initiates. The
connection with initiation made the Nymphs
suitable as educators of divine and human
children (HERTER & HEICHELHEIM 1936:
1550) and they were invoked during the
wedding ritual (GRAF 1985:105); indeed,
many children were seen as a gift of the
Nymphs, witness the frequent name Nymph-
odorus. Rather strikingly, as the Greeks nor-
mally did. not give humans names of divin-
ities, girls could receive the name Nymphe:
striking confirmation of the connection
between Nymphs and girls.
The connection of the Nymphs with
water led to their association with —sources,
rivers, the Acheloos (GRAF 1985:105) and
lakes (HERTER & HEICHELHEIM 1936:1535-
1538). As water was seen by the Greeks as
having a prophetic quality, prophetic gifts
could be interpreted as the result of a seiz-
ure by the Nymphs. In fact, nympholepsy
was a common way of interpreting various
forms of possession (CONNOR 1988). More-
over, as the Greeks also associated running
water and healing, the Nymphs were often
worshipped together with Asclepius and
Hygieia, and invoked in times of distress
(VAN STRATEN 1976).
On the ritual level, the Nymphs were
regularly worshipped in gardens, thc reflec-
tion of their mythical favourite place (Ibycus
fr. 286), which might well include trees and
flowers; these gardens of the Nymphs could
even become amorous places like in Lon-
gus' Daphnis and Chloe (1.4). In this case,
the Nymphs had a cave as well, which also
was a favourite place to worship them, often
in company with Pan (BoRGEAUD 1979:75-
76; AMANDRY 1985); they did not have
proper temples. As the Nymphs were espe-
cially associated with coming of age, a per-
iod of marginality in Greece, they often did
not receive the normal offerings but non-
animal sacrifices and wine-less libations
(HERTER & HEICHELHEIM 1936:1556-1557).
III. In the Bible the Nymphs appear only
once in the name of a woman, Nympha, in
Laodicea (Col 4:15). The majority text reads
here "Nymphàs", a man's name.
IV. Bibliography
P. AMANDRY, Le culte des Nymphes et de
Pan, L’Antre Corycien I] = BCH Suppl. IX
(1985) 395-425; P. BoncEaubD, Recherches
sur le dieu Pan (Rome 1979); C. CALAME,
Les choeurs de jeunes filles 1 (Rome 1977);
P. CHANTRAINE, Dictionnaire étymologique
de la langue grecque (Paris 1968-80); W.
R. Connor, Seized by the Nymphs:
Nympholepsy and Symbolic Expression in
Classical Greece, Classical Antiquity 7
(1988) 155-189; F. GLASER, Nymphen und
Heroen, Jahresh. Ósterr. Arch. Inst. 53
(1981-1982) Beiblatt 1-12; F. Grar, Nor-
dionische Kulte (Rome 1985); A. HEN-
RICHS, Three Approaches to Greek Mytho-
graphy, Interpretations of Greek Mythology
(ed. J. Bremmer; London 19882) 242-277:
H. HERTER & F. HEICHELHEIM, Nymphai,
PW 17 (1936) 1527-1599; F. MUTHMANN,
Mutter und Quelle (Basel 1975); F. T. vAN
STRATEN, Daikrates’ Dream, Bulletin
Antieke Beschaving 51 (1976) 1-38; J. J.
WINKLER, The Constraints of Desire (New
York & London 1988).
J. N. BREMMER
636
OAK POX
J. According to ALBRIGHT (1968:165)
both the oak, Quercus coccifera, Quercus
aegilops, JPN, "elón or '"allón, and the
—terebinth, “178, were deified in the Medi-
terranean area.
The common view is that JN, like iT2N
and DN, is connected with the root 7 II,
‘to be first’ or ‘to be strong’. Pope claims
that the etymology of DN remains obscure
aid he simply refuses to decide whether YY,
TDN, and ÙN should be derived from °w/yL
or from some other root (1955:16-19). In his
review of Pope’s monograph ALBRIGHT
$tates that Y2N. and Aram "illàn come from
'LL (1956:161, but cf. ALBRIGHT 1968:165-
166). Uncertainty about its etymology sug-
gests it may be more rewarding to analyze
the semantic field of the word.
IL. In the Near Eastern world, pictures of
holy trees are often found on seals or as
decoration in temples (GALLING 1977:34-
36). The close relationship between goddes-
ses such as >Asherah (in Ugaritic texts the
consort of >El) and the tree shows that
trees connote fertility. For further infor-
mation on holy trees in the Near East
(Ugarit, Egypt, Mesopotamia) see JAROS
1974:214-217.
^' ALBRIGHT points out that in Greek tradi-
tion the dryas (from drys, ‘oak’) and hama-
dryas both refer to minor divinities
(nymphs). It may be, he adds, that the
Ugaritic ilnym, which stands in parallelism
With ilm, ‘gods’, refers to minor divinities of
the same type, though we cannot be sure
‘that these particular minor divinities were
‘attached to oak trees as such. Albright sug-
Bests that "elón (often meaning ‘sacred
tee’), might be a back-formation from the
Plural ’&lénim (gods) (1968:165-166). Even
af Albright is right in suggesting this etymol-
gy for the word JN, it does not necessar-
ARRE
[E
ily imply that users of the word considered
the oak as a deity.
HI. The oak is mentioned several times
in the OT in connection with holy places
and cultic activities. It was obviously con-
sidered a holy tree. In Gen 12:6 the holy
place at Shechem is also the place of the
oak of Moreh, i.e. the Diviners’ oak (Judg
9:37); in Gen 35:8 Rebekah’s nurse is
buried under an oak below Bethel; in 1 Sam
10:3 three men of God go to meet Saul at
the oak of — Tabor. Isa 6:13 also presup-
poses the idea of the holy tree.
In the OT the attitude towards the oak is
ambivalent. On the one hand the oak, like
the terebinth, signals the holy. The name of
the oak in Gen 12:6, Deut 11:30 and Judg
9:37, the Diviners’ Oak, shows the con-
nection between trees and oracle activity.
JAROS combines this with the Ugaritic text
KTU 1.1 iii: (to be restored on the basis of
KTU 1.3 11:23; 1v:15), where the trees are
said to talk, and an Arabic example of a tree
oracle (1974:217-218). The traditions about
— Abraham locate the patriarch by the oaks
of Mamre, where he built an altar to
—Yahweh, Gen 13:18. In Gen 35:8 Re-
bekah's nurse is buried under an oak below
Bethel. The oak is called 'oak of weeping'.
This may indicate burial rites taking place
under the tree. The meeting in 1 Sam 10:3
between the three men of God and Saul,
who had just been anointed king by Samuel,
wH] take place at the oak of Tabor. The
whole setting connotes cultic activity and
makes it natural to understand this oak as a
holy tree. In Judg 9:6 Abimelech is made
king at the oak of the pillar. According to
ALBRIGHT the word "Zlón here refers to a
dead tree or even a post replacing an orig-
inal tree (1968:166). Isa 6:13 too presup-
poses the idea of the holy tree. The oak
must fall but its stump is holy seed, the
637
OB — OG
prophet says. The oak is certainly a holy
tree, although it is not identified with a
deity. The oak is used metaphorically to
announce the coming king (see further
NIELSEN 1989: 149-153).
There is also a polemic against the cult of
oaks (Hos 4:13). The cult must have been
some kind of fertility cult. This might indi-
cate a special relationship between the oak
and a goddess (ALBRIGHT 1968:165). In Isa
2:13 the prophet proclaims that Yahweh of
hosts has a day against al] that is proud and
Jofty, among which the oaks of —Bashan
are mentioned as a parallel to the cedars of
—Lebanon. The oaks are metaphors for
those who consider themselves strong and
can be interpreted here as metaphors for
those who worship foreign gods (cf. the or-
acle in Isa 1:30-31 about the withering tere-
binth; NIELSEN 1989:201-215). The polemic
against idolatry can also be found in Isa
44:14-15, where the making of an idol is
described: The carpenter chooses an oak, he
takes part of it to warm himself and bake
bread, and part of it he uses to make himself
a god to worship.
The oak was evidently regarded a holy
tree in Israel. Nevertheless, it is never seen
as a representation of Yahweh. Now and
„then the oak is connected with idolatry in a
way that suggests a certain relationship
between the oak and a foreign deity, but in
these cases the attitude is always polemical.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Review of Marvin H.
Pope: E] in the Ugaritic Texts, in: JBL 75
(1956) 255-257; ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the
Gods of Canaan. A Historical Analysis of
Two Contrasting Faiths (London 1968), G.
DALMAN, Arbeit und Sitte in Palüstina 1,1-2
(Gütersloh 1928); K. Jaroš, Die Stellung
des Elohisten zur kanaandischen Religion
(Gótüngen 1974); K. NIELSEN, There is
Hope for a Tree. The Tree as Metaphor in
Isaiah (Sheffield 1989); M. H. Pops, El in
the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden 1955); P.
WELTEN, Baum, sakraler, BRI2, 34-35; M.
ZOHARY, Pflanzen der Bibel. Volistdndiges
Handbuch (Stuttgart 1982).
K. NIELSEN
638
OB ~> SPIRIT OF THE DEAD
OBERIM ~ TRAVELLERS
OG n»
I. Of unknown etymology, although
some connexion with Osa gaig (7), Soqotri
‘aig, Hatraean ‘g” ‘man’ could be estab-
lished (RABIN Erlsr 8 [1967] 251-154; cf.
also Ug PN bn ‘gy, KTU 4.611:19), Og is
attested 22 times in the Bible as the king of
Bashan, along with the Amorite king
Sihon, both of them vanquished by the
Israelite newcomers. More specifically it is
said of him that he was “one of the surviv-
ors of the ~>Rephaim” (Deut 3:11; Josh 12:
4; 13:12 [NEB]) and was huge in stature, as
fitted this race of -giants; this could be
verified by the dimensions of his iron bed,
preserved in Rabbat Ammon in the days of
the redactor (7) (Deut 3:11) and usually stil]
taken as a reference to a Dolmen tomb (?)
(MILLARD 1988:484-485). In this way the
tradition moves between the 'historical' and
the ‘mythological’, as happens also with the
other biblical references to the Rephaim. It
is also said of this king (Ug mlk) and Reph-
aite (Ug rpu) that he "lived (hayyóseb) in
Ashtarot and Edrei” (Josh 12:4; 13:42
[NEBJ), obviously the capital cities of his
kingdom Bashan, a region of northem
Transjordan according also to these sources.
Egyptian documents and two Amarna letters
mention rulers of Ashtarot in the fourteenth
century BCE (BARTLETT 1970:266-268).
I. Well known are the echoes and
agreements of these data in the Uganitic
mythology and cult. Leaving aside the cultic
myth of the Rpwim (KTU 1.20-22) and tbe
characterization as such of the legendary
kings Keret and Aqbat (KTU 1.15 ii:14;
1.17 i:17) and of empirical kings, ancient
and contemporary, like Ammishtamru and
Niqmaddu (KTU 1.161:2-12), text K7U 1:
108:1-3 reports that the mlk ‘im, the dead
and deified king, “the eternal king”, when
enthroned as rpu, ySb b‘Stri Spt bhdry, “sits
enthroned in Ashtarot, judges in Hedrei”, in
amazing correspondence with the biblical
tradition of Og, king of Bashan, which 1n
this way appears as a kind of Canaanite
Hell, or more exactly, Elysian Fields. The
city of 'itrt Ashtarot is also mentioned as
the dwelling place of the god mlk in KTU
1.100:41, 1.107:17 and RS 86.2235:17
place. Now, the equivalence of Ug rpu(m)
and mlk(m) is reasonably clear (DEL OLMO
LETE 1985:58-62), while at the same time
biblical tradition also asserts that Og was
‘king’ (mlk) and one of the Rephaim (rpu)
(Fonp 1992:84-87). Phoenician tradition
also seems to record the existence of a deity
‘g, protector of tombs (PoprE 1977:171;
MULLER ZA 65 [1975] 122), thus in a funer-
ary context consequently.
III. Given all these data, it is not casy to
clarify the identity of the biblical Og, king
of Bashan, in connexion with the Ugaritic
mythological and cultic tradition (PARDEE
1988:86-87). Evidently this does not refer
directly to this ‘late’ Amorite king of Trans-
jordan, assuming that he were a historical
character (BARTLETT 1970:266-268), nor
does he play any role in it. Nevertheless,
later Phoenician tradition treats him as a
mythical divine entity (h‘g ... A’dr, ROLLIG
1974:2). So we have a three stage develop-
ment: the mythical ideological framework in
Ugarit: the ‘historical’ record in the Hebrew
Bible; the mythological transformation in
Phoenicia. In this way, Og, now tumed into
mlk(myrpu(m), can be assumed to have been
a historical (but cf. DE Vaux 1971:524)
Amorite/Canaanite king of the region which,
according to the Ugaritic tradition, was the
place where its dead deified kings dwelled.
Thus he was himself "a survivor of the
Rephaim”, a rpu, like any other king in this
ideology. According to later ‘Phoenician’
religion he may have become a poliadic
deity of Rabbat Ammon, where his cult was
celebrated, as the presence of his ceremonial
‘bed’ certifies (DE Moor 1976:338), or just
a demonic genius; it is not necessary to re-
sort to a hypothetical and misinterpreted
inscription to explain this tradition. The
apparent difficulty that being king of Bashan
involves, “living in Ashtarot and Edrei", and
to have the ‘bed’ in Rabbat Ammon could
be due to a more general misunderstanding
OG
of Canaanite ideology in ancient Hebrew
tradition. Og, maybe an Ammonite King,
could be said “to ‘sit’? in Ashtarot and
Edrei", once dead, /hayyóseb bé'astárót
üb8'edre'i being a sacral mythological tech-
nical expression exactly corresponding, even
morphosyntactically (participle), to Ug ysb
b‘strt ... bhdr’y. It was treated afterwards as
the record of a ‘historical’ fact: thus causing
the whole story to be founded on Bashan
and its conquest by the Israelites. On the
other hand, starting from the same mytholo-
gical royal ideology, the cult of a famous,
already deified, king of Bashan. Og by
name, could have been normal in Ammon.
Even its identification with —Milcom, the
traditional god of the Ammonites, presents
no special difficulty, this name also being a
transformation of mlk(m), i.c. the eponym of
the deified kings. Anyone of them could in
principle be Milcom (DEL OLMO LETE, SEL
5 [1988] 52; vAN DER ToorN 1991:58; but
cf. Dietrich & Loretz 1991:87-88). Fur-
thermore, were the proposed etymology
accepted (cf. supra 1.), Og could be another
of the substantivated divine titles that
Canaanite kings bore (DEL O_mo LETE
1987:57-66): ‘man’ (par excellence). Such a
use is amply testtified in the Northwest
Semitic tradition (7s, amélu, mt) in relation
mostly to military activity, the most striking
case being mu rpi, applied to king Aqhat
(MaRGALIT 1989:300) The title would
finally have turned into an eponymic divine
name, like others. Either proposal is valid.
VaN DER Toorn (1992:93) suggests
reading the name of the enigmatic deity
Anammelek of the Sepharvaites in 2 Kgs
17:31 as ‘gmlk *Og-Melech underscoring
the chtonic character of the deity Og.
IV. Bibliography
J. R. BARTLETT, Sihon and Og, Kings of the
Amorites, VT 20 (1970) 257-277; M.
DIETRICH & O. LomETZ, Zur Debatte über
"Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in
Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible", UF 23
(1991) 85-90; J. N. Forp, The “Living
Rephaim" of Ugarit: Quick or Defunct?, UF
24 (1992) 73-101; B. MARGALIT, A Ugaritic
Psalm (RS 24.252), JBL 89 (1970) 292-304;
639
OIL
A. R. Mitrarp, King Og’s Bed and Other
Ancient Ironmongery, Ascribe to the Lord.
Biblical and other studies in memory of
Peter C. Craigie (ed. L. Eslinger & G.
Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Sheffield 1988) 481-
492; J. C. DE MooR, Rapr'ima - Rephaim,
ZAW 88 (1976) 324-345; G. DEL OLMO
LETE, Los nombres ‘divinos? de los reyes de
Ugarit, AulOr 5 (1987) 39-66.; D. PARDEE,
Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e
campagne (1961) (RSOu IV; Paris 1988);
M. H. Pore, Notes on the Rephaim Texts
from Ugarit, Ancient Near East Studies in
Memory of J. J. Finkelstein (ed. M. de J.
Elis; Hamden 1977); W. Róruc, Eine
neue phóünizische Inschrift aus Byblos,
NESE 2 (1974) 1-15; K. VAN DER Toorn,
Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in
Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48
(1991) 40-66; VAN DER Toorn, Anat-Yahu
and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39
(1992) 80-101; R. DE Vaux, Histoire
ancienne d'Israel. Des origines à l'instala-
tion en Canaan (Paris 1971).
G. DEL OLMO LETE
OIL ne
I. The term yishar describes the quality
of oj] as ‘shining’, and denotes oil freshly-
pressed. This term for oil is used almost
exclusively in OT in variations of the for-
mula ‘corn, new wine and oil 22 times,
sometimes within a longer list of commod-
ities. The usage is always distinctive, falling
into the following categories: i) as tithe, to
be eaten by faithful at central shrine (Deut
12:17) or by priests alone (Num 18:12); ii)
as sign of original blessings of election (Hos
2:8; Joel 1:10) or restoration (Hos 2:22; Joel
2:19 etc.); iil) as plunder by enemies (Deut
28:51).
The oi] in these passages, the type of
which is not usually identified with certain-
ty, but 1s no doubt olive oi] (see Zech 4:14
below), is not to be distinguished from the
other commodities occurring in vanous lists.
Together with them, it represents the essen-
tially concrete form in which ‘blessing’ was
conceptualised in Hebrew thought (cf. Deut
640
28:1-14). It may be seen that such rei-
fications of divine pleasure could be seen as
actual manifestations of divine activity, and
therefore as minor gods. That is why
ALBRIGHT asserted that yishar is “almost
certainly the name of an old god of olive
oil” (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan [Lon-
don 1968] 162).There is, however, no
specific clue to this effect in the contexts.
II. The term for oil used in the cult was
usually Semen, as in Exod 25:6, where it is
used of the oi] both for the Menorah and for
ritual anointing purposes. But in Zech 4:14
the two pipes through which the Menorah
oil pours, or the two olive trees to the left
and the right of the Menorah (cf. overloaded
text) are identified as ‘sons of the oil’ (béné
yishar), ‘anointed ones’ (RSV, JB), ‘conse-
crated ones’ (REB). yishar is thus estab-
lished as having the same reference as
Semen. The oil is here metaphorically the
father of those who by virtue of anointing
become the two —Messiahs (sc. anointed
ones) to come. The two in question are
Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel, a
royal descendant of Jehoiakin so far as
Zechariah is concerned. The oi], as the fuel,
is also of course a metonymy of the
Menorah itself, which symbolised both the
divine presence, and that of Yahweh’s sub-
ordinate assistants in the temple. The king
was one of these (BARKER 1987:224, 229-
230) and the oil, used for anointing pur-
poses, was therefore the medium that con-
ferred the power and status (sc. quasi-divine
rank) of kingship. There is however no clear
indication of the deification of oi} (either
under this designation or as emen) in
biblical usage.
IIl. Bibliography
M. BARKER, The Older Testament (London
1987) 224-230; C. L. Meyer & E. M.
MEYER, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25b;
New York 1987) 258-259; H. G. MITCHELL,
J. M. P. Smirn & J. A. BEwER, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC;
Edinburgh 1912) 164-166.
N. WYATT
OLAM — OLDEN GODS
OLAM ~ETERNITY
OLDEN GODS l
I. As a distinct category of deities,
‘olden gods’ manifest themselves in a var-
jety of ways in the literature of ancient Near
Eastem cultures. Their histories are re-
counted in theogonies where they take
centre stage, and in cosmogonies, where
younger gods fight against them in battles
over succession. As a class, they are ident-
ifed in Hittite literature by the technical
tem karuileš Siunes, ‘olden gods’, in Akk
translation as ilānū ša dārūti or ilānů ša
dārātim, ‘primeval gods’, and in Egypt as
np.w piw.ty.w, ‘primeval gods’. Residual
notions of the *olden gods' have been found
in the Bible.
II. ‘Olden gods’ are generally under-
stood to have been active in the earliest,
most chaotic times, generating various el-
ementa) deities through sexual (often inces-
fuous) procreation. Thus, for instance, in
Hesiod's Theogony, -*Heaven (Ouranos)
unites with his mother, —Earth (Gaia), who
gives birth to such gods as Great River
(Oceanus), Law (Themis) and Memory
(Mnemosyne). Frequently, *olden gods' are
found in pairs consisting of male and female
deities, often with rhyming or etymological-
dy related names. Great variation exists
‘among theogonies in the number of gener-
“ations that separate the primordial order
from the contemporary pantheon, as well as
‘in the names of the gods. Nevertheless, a
‘feature common to many is that the ‘olden
“Bods” are either killed or banished to the
wnetherworld by a younger generation of dei-
‘ties. AS a result, ‘olden gods’ were ordinari-
y understood as no longer serving a major
e in the divine economy. With the ex-
eption of the funerary cult of the Egyptian
Ogdoad, they were not normally chief dei-
$ in temples or cults. They did not often
eive sacrifices or prayers. Though their
Im was in the netherworld, *olden gods'
Te not generally considered 'dead' in the
sense of altogether ceasing to function in the
pene order. Frequently they are attested
they are Jisted in pairs and invoked to serve
as witnesses to the mutual oaths. To judge
by their titles (WILHELM 1989:56), some
Hurro-Hittite ‘olden gods’ may have served
some function in taking oracles, interpreting
dreams, and mediating judgment. In Hittite
rituals, various ‘olden gods’ are occasionally
called upon to judge and lure al] adversity
into the netherworld (Arcuri 1990:116).
Despite rich variation, much of the lore
conceming ‘olden gods’ in the ancient Near
East shares strikingly similar characteristics.
Although precise lines of origin and trans-
mission are impossible to draw, it is be-
lieved by many scholars that Greek, Phoe-
nician, Hurro-Hittite, and Mesopotamian
theogonijes and cosmogonies concerning the
‘olden gods’ are related to some degree. The
extent of their relationship has been vigor-
ously debated for some time.
In his well-known Theogony, Hesiod
recounts the history of the principal Greek
gods whose lineage is traced back to Gaia
(Earth). Gaia produces Ouranos (Sky)
through generation rather than sexual union.
After subsequently lying incestuously with
Ouranos, Gaia produces eighteen children
(including the ~Titans). These offspring are
kept penned-up by Ouranos within Gaia’s
bowels, apparently by continuing intercourse
with her (WEsT 1966:19). Feeling the strain
within, Gaia groans in anguish and urges her
children to take vengeance upon their father
using an adamantine sickle. Kronos rises to
the challenge and, when next Ouranos
approaches Gaia with amorous intent, he
cuts off his father’s genitals and throws
them into the —sea. In the process, blood
from Ouranos' wound drips on Gaia impreg-
nating her with various sub-divine beings.
Floating in the sea, Ouranos’ severed
member forms a white foam from which
Aphrodite is bor. Having apparently
assumed the throne, Kronos has six children
by Rhea and proceeds to act just as unjustly
as his father. Afraid of a prediction that he
would be overcome by one of his children,
Kronos swallows each as they are born,
giving Rhea no rest from grief. Upon the
birth of Zeus, however, Rhea conspires
641
OLDEN GODS
with Gaia and Ouranos to hide the child in
the bowels of the earth. A rock wrapped in
blankets jis handed over to Kronos who,
thinking it his son, swallows ìt. As pre-
dicted, Zeus eventually usurps the kingship
from Kronos. Later Kronos vomits the
children he had swallowed along with the
rock which Zeus then places under the
slopes of Parnassus to be a sign and wonder
to humankind. Zeus also frees his uncles
who had been bound by Ouranos. In grati-
tude, they give him thunder, lightning-bolt
and flash which become his principle
weapons.
The Theogony of Hesiod has long been
thought to have influenced Philo's history of
the gods. In his eight (Porphyry abst. 2.56)
or nine (Eusebius, Praep. evang. 3.9.23)
books dedicated to the subject, Philo of
Byblos (ca. 70-160 cx) claims to render an
accurate translation of the Phoenician His-
tory of Sanchuniathon, who is said to have
lived before the Trojan War. Fragments of
Philo's work are preserved primarily by
Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica in
which he quotes Philo extensively. In one
section of the Phoenician History, Philo
gives an account of a certain Elioun, called
‘Most High’ (~Hypsistos) who, through his
"wife Berouth has a: son, Epigeius, or
Autochthon—later called Ouranos (Heaven)
—and a daughter, Gé (Earth). Through an
incestuous union between Ouranos and his
sister Gé, four sons are born: E) (also called
Kronos), Baithylos (- Baety]), ^Dagon (also
called Siton) and Atlas. Ouranos also takes
other wives, making Gé jealous in the pro-
cess and causing their separation. This does
not prevent Ouranos from raping Gé severa]
times and attempting to destroy their child-
ren. In response to his father's frequently
violent behaviour towards his mother, El-
Kronos repels Ouranos using an iron sickle
and spear and usurps the kingship. In the
battle, a pregnant mistress of Ouranos is
taken. She later gives birth to Zeus-Demar-
ous. The subsequent rule of Kronos is more
violent than that of his father who Jater rises
up and makes war on him. In the thirty-
second year of his reign, El-Kronos am-
642
bushes Ouranos and cuts off his genitals. As
Ouranos breathes his last breath, his blood
drips into springs and rivers. Later, — Astar-
te, Zeus-Demarous, and Adodos, king of the
gods, reign with the consent of Kronos.
The possibility of Philo's work represent-
ing a Late Bronze/Early Iron Age source has
long been open to question. Earlier scholar-
ship tended to view it as strongly indebted
to the Theogony of Hesiod. However, with
the publication of Ugaritic and Hittite texts
which in some instances parallel Philo over
against Hesiod, this understanding under-
went certain modification (L’HEUREUX 1979:
32-34; West 1966:24-28). While there is no
longer significant doubt that Philo presented
Phoenician traditions as he claimed, recent
scholarship has tended to view Philo as con-
structing contemporary versions of Phoen-
ician myths, influenced by Hesiod, and
modified to fit his own Hellenistic-Roman
perspective (BAUMGARTEN 1992:342-343).
Many scholars believe that the traditions
represented by Philo and Hesiod share a
common ancestry in older Hurro-Hittite and
Mesopotamian Jore transmitted through
Phoenicia (see references in L'HEUREUX
1979:33). While the precise route of trans-
mission is difficult to discern, their mutual
relationship, at least in broad outlines, is
much clearer. In Hurro-Hittite lore, the
‘Song of Kumarbi’ (CTH 344; also called
‘Kingship in Heaven’; see translation in
HorrNER 1990:40-43) recounts the history
of the gods. In the proem, the ‘olden gods’
(karuiles SiuneS) are addressed by name and
exhorted to listen. Among those listed in the
extant portions of the text are: Nara, Napsa-
ra, Minki, Ammunki, Ammezzadu, Enlil and
Ninlil. In this song, Alalu exercises kingship
in heaven during the early primeval years.
After nine years of rule, however, his cup-
bearer Anu—the "foremost of the gods"—
rises up against Alalu, who then flees into
the Dark Eanh. In the ninth year of his
reign, Anu's cup-bearer, Kumarbi—an
offspring of Alalu—seizes the throne, dnv-
ing Anu off to the sky. As Anu flees, how- -
ever, Kumarbi bites off his genitals, causmg :
Anu’s ‘manhood’ to unite with Kumarbi s :
OLDEN GODS
bowels. Before hiding himself in the
heavens, Anu turns and admonishes Kumar-
bi to stop rejoicing, for his genitals have
impregnated him with the Storm God
(Tesub), the -*Tigris River, and Tasmisu. In
response, Kumarbi spits Anu's semen from
his mouth which apparently becomes a
source of further generation where it falls.
Kumarbi then goes to the city of Nippur
where he takes up his kingship. At one
point, in an attempt to kill TeSub, Kumarbi
eats a stone which does nothing but injure
his teeth. Although there is a lacuna in the
text after TeSub comes forth from Kumar-
bi's bowels, Tesub eventually supersedes
Kumarbi as king in heaven, as is clear from
a sequel to this song—the ‘Song of Ulli-
kummi’ (CTH 345; sce HOFFNER 1990:52-
61). Here, Kumarbi plots vengeance against
TeSub for supplanting him by having inter-
course with an enormous rock. The rock
gives birth to a stone child, named Ullikum-
mi, who is hidden in the sea for fifteen days
until he is large enough to reach into the
heavens. After various failed attempts to do
battle with Ullikummi, Ea speaks to the
‘olden gods’, asking them to “open again
the old, fatherly, grandfatherly storehouses”
and “bring forth the primeval copper cutting
tool with which they cut apart heaven and
earth.” With it, says Ea, "We will cut off
Ullikummi, the Basalt, under his feet, him
whom Kumarbi raised against the gods as a
supplanter (of Tešub).” This effort apparent-
ly succeeds.
Aside from thcir appearance in Hurro-
Hittite mythological texts, the ‘olden gods’
also appear frequently in lists and ritual
materials. In Hurro-Hittite texts (treaties and
the magic of Kizzuwatna), certain ‘olden
gods’ appear regularly, in more or less ca-
nonical order. This is particularly true in
Hittite treaties. Falling under the command
of Ereshkigal, goddess of the underworld,
whom the Hittites called either ‘Sun of the
Earth’ or ‘Lelwani’, these gods are related
to the Sumerian Anunnaki (note the parallels
in OrrEN 1961: text 1II.32-34; IV.46, 52,
and nn. 258 and 262). In nearly every extant
treaty text, twelve deities are listed (an
exception is CTH 76 which lists only nine).
Although there is minor variation in the
twelve gods who appear in the texts, gener-
ally one finds two series of deities, six of
which are of uncertain origin, six of which
have Mesopotamian roots. Of uncertain ori-
gin are: Naras, Napsaras (or Namsaras),
Minki, Ammunki, Tuhusi and Ammizadu.
Those of Mesopotamian origin are: Alalu,
Anu, Antu, Apantu, Enlil and Ninlil (Cross
1976:331). After the ‘olden gods’, various
pairs of elements from the natural order are
frequently listed: Mountains and Rivers,
- Springs and Great Sea, Heaven and
Earth, Winds and Clouds. Although their
nature is less transparent, these elements call
to mind the deified elements attested in
Phoenician and Greek mythologies as well
as those in Mesopotamia.
Two Mesopotamian texts are particularly
relevant to the topic of ‘olden gods’. These
are the creation myth, Enüma eli$ (English
translation in ANET, 60-72), and the so-
called Harab Myth (CT 46.43; English
translation in ANET, 517-518: cf. trans-
lations and treatment in LAMBERT & WAL-
cot 1965; JACOBSEN 1984; MILLER 1985;
L’HEuREUX 1979). The first twenty lines of
Entima eli§ recount the primordial era begin-
ning with the time when heaven and firm
ground “had not been named.” At that time,
-*Apsu and -*Tiamat (i.e. Fresh Water and
Salt Water) commingled producing -*Lahmu
and Lahamu (Note that these monsters arc
understood to exist beyond primordial time),
and Anshar and Kishar (Sky Horizon and
Earth Horizon). These latter gods brought
forth Anu (Heaven) who begot Nudimmud
(i.e. Ea, the earth- and water-god). After this
brief history, Enüma eli$ moves on to
describe the conflict arising between Apsu
and Tiamat and the succeeding generations
of gods. These latter gods eventually over-
came the former ones and their allies which
led to the creation of the cosmos, the instal-
lation of ->Marduk as king of the gods, and
the founding of Babylon. In relation to the
other ancient Near Eastern texts described
above, Entina eli§ is quite different. How-
ever, general lines of similarity between the
643
OLDEN GODS
‘olden gods’ in Eniima elif and the other
myths do exist. The cosmogonic character of
the ‘olden gods’, their pairing, and their
conflict over kingship all display points of
contact with the other myths. A text bearing
even greater similarities—especially to
Hesiod's Theogony—is the so-called ‘Harab
Myth’.
The Harab myth is set within a linear or
sequential movement beginning with Harab
(?) ploughing Earth (Ersetu). This results in
the creation of >Sea and Sumuqan. Next,
they build the city of Dunnu and Harab is
established as its lord. Subsequently,
Sumuqan kills his father, thereby taking
over lordship, and unites incestuously with
his mother, Earth. Sumuqan then takes his
older sister, Sea, for a wife. However,
Sumuqan's son, Gaiu, rises up and kills him,
taking over the lordship and kingship. His
mother, Sea, marries Sumuqan and kills her
own mother, Earth. This cycle of incest and
parricide continues for three more gener-
ations until Hahamum is simply imprisoned,
not killed, by his son HaiaSum (who, never-
theless, marries his own sister). There fol-
lows a series of lacunae. If JACOBSEN's
interpretation of the remaining fragments is
correct (1984), it would appear that the suc-
cessive ruling generations lead down to
Enlil, who peacefully hands over power to
his son Ninurta by assent of the gods. This
may reflect the perspective of the existing
world order of the writer (JACOBSEN 1984
posits the period of Isin-Larsa).
Worthy of brief mention is the concept of
‘olden gods’ in Egypt and Ugarit. While
there exist no theogonies in the extant Ugar-
itic texts, the god -*Illib may bear some
resemblance to the olden gods of other cul-
tures. In a Hurrian god-list found at Ras-
Shamra, when compared with a Ugaritic
god-list, the following correspondences can
be observed: ilib = in atn, ‘Ancestral Spirit’
/ il = il, E) / dgn = kmrb, Dagan/Kumarbi /
bI = Sb, ~Baal/Tesub.
What is particularly interesting about this
list is the similarity it bears to the ‘olden
gods’ in the ‘Song of Kumarbi’ (Alalu, Anu,
Kumarbi, TeSub) and Philo (Elioun,
Ouranos, El-Kronos, Zeus-Demarous). If
Ilib does, in fact, correspond in some way to
Alalu, then Ilib may represent a primeval
god who long ago ceased activity and dwells
in the netherworld. As an Ancestral Spirit,
the gods may have honoured him as humans
honoured their deceased ancestors (VAN
DER ToonN 1993 [1994]; XELLA 1983). It is
possible that Ilib is the product of thcolo-
gical speculation, like Enmesharra ("Lord
World Order’) in Sumerian religion (SAGGS
1978:102). As such he may represent a num-
ber of forgotten ‘olden gods’ now dwelling
in the netherworld.
Finally, we may note that the concept of
‘olden gods’ was not lost on Egyptian re-
ligion. The Ogdoad of Hermopolis, for in-
stance, was comprised of four symmetrical,
theogonic pairs of gods. Referred to as nir.w
piw.ty.w, ‘primeval gods’ these deities were
ancestors of' the creator god and regularly
received funerary offerings. Their abstract
names attest to their origins in theological
speculation (CRoss 1976:332): 'Inertness'
(Nun), ‘Unbounded’ (Huh). ‘Primeval Dark-
ness’ (Kuk), ‘Invisibility’ (-+Amun). ‘'No-
thingness' (Nyz.w).
IHI. In the Bible, various scholars have
identified what they believe to be residual
notions of ‘olden gods’ in various texts.
While many of these identifications are
highly dubious and speculative (viz. biblical
—Japheth thought to be the equivalent of the
Titan Iapetos in Hesiod; see West 1966:
202-203), two of these deserve special no-
tice. The first is associated with Israel's
understanding of the covenant lawsuit. As
discussed above, 'olden gods' frequently
occur in pairs in the ancient theogonies and
often represent elements of the natural order.
In texts of diverse origins in the ancient
world, these pairs of deities are invoked to
serve as witnesses to treaties and covenants.
We find analogous petitions made in OT
covenant lawsuit formulas used by the
prophets. Isaiah (Isa 1:2) invokes the
Heavens and the Earth to act as witnesses
against Israel for breaking the covenant with
- Yahweh. The prophet Micah makes a
similar appeal (Mic 6:2; cf. Jer 2:12). While
OLYMPUS
these elements were by no means considered
divine by the prophets, their use in covenant
lawsuit formulas indicates a common rhe-
torical form whose origins may be traced
back to originally mythological conceptions.
As has been recognized for a number of
years, the creation account in Gen | takes
the form of a theogonic history. The ancient
gods, however, have been thoroughly
'demythologized', possibly with polemic
intent against polytheistic notions of cre-
ation. Pairs such as ~light and darkness,
earth and sea, ~>day and ->night, are no lon-
ger understood as ancient deities, but as
mere creations within the natural order
governed by -*God. It has been suggested
that the great Babylonian sea -*dragon,
—Tiamat, appears as a lifeless shadow of
her former self in Gen 1, where darkness is
said to have covered the face of the deep
(Hebrew téh6m = Babylonian Ti’dmar, cf.
Egyptian Nin). Cross (1976:335) has pro-
posed identifying the “chaos and disorder”
of Gen 1:2 (t6hii wa-béhii) with Sanchun-
iathon’s Baau and Hesiod’s Chaos (both
‘olden gods’ appearing in sections other
than those discussed above) and the divine
wind soaring over the surface of the deep
with the primordial wind found in Sanchun-
iathon and Anaximenes.
IV. Bibliography
R. ANTHES, Egyptian Theology in the Third
Millennium B.C., JNES 18 (1959) 160-212;
A. ARCHI, The Names of the Primeval
Gods, Or 59 (1990) 114-129; A. I. Baum-
GARTEN, Philo of Byblos, ABD 5 (New York
1992) 342-344; *F. M. Cross, The ‘Olden
Gods’ in Ancient Near Eastern Creation
Myths, Magnalia Dei, The Mighty Acts of
God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology
in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. F. M.
Cross, W. E. Lemke & P. D. Miller; Garden
City 1976) 329-338; A. Goetze, Kultur-
geschichte Kleinasiens (München 1957); O.
R. GuRNEY, Some Aspects of Hittite Re-
ligion (Oxford 1977); H. G. GUTERBOCK,
Hittite Mythology, Mythologies of the
Ancient World (ed. S. N. Kramer; Garden
City 1961) 139-179; C. E. L'HEUREUX,
Rank Among the Canaanite Gods (HSM 21;
Missoula 1979); H. A. HOFFNER, Jr., Hittite
Myths (SBLWAW 2; Atlanta 1990) T.
JACOBSEN, The Harab Myth (SANE 2;
Malibu 1984); W. G. LAMBERT & P. WAL-
cor, A New Babylonian Theogony and
Hesiod, Kadmos 4 (1965) 64-72; E. La-
ROCHE. Les Dénominations des dieux 'an-
tiques' dans les textes hittites, Anarolian
Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Giiter-
bock on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday
(ed. K. Bittel, P. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate &
E. Reiner; Istanbul 1974) 175-185; La-
ROCHE, Hurrian Borrowings from the Bab-
ylonian System. Mythologies (ed. Y. Bonne-
foy & W. Doniger; Chicago 1991) 225-227;
P. D. MiLLER, Eridu, Dunnu, and Babel: A
Study in Comparative Mythology, HAR 9
(1985) 227-251; H. von Orren, Eine
Beschwörung der Unterirdischen aus Boğaz-
köy, ZA 54 (1961) 114-157; H. W. F.
SacGs, The Encounter with the Divine in
Mesopotamia und Israel (London 1978); K.
VAN DER Toorn, llib and the “God of the
Father", UF 25 (1993 [1994]) 379-387; M.
L. West, Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford 1966);
G. Witnetm, The Hurrians (Warminster
1989) [& lit.]; P. XELLA, Aspekte religiöser
Vorstellungen in Syrien nach den Ebla- und
Ugarit-texten, UF 15 (1983) 279-290. esp.
286.
E. E. ELNES & P. D. MILLER
OLYMPUS "OXuyuzog
I. Mount Olympus is the holy, mostly
snow-capped mountain of the ancient
Greeks, lying on the borders of Thessaly
and Macedonia. It was considered the dwel-
ling place of the third generation of the
gods, who are for that reason called 'the
Olympians'. The name occurs in 2 Macc 6:2
in ‘Zeus Olympius', and in Rom 16:15 in
the personal name OXujzàs, with the text-
ual variants OAugunióa (F,G), and 'Olympia-
dem’ (Latin versions). All three are hypoco-
ristics, respectively in -aàg (masculine) and
-ic¢, -1a¢ (both feminine), formed on the
basis of full names composed either with
'OXuuzo- like OXuuxoyévngc, or with OAup-
mio- like 'OXuumió6opog. OXugrtoóopa.
645
ONE
Only in the former case would there be a
connection with Mt. Olympus, while the
second are properly speaking derivations of
the epithet 'Olympius'. In the plura] the lat-
ter could refer to all the gods together (e. g.
liad 1,399), in the singular especially to
Zeus, even without mentioning his name
(e. g. Iliad 18,79; Hesiod, Op. 474). What
the full name of the person mentioned in
Rom 16:15 was, is now untraceable, In the
Jater tradition this Roman Christian was
made one of the seventy apostles, his festal
day being fixed on the 10th of November.
Il. In Greece and Asia Minor there were
in Antiquity some fifteen mountains that
bore the name of ‘Olympus’ varying in
height from that of a hill to over 9500 ft.
Since the name has no Indo-European ety-
mology, it is most probably to be explained
as a pre-Greek word that had the meaning
‘mountain’ or ‘height’ as such, and not as a
specific characteristic because it was ap-
parently applied to a variety of mountains.
Apart from the famous one in Thessaly,
there was an Olympus, for instance, in
Crete, Lesbos, Cyprus, Mysia, Lycia, Gal-
atia, and according to Strabo 8,3,31, also
one in Elis which may have given its name
to the town of Olympia. Only the Thessalian
mountain had religious importance. Al-
though Homer calls it ‘snowy’ on several
occasions (e. g. 7liad 1,420), the actual
abode of the gods there is pictured as free of
snow, rain and wind, and always bathing in
bright light (Odyss. 6,41-47). Together with
the earth the Olympus belongs to that part
of the kosmos that has not been allotted to
either Zeus, ~*Poseidon or Hades, being
common to all gods (/liad 15,193). The
entrance to both Olympus and to ~Heaven,
the proper domain of Zeus, are the gates,
which are opened and closed by the Horae
or season-goddesses with a loud noise, but
these gates are at the same time described as
a thick cloud or mist (/liad 5,749-751). The
god Hephaestus is reported to have built
there a palace for each of the gods (Iliad
1,607-608).
In the course of tme ‘Olympus’ became
more or less equivalent with ‘Heaven’ in the
sense of ‘Zeus’ or ‘the gods’. Both occur
also in asseverations, “by the Olympus” in
e.g. Sophocles, Ant. 758, and "by Heaven"
in e. g. Aristophanes, Plutus 267.
In Greek mythology Olympus was also
the name of several male persons, some of
whom may have been mountain spirits in
origin. The best known is the traditional
Phrygian inventor of music and father of
Marsyas the flautist. He is mentioned by
Tatian (Against the Greeks 1,1) in order to
demonstrate that the Greeks had hardly
invented anything themselves.
III. Mt. Olympus is not mentioned in OT
or NT. The ‘mountain of meeting (or:
assembly) far in the North', which figures in
a prophecy of Isaiah directed against the
king of Babel (14,13), is modelled upon Mt.
—Zaphon, the traditional abode of the
Canaanite gods, not on Mt. Olympus of the
Greeks. Only the pseudepigraphical Testa-
ment of Solomon, a magical work dating
from the (early?) Imperial period, refers to
it. The seven evil female demons who pass
before Solomon (cf. Matt 12:42-45), tell him
that they live alternatively in Lydia, on Mt.
Olympus, and on the High Mountain (8:4).
In this Jewish context Mt. Olympus is the
equivalent of ‘Hell’ rather than of ‘Heaven’.
IV. Bibliography
E. OBERHUMMER & J. ScHMipT, Olympus
(1, PW XVIH (1939) 258-310 (mountain
and religion); M. WEGNER, Olympus (26),
PW XVIII ( 1939) 321-324 (persons).
G. MUSSIES
ONE INN
I. In Deut 6:4 it is asserted that “the
LORD is ovur (ie. the Israelites’) God, the
Lorp is One (ehdd)”. Though the epithet
can also mean ‘first’, it is usually under-
stood to mean ‘(only) one’. In both Akkad-
jan and Ugaritic texts, the equivalent epithet
(Akk istén, Ug ahd) can be used in connec-
tion with gods. It has sometimes been as-
sumed that Heb 78 in Isa 66:17 conceals
the name of a foreign god or goddess
(STENHOUSE 1913:298).
I. The use of ‘One’ as a divine name or
646
ONE
epithet of God is not confined to the Bible.
In ancient Mesopotamia, both humans and
gods may be called istén, ‘unique, outstand-
ing’, literally ‘one’ or ‘first? (CAD IJ [1960]
278). An example may be taken from an
Old Assyrian letter in which a human being
is flattered in the following terms: istén atta
iff tukulti u bast, “you are unique, my god,
my trust and my glory” (J. Lewy, KTS no.
15:41-42). The epithet is also applied to
Lamashtu and to Ishtar. Note also that
Anu, the primordial sky-god, is designated
by the sign for ‘one’. Yet, though referred to
as iu réftü "first, foremost deity", he is
never designated istén, ‘One’. The Akkadian
terminology is foreshadowed, so to speak, in
the Sumerian. Thus Enlil, one of the major
Mesopotamian deities, is once referred to in
a Sumerian hymn as “the only king” (lugal
dìiš-àm).
In the Ugaritic Baal Epic, >Baal says “I
alone (ahdy) am the one who can be king
over the gods" (CTA 4.vii:49-50 — KTU 1.4.
vii:49-50). This phrase "implies a definite
pretension to be the Only One on whom all
other deities are dependent" (J. C. DE
Moor, The Rise of Yahwism {Leuven 1990]
77). In Egyptian texts, the designation
“One” is applied to Atum, >Re, >Amun,
>Ptah, Aton, —Thoth, Geb, —Horus,
Haroéris, Khnum, ^ Khonsu, and —1sis.
IIl. The epithet "ehàd in Deut 6:4, one of
the key texts of the Hebrew Bible, is usually
interpreted as ‘one’ or ‘the only one’. It
could either mean that the LORD is the only
God the Israelites are to worship, or that
there is only one Yahweh. The latter inter-
pretation is the more plausible one, in view
of the mono-Yahwistic tendency of Deuter-
onomy. In Mal 2:10 the rhetorical question,
“Has not one God (Heb ’é! ’ehdd) created
us?" takes it for granted that Israel's God is
the creator of all bumankind. The same idea
18 taken for granted also in Job’s rhetorical
question in Job 31:15: “Did not he that
made me in the womb, make him (i.e., my
manservant or my maidservant)? and did not
One (Heb. ’ehda) fashion us in the womb?”
God appears to be referred to as ’ehdd ‘One’
also in Eccl 12:11, which asserts that “the
ETA Pon ee
L
Tus
sayings of the wise ...
Shepherd".
Zechariah, the penultimate Hebrew
prophet, tells us that in the time to come
“the Lorp shal] be king over all the earth;
in that day the Lorp will be ‘One’, and His
Name will be ‘One’” (Zech 14:9). This
verse is often taken to mean that in the time
to come peoples of diverse nations who had
already perceived and worshipped the Lorp
under a variety of names (cf. Mal 1:11; Acts
17:23) will recognize God by His true Name
‘Yahweh’. Gorpon (1970), however, ar-
gues that the twe meaning of Zech 14:9 is
not that God will have only one name but
that in the eschaton the official name of God
will be ’ehad ‘One’. Notwithstanding the
possible use in antiquity of this numeral to
designate other deities, such an official
Name of God would, according to this exe-
gesis, remind people that there is only one
Yahweh and that He alone is to be wor-
shipped as God.
The assumption that the term “ITN conceals
a non-Israelite divine name in Isa 66:17
(STENHOUSE 1913:298) is no longer adopted
by modern scholars.
IV. The hope for a universal veneration
of Yahweh is expressed in the Jewish liturgy
in the daily prayer (Aleynu) for a speedy end
to the worship of other deities and the
fulfilment of the prophecy of Zech 14:9.
Gordon’s interpretation of Zech 14:9 (for
which see above) is foreshadowed in the
Jewish liturgy for Sabbath Afternoon. There
it is stated, “You are One and Your Name is
One, and Who is like Your people Israel,
One Nation in the World?” Here are juxta-
posed the interpretation of Zech 14:9 as
meaning "God's name is "ehàd 'One'" and
the understanding of 2 Sam 7:23 (—1 Chr
17:21) as a mirror image of Zech 14:9. The
understanding of these respective assertions
conceming God and Israel as mirror images
is reflected also in the Rabbinic tradition
according to which just as Jews wear tefillin
in which are inscribed “Hear, O Israel: the
Lorp is our God, the LorD is ‘One’”, so are
there heavenly tefillin in which are in-
scribed, “Who is like Your people Israel,
were given by One
647
OPHANNIM — ORION
One Nation upon earth?” Rabbinic exegesis
sees in Gen 1:8, which refers to the first of
the days of Creation as yém ’ehdd, literally
“day of One”, a reference to God, who had
not yet created the ministering angels.
Because Jews have long perceived ’ehad
as a Name of God, the number thirteen, the
sum of the numerical values of the letters of
this name, is commonly regarded by Jews as
especially auspicious.
V. .Bibliography
E. B. Borowrrz (ed.), Ehad: The Many
Meanings of God is One (New York 1988);
C. H. Gorpon, His Name is ‘One’, JNES
29 (1970) 198-199; F. PERLES, Was bedeu-
tet THN MT? OLZ 2 (1899) 517-518; N.
LOHFINK & J. BERGMAN, IN, TWAT, vol.
1 (1970-73) 210-218; T. STENHOUSE, Baal
and Belial, ZAW 33 (1913) 295-305.
M. I. GRUBER
OPHANNIM -* ANGELS
ORION ‘o>
I. The Heb word 9°OD, vocalized késil,
is the name of a -*constellation or individ-
ual -*star mentioned three times in the OT
(Amos 5:8; Job 9:9; 38:31), in each instance
in connection with Kfmá (-*Pleiades), and
once in a plural form at Isa 13:10. It is
usually identified with Orion, though the
evidence of the ancient versions and later
sources is ambiguous. The plural should be
understood in a general sense as 'constel-
lations’. As a common noun, késil has the
sense ‘fool’, ‘stupid fellow’.
A widespread view holds that the men-
tion of késil at Job 38:31 contains a refer-
ence to some lost legend of a -*giant or pri-
meval -*hero who, having rebelled against
God. was subdued, bound, and placed in the
sky. Tun-SiNA: (1967) goes even further
and understands all appearances of késil and
kim in the OT as mythological (rather than
purely astronomical) references. Others have
seen in the use of these words in Amos 5:8
a veiled polemic against astral worship.
II. The ancient versions are not con-
sistent in their translations of késfl. In Amos
5:8 the LXX does not recognize the names
of astronomical bodies; Symmachus trans-
lates astra, ‘stars’; Theodotion renders 'Hes-
perus’ (the evening star); and Aquila and the
Vg translate ‘Orion’. In Job 9:9 the LXX
translates ‘Hesperus’, while the Vg trans-
lates ‘Orion’; in Job 38:31, on the other
hand, the LXX translates ‘Orion’, but the
Vg translates ‘Arcturus’. In Isa 13:10 the
LXX translates ‘Orion’; Aquila and Theodo-
tion transliterate; and the Vg gives splendor
earum, ‘their brilliance’. The Targum trans-
lates Amos 5:8 by the cognate ksyl’ and ren-
ders késil by np?’ (11QTgJob 38:31 npyl),
‘giant’, in the passages in Job and késiléhem
by apylyhwn in Isa 13:10. The Peshitta
translates ‘ywr (a star or constellation of
uncertain identity, either Aldebaran or
Capella or, perhaps, Leo) in Amos 5:8; gbr'.
‘giant’, ‘hero’, in Job 9:9 and 38:31; and
‘their hosts’ in Isa 13:10.
Several medieval Jewish scholars
(Saadya, Ibn Janáh, Ibn Bal'am, and Bar
Hiyya) identify Késil with Canopus (al-
suhayl, the second brightest star (after
Sirius) in the sky; Ibn Ezra, on the other
hand, takes it to be Antares ('the heart of
Scorpio’). However, with the exception of
DALMAN (who accepts the equation késil =
al suhayl but takes the latter to be Sirius,
DALMAN 1928), modem opinion is virtually
unanimous in identifying késil with Orion.
Orion and the Pleiades are mentioned
together in a number of Mesopotamian texts
(SL IV/2 nos. 279 IV B12, 348 III B4; CAD
Z, s.v. zappu), as well as in Homer (Ziad
18:486-489; Odyssey 5:272-274) and Hesiod
(Works and Days 615, 619). In Mesopot-
amian religion, stars are considered cither
gods or symbols of gods (-*constellations,
—God, —*Stars). GASTER (1961) has claimed
a connection between the Uganitic story of
Aghat and the myth of Orion, arguing that
both are seasonal myths of the ‘disappearing
god’ type, tied to astral phenomena. Despite
the impressive amount of comparative ma-
terial he adduces from Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Greece, and elsewhere, his attempt at a syn-
thesis of the data remains, at best, highly
conjectural.
648
OSIRIS
IH. A plausible case can be made for the
view that the Hebrews saw in késfl a con-
stellation representing a giant or hero. The
translation of késtl in the Tg and Peshitta by
words (népila’, gabbara) having these
meanings (cf. Gen 6:4, where the népilim
are explicitly called ‘primeval heroes’) as
well as the Akkadian name of the constel-
lation, Sitaddalu, ‘the broad man, giant’ (SL
JV/2 nos. 348 I, 393), point in this direction.
So, too, the Arabic name for Orion is al-
jabbér, ‘the giant’, though this apparently
reflects Greek influence (HESS 1932:97). In
Greek mythology, Orion was seen as a
figure of gigantic stature (Odyssey 11:309-
310, 572). For traditions identifying Orion
with --Nimrod see K. PREISENDANZ, PW 17
[1936] 625.
The claim that behind the reference to
késil at Job 38:31 lurks some ancient myth
of “a giant who, confiding foolishly in his
strength, and defying the Almighty, was,
as a punishment for his arrogance, bound for
ever in the sky” (DRIVER & GRAY 1921:86)
is less secure. This claim is based in part on
etymological considerations. Thus it is
argued (DHORME 1967:132; GASTER 1961:
32, 328) that the Hebrew root KSL, ‘to be
thick, stout’, develops the sense of ‘to be
coarse, clumsy’, leading to such meanings
for késil as ‘impious rogue’ on the one hand
and ‘oaf’, ‘gawk’ on the other; development
of the same root in a different direction
leads to kesel, kisla@, ‘confidence’, whence
‘foolish confidence’. However, the only
meaning for the common noun këst! actually
attested in the OT is ‘fool’, ‘stupid one’, the
sense of ‘impious’, ‘rogue’ being reserved
for such partial synonyms as nábál and lés
(Prov 1:22; 17:21; 19:29). The notion of the
‘binding’ of késil is founded largely on the
translation “Canst thou ... loose the bands
of Orion?” (KJV) of Job 38:31. Unfortunate-
ly, the word médXékét translated ‘bands’ (or
“bonds’), is a hapax legomenon, whose
exact nuance remains elusive; and equally
acceptable translations (JPSV: “Can you ...
undo the reins of Orion?” NEB: “Can you
s. loose Orion's belt?") avoid any reference
to bonds or fetters. On balance, the judge-
ment (DRIVER & GRAY 1921:334) that “with
the ambiguity of the nouns ... and our
imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew mythol-
ogy or stories of the constellations, it is
impossible to get beyond very uncertain
conjectures as to the exact meaning or the
exact nature of any of the myths which may
be alluded to” remains as valid today as
when it was first stated.
The Talmud (b. Ber. 58b) records a tra-
dition that should a comet pass through
kisla’, the world would be destroyed. It also
connects késíl with heat (and kimd with
cold): "Were it not for the heat of késil, the
world could not endure the cold of kímá;
were it not for the cold of kimá, the world
could not endure the heat of késil,”
IV. Bibliography
G. DALMAN, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina I
(Gütersloh 1923) 39, 485-501; E. DHORME,
A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nash-
ville 1967); G. R. Driver, Two Astro-
nomical Passages in the Old Testament, JTS
N.S. 7 (1956) 1-11; S. R. Driver & G. B.
Gray, The Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh
1921); T. H. GasrER, Thespis (New York
19612) 320-329; J. J. Hess, Die Sternbilder
in Hiob 99 und 383, f., Festschrift Georg
Jacob (ed. T. Menzel; Leipzig 1932) 94-99;
S. MowINCKEL, Die Sternnamen im Alten
Testament (Oslo 1928) z NorTT 29 (1928)
5-75, esp. 36-45; G. SCHIAPARELLI, Astron-
omy in the Old Testament (Oxford 1905) 60-
61; N. H. Tur-Sunal, The Book of Job
(Jerusalem 1967) 159-161, 531.
L. ZALCMAN
OSIRIS *TON
I. Osiris is a prominent Egyptian god.
P. DE LAGARDE (Symmicta [Göttingen 1877]
105) proposed to replace ’assir, ‘prisoner’,
in Isa 10:4 by "ósftr. He tbus obtained a
reading similar to the Phoenician and Aram-
aic renderings of the name of the Egyptian
god Osiris. Another reflection of the cult of
Osiris might be found in the personal name
YOR, if indeed it stands for Osiris (Exod
6:24; 1 Chr 6:7.8.22; NorH, IPN 63 n. 2).
H. Osins’ anthropomorphic body is
649
OSIRIS
—————
always represented wrapped up like a
mummy or a statue (except for the head). As
a statue, he is usually depicted wearing a
specific crown, a crook and a ‘whip’. These
attributes symbolize his kingship, first on
earth and later on in the realm of the dead.
The meaning of the deity’s name, Usir, is
uncertain; Osiris is the Greek rendering.
“Foremost of the Westerners (= the de-
ceased)" is prominent among his epithets. It
was the name of the god of Abydos in
Upper Egypt originally. Osiris’ cult spread
from Busins in the Delta to the South
during the Old Kingdom. Abydos became
his main cult centre, and he took over his
local predecessor’s designation. Myths
inform us that the earthly sovereign was
murdered by his brother and rival —Seth.
The latter disposed of his victim by means
of the river —Nile. But -*Isis, the widow
and sister, went in search of the body and
recovered it. Her husband fathered Horus
on her posthumously, and was brought back
to (complete) life. Later on Horus saw jus-
tice done to Osiris, who became ruler of the
—dead and was succeeded by his son on the
throne of Egypt.
The god’s kingly character is very
ancient. His connections with natural phe-
nomena, however, aré in all probability not
more recent. He is identified with various
forms of vegetation (trees and corn), with
the field, with the overflowing of the Nile,
and with the moon. These various aspects
have the idea of rebirth in common. Dying
and revival were reenacted in rites and mys-
tery-plays. In an old dramatic performance,
threshing barley meant killing Osins, and
sowing the fields at the ceremony of "hack-
ing the earth" stood for his burial. Beds
showing the god’s contours were planted
with com seeds; the sprouting realized his
resurrection. Greeks and Romans witnessed
the pouring of water by priests (interpreted
as the “finding of Osiris” recorded in the
myth), and their modelling of a crescent-
shaped image. Both practices were designed
to grant the god new life.
Other rites are not particularly concerned
with vegetation. In the mysteries at Abydos
mock fights took place. Osiris was slain by
Seth and his followers, mourned and carried
to his tomb. But the defeat of his attackers
and his own resuscitation and triumph follo-
wed. Litanies came into vogue too. Priestes-
ses impersonating Isis and her sister
Nephthys had a momentous role in the
songs, lamentations, and hour-watches. AN
of them should bring about the continuation
of the god’s existence.
Osiris’ vicissitudes were essential to the
welfare of the individual Egyptians. They
hoped to return to life as he had done, and
to get a verdict in the judgement of the dead
at which the god presided. Having been
declared “true of voice” (like Osins in his
conflict with Seth), their prospects in the
hereafter were excellent. It was their ideal to
be like him, even to be him. Identification
with the god became a royal privilege in the
course of the Old Kingdom. After that, the
names of deceased private persons began to
be preceded in the same way by “Osiris”.
The dead had not only Osiris as their
prototype. —Re, the sun going down and
rising again, was also a great example worth
following for everybody wishing to continue
his life. Efforts to bring together the two
otherwise quite dissimilar deities started in
the Old Kingdom. The culmination point
was reached with the tendency to syncretize
them. Another—late—fusion was that of
Osiris and the sacred bull >Apis: Osorapis.
Ptolemy J introduced the general worship of
this god, called now Sarapis. Isis was made
his wife, and both reached an immense
popularity throughout the Greek and Roman
empires.
IIX. According to the emendation by DE
LAGARDE (Symmicta [Gottingen 1877] 105),
accepted by way of a proposal in the appar-
atus criticus of the BHS, Isa 10:4 should be
rendered “Belti is writhing, Osiris is in
panic" (Beltf kéra‘at hat ’Osfr; DE LAGARDE
translated "Belthis is sinking, Osiris has
been broken”). Though none of the versions
supports the emendation, it is not impossible
orthographically. Yet it does not fit the con-
text well (as already shown by K. BUDDE,
Zu Jesaja 1-5, ZAW 50 [1932] 38-72, esp
650
OSIRIS
69-70). Assuming that v 4 takes up the rhe-
torical question of v 3 (“To whom will you
flee for help, and where will you leave your
wealth?"), Belti and Osiris cither are or
stand for the powers from which help is
expected. Since the pairing of these deities
is unusual, also if Belti should stand for
-*Hathor, and there is hardly a trace of their
cult elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, a literal
interpretation of the emended verse is not
really possible. To say that the hypothetical
Belti stands here for -*Isis is at odds with
the identifications current at the time (pace
e.g. K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja [Tübingen
1900] 100; B. Dum, Das Buch Jesaja
[Góttingen 1968, 5th ed.] 97). A symbolical
interpretation cannot be ruled out, however:
Belti could stand for Assyria, and Osiris for
Egypt. Yet this interpretation also, though
possible, is unlikely: the customary symbols
for Assyria and Egypt would be -*Assur and
-Rahab, respectively. The reading of the
MT as it stands makes better sense: "(they
have no option) but to crouch among the
prisoners of war, or fall among the slain".
The parallel use of tahat is a serious ar-
gument not to split the first AAN into N and
iii. DE LAGARDE'Ss proposal, then, is on the
whole more ingenious than convincing (for
a fuller discussion see H. WILDBERGER,
Jesaja, Vol. 1 [BKAT X/I; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1972] 179-180).
The possible reference to fertility gardens
(so-called ‘beds’ of -*Adonis) in Isa 17:10-
|l! can only indirectly be connected with
Osiris.
IV. Bibliography
H. BONNET, Osiris, RARG 568-576, ef.
entries p. 567-568. 576-577; J. CERNY,
Ancient Egyptian Religion (London 1952)
157; J. G. GrirFitus, The Origins of Osiris
and his Cult (Leiden 1980); GRIFFITHS,
Osiris, LdÀ 1V (1981) 623-633; E.
HoRNUNG, Der Eine und die Vielen (Darm-
stadt 1971) 277.
M. HEERMA VAN Voss
OURANOS -> HEAVEN; VARUNA
651
PAHAD LAYLAH ~ TERROR OF THE
NIGHT
PANTOKRATOR ~> ALMIGHTY
PARACLETE [lapáxAntog
I. Paraclete occurs in the Gospel of
John as a name, or an epithet of the -Holy
Spirit, and in | John as a title of Jesus
Christ. Parakletos is a verbal adjective of
parakaleo. In common Greek usage it
means ‘called to one’s aid’, ‘summoned’,
and as a substantive ‘legal assistant, advoca-
te’, or, in a more general sense, ‘interces-
sor’. The reference is nearly almost to
human persons, not to divine beings.
IIl. In John 14-16 the name Paraclete
occurs four times (14:16-17, 26; 15:26;
16:7-14). In 14:6 Jesus announces the
coming of ‘another Paraclete’; this suggests
that this title also applies to Jesus himself
but this is not supported elsewhere in John.
The Paraclete is identified as ‘the spirit of
truth’ (14:17; 15:26; 16:13) and as ‘the holy
spirit’ (14:26), phrases not used elsewhere in
John (except 20:22).
The activity of the Paraclete is twofold:
(a) with regard to the disciples, and (b) with
regard to the world. (a) The Paraclete will
always be with, even within, the disciples
and will teach them and remind them of
Jesus’ teaching (14:17). He will guide them
‘in all truth’ (16:13), the truth being Jesus
himself (14:6). He will bear witness about
Jesus to the disciples (15:26) and glorify
him and make known to the disciples what
he has received from him (16:14). His pre-
sence and activity are a continuation of
Jesus’ own presence and activity. (b) With
regard to the world the activity of the Para-
clete is that of a counsellor for the defence,
viz. the defence of Jesus, in a lawsuit
between Jesus and ‘the world’, i.e. the col-
lective human and superhuman powers
against God. The Paraclete will prove the
world wrong about sin, righteousness and
judgment. God proves Jesus right by raising
him from the dead and exalting him; this
means that not believing in him is sin. This
means also that ‘the ruler of the world’
(12:31; 14:30) stands condemned.
No single translation of Paraclete covers
both areas of activity: (a) suggests to under-
stand it as the equivalent of the participle
parakalon, and expressing the relevant
shades of meaning of that verb (cf. BAGD
617 s.v.), such as ‘comforter’, ‘exhorter’; (b)
rather suggests a judicial meaning, such as
‘advocate’, ‘counsellor’.
The Paraclete will be sent by the Father
at the request of, or in the name of, Jesus
(14:16,26). In 15:26 it is Jesus himself who
will send him but at the same time the Para-
clete is defined as ‘issuing from the Father’.
His coming to the disciples depends on
Jesus’ prior departure to the Father (16:7, cf.
7:39).
To sum up, the Paraclete acts as the alter
ego of the glorified Christ without being
identical with him.
HI. The Paraclete is introduced as a
name or being familiar to the readers of the
gospel but the concept is not rooted in the
biblical tradition. Hence various hypotheses
concerning its origin have been presented,
e.g. the Mandaean figure of the ‘helper’
(BULTMANN 1968:437-440), or the archan-
gel Michael in Qumran texts (BETZ
1963:56-72), but none has been able to
account for the varying aspects of the Para-
clete’s activities, nor to explain his name.
IV. The use of Paraclete in ] John 2:1 is
different from that in John. Here the Para-
clete acts as an intercessor for the believers
before God and refers explicitly to Jesus
Christ, the righteous one who is atonement
652
PATROKLOS
for their sins and the sins of the whole
world. The same idea, without mentioning
the Paraclete, is found in Rom 8:34; Hebr
7:25; 9:24. 1 John 2:1 appears to be an
explicitation of the implicit reference to
Jesus as a Paraclete in John 14:16 in terms
of the idea of Christ’s intercession before
God.
V. Bibliography
J. ASHTON, Paraclete, ABD 5 (1992) 152-
154; J. BEHM, napaKAntoc, TWNT 5 (1954)
798-812; O. Betz, Der Paraklet (Leiden
1963); R. E. Brown, The Gospel Accor-
ding to John (AB; Garden City 1970) 1135-
1144; R. BULTMANN, Das Johannesevange-
lium (KEK; Gottingen 1968) 437-440; G.
JOHNSTON, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gos-
pel of John (Cambridge 1970); R. ScuNAC-
KENBURG, Das Johannesevangelium — III
(HTKNT; Freiburg 1975) 156-173; H. WiN-
DISCH, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth
Gospel (Philadelphia 1968).
J. REILING
PATROKLOS T[lIá:poxAog
I. The name of Patroklos, the close com-
panion of Achilles in the Trojan War, is given
to the father of Nikanor, the high-ranking
Greek commander of a force of 20,000 men
with instructions to put down the revolt of
Judas Maccabaeus (2 Macc 8:12).
Il. From the perspective of Trojan War
mythology, Patroklos would appear to be a
figure developed by Homer in his Jiad to
anticipate the death of Achilles’ close friend
Antilochos and Achilles’ own death—a later
part of the story of Troy which Homer does
not himself tell. If this is so, it would
explain the lack of mythological depth sur-
rounding Patroklos himself, whether he was
invented by Homer (VON SCHELIHA 1943:
39] [& lit}; SCHADEWALDT 1944:178-81),
or simply brought from obscurity to play a
fuller role (KULLMANN 1960:44-45.193-
194)—his slaughter of the Paionian leader
Pyraichmes could be a traditional combat
for a real Thessalian -*hero (/liad 16:287,
cf. RonBERT 1920:83).
Patroklos was brought when still a child
to the house of Achilles’ father Peleus by
his own father Menoitios: he had accidental-
ly killed a playmate—or so his ghost tells
Achilles (/liad 23:85-8). Patroklos and
Achilles, raised together by Peleus, are in-
separable friends in the /liad and become,
through the influence of this poem, a
byword for friendship—even if Greeks
themselves were uncertain whether to detect
a sexual element (DOWDEN 1992:157). In-
deed the plot of the /liad shows an Achilles
who, alienated by the Greek leader Aga-
memnon, can only be motivated to return to
the fight against the Trojans by the bitter
emotional need to avenge the death of the
friend that had taken his place.
ILI. The name Patroklos (variant Patrokles)
is a perfectly good Greek name, irrespective
of its heroic associations: he who perpetu-
ates the ‘fame’ (KAéoc) of his ‘fathers’
(natépec). “So lässt sich nicht beweisen,
dass die IlatpoxAng und IlátpokAog guter
Zeit nur in Hinblick auf den Freund Achills
benannt scien" (Ficur-BEcurgL 1894:307).
It is, however, not common: Patroklos is
absent from FRASER & MatTTHews, and
PaPE-BENSELER list only one instance (in
addition to an elephant so named); Patrokles
is modestly popular, though not many are
attested after the second century BCE.
IV. Bibliography
K. Downen, The Uses of Greek Mythology
(London 1992); A. Fick & F. BECHTEL,
Die Griechischen Personennamen nach
ihrer Bildung erklärt und systematisch
geordnet (2nd ed.; Göttingen 1894); P. M.
FRASER & E. MarTHEWS (eds.), A Lexicon
of Greek Personal Names, vol. I: The Acg-
ean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica (Oxford
1987); W. KULLMANN, Die Quellen der
Ilias (Hermes Einzelschrift 14; Wiesbaden
1960); W. Pape, revised by G.E.
BENSELER, Wörterbuch der griechischen
Eigennamen (Braunschweig 1884); C.
RosERT, Die griechische Heldensage (4th
ed.; Berlin 1920); W. ScHADEWALDT, Von
Homers Welt und Werk (2nd ed.; Stuttgart
1951); R. vON SCHELIHA, Patroklos (Basel
1943).
K. DowDEN
653
PEOPLE —PERSEUS
PEOPLE ^ AM
PERSEUS [Iepoeús
I. Perseus, the name of the slayer of the
Gorgon Medousa and the rescuer of Andro-
meda, is also the name of the elder son and
heir of Philip V of Macedon (ruled 179-168
BCE). His defeat by the Romans at Pydna,
which ended the Third Macedonian War
(171-68 BCE), is referred to at | Macc 8:5
("Perseus king of the Kittieis").
II. The more memorable stories of Per-
seus are woven into a single narrative of
birth by —Zeus to Danaé (despite her im-
prisonment), of being cast adrift in a chest
(Aápva&) with his mother, of conflict at ado-
lescence with a hostile king (Akrisios), of
the gaining of the flying horse Pegasos and
of overpowering the three hags (Graiai) to
obtain directions, of slaying the Gorgon
Medousa with the help of —Athena, of
wreaking vengeance on his enemies, de-
feating a sea-monster, and winning as his
bride Andromeda. Special equipment, too,
characterises his story—not just the horse,
but the scimitar (prn), wallet (xiProtc),
winged sandals and a Greek Tamhelm
(CAi8og xuvi). This tale has an international
flavour: Danaé starts in Argos, the chest
lands in Seriphos, scenes with the Graiai
and Medousa play in the distant West, and
Andromeda in the Near East (see below).
Another feat, however, is closer to home: he
chases: Dionysos into the swamp of Lema
(killing him, for it was an entrance to the
Underworld) and Pausanias (2, 20, 4) knew
the tomb of Choreia (‘Dance’), one of many
maenads killed by Perseus, in the agora at
Argos. But Mycenae appears to be his real
home: legend has him take on the kingship
of Tiryns and Mycenae in lieu of Argos; the
name ‘Mycenae’ is allegedly derived from
his scabbard (púxrns) and his only significant
cult-site, other than at Seriphos and, oddly,
Athens (Pausanias 2, 18, 1), was near
Mycenae—as well as a spring Persea which
may now have been found (JAMESON 1990:
213-5).
The Perseus mythology has proved both
attractive and susceptible of greatly varying
approaches. It can be seen as a part of
Greek mythology especially close to folk-
tale (cf. Kirk 1970:41; 1974:149), or as a
sequence of Freudian codes concerning the
boy, his absent father, present mother, im-
potence and sexuality (SLATER 1968:31-
32.313). The slaying of the Gorgon was
once viewed as an obvious nature myth
(with Medousa as Mother Earth and Pegasos
the primal horse, RoBERT 1920:222-227) but
recently attention has switched to masked
dances and initiation of boys into puberty
(JAMESON 1990). There does, however,
seem to be some possibility of bringing
together a psycho-sexual interpretation with
one focussing on the rituals marking the
progress of boys towards adulthood.
The story of Perseus is particularly con-
nected with the Near East (BURKERT 1984:
82-83; FONTENROSE 1959). His rescue of
Andromeda takes place in “Aithiopia”
(Apollodoros 2, 4, 3), or more specifically at
Joppa (Jaffa), and his name, coincidentally
similar to that of the ‘Persians’, is made to
account for them: Perses, son of Perseus and
Andromeda, is the eponymous ancestor of
the Persian kings (Herodotos 7, 61, 3. 150,
2; Apollodoros 2, 4, 5).
III. Perseus (or its variant Perses) is not a
common Greek name, though the name is
borne by (1) a painter of the school of
Apelles around 300 BCE; (2) a 2nd century
BCE mathematician (both: PW s.v.); and (3)
more relevantly, a Macedonian general ac-
tive in 211 BCE (WALBANK 1940:86)—
around the time the king was born. The
choice by Philip V of this name for his first
son may be significant, like the naming of a
town Perseis in his honour in 183 BCE (Livy
39, 53, 16). The name has a heroic ring to it
(nép80, ‘sack’ cities, like Odysseus ntoAi-
mop8os), but in the context of the Macedon-
ian ruling dynasty is more likely to recall
Alexander’s almost mythic defeat of the
Persians, which made him a world-ruler in
the imagination of posterity. The name ‘Per-
seus’ achieves this through the mythology,
which asserts by genealogy Greek primacy
over the Persian race—in the words which
Herodotos (7, 150, 2) attributes to Xerxes,
654
PHOEBUS — PHOENIX
“In this way we would then be your
offspring”. “In short, Perseus became the
hero of integration between East and West"
and even, as a result, appeared on the coins
of various cities of Asia Minor in the wake
of Alexander's conquest (LANE Fox 1973:
201).
IV. Bibliography
W. Burkert, Die orientalisierende Epoche
in der griechischen Religion und Literatur
(Heidelberg 1984) 82-84; K. DowDEN, The
Uses of Greek Mythology (London 1992)
142-144; J. FoNTENROSE, Python: A Study
of Delphic Myth and its Origins (Berkeley,
Los Angeles & London 1959) ch. xi; M. H.
JAMESON, Perseus, the Hero of Mykenai,
Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the
Bronze Age Argolid (ed. R. Hiigg & G. C.
Nordquist; Stockholm 1990) 213-222 [&
lit]; G. S. Kirx, Myth, Its Meanings and
Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures
(Cambridge 1970); Kirk, The Nature of
Greek Myths (Harmondsworth 1974); R.
LANE Fox, Alexander the Great (London
1973) 200-201; C. RoBERT, Die griechische
Heldensage (4th ed.; Berlin 1920); F. W.
WALBANK, Philip V of Macedon (Cam-
bridge 1940): P. E. SLATER, The Glory of
Hera: Greek Mythology and the Greek
Family (Boston 1968).
K. DowDEN
PHOEBUS ~ APOLLO
PHOENIX Doing n
I. The phoenix is a Greek mythical bird
which under this name is not found in the
Greek Bible (the name of the city Phoenix,
Acts 27:12, has nothing to do with this bird;
it may derive from a grove of date palms,
phoenices [BILLIGMEIER 1977:2-3]}), but
according to early rabbis and several
modem scholars it is referred to in the MT
of Job 29:18 under the name /iól.
II. The origin and early development of
the classical Phoenix myth is almost com-
pletely unknown. Most probably, its origin
lies in the widespread oriental idea of the
bird of the sun (-Shemesh, -*Helios),
which seems to have entered the Greek
world from Phoenicia. In Linear B texts the
word po-ni-ke, 6oivi5, seems to have indi-
cated the griffin; it most probably means
‘the Phoenician bird’ (this derivation seems
far more likely than that from the Eg benu,
‘heron’, supposedly pronounced as boin or
boine) The homonymy of the phoenix’ name
and the word for palm (Gk phoinix, Lat
phoenix), led several Latin authors to as-
sume a relationship between bird and tree
(Lactantius, De ave phoen., 69-70; Isidore of
Sevilla, Erymol., XVII.7:1). Tertullian, De
resurr. mort., XIIE3, read in Ps 91:13
[LXX]: "The righteous shall flourish like the
phoenix" (also in Pseudo-Ambrose, De trin.,
34 [PL 17, 545A]; On the Origin of the
World, NHC || 122:28-29; Byzantine
Physiologus, 10).
In Greek literature, the phoenix first
occurs in Hesiod, frg. 304 (Merkelbach-
West = Plutarch, De def. orac. 11 [415c]).
who puts its lifespan at 972 generations.
Later reports on the phoenix' age vary con-
siderably, though thc opinion that it lived
500 years was most widely accepted, as was
already observed by Tacitus, Ann. VI:28.
From the beginning the phoenix myth im-
plied the bird's long life, renewing itself
according to a fixed cycle (which made it a
popular symbol of the beginning of a new
era), and its close association with the sun.
The various stories on the phoenix, as we
know them from Greek and Latin authors,
must have developed on Greek soil; there is
no evidence of similar traditions in the
Egyptian or Semitic world.
With only a few exceptions, the many
references to the phoenix in Classical and
early Christian literature can be reduced to
one of two main versions. According to the
less common version, the phoenix dies on
its nest of aromatic herbs, and decomposes;
from its decaying body the new phoenix is
generated, usually starting as a worm. The
young bird carries the remains of its pre-
decessor to Heliopolis in Egypt and puts
them on the altar of the sun. The first author
to tell this story of the phoenix’ rejuvenation
is Manilius (1st cent. cE; in Pliny, Hist. Nat.
655
PHOENIX
X:4), who, however, locates the altar of the
sun in Panchaia, not in Heliopolis. This
version of the rebirth of the phoenix might
already have been presupposed by Hero-
dotus (Hist. 11:73), who only speaks of the
bird's external appearance, the flight to
Egypt and the events that happened there.
According to the other, more widespread
version, the old phoenix burns itself on its
nest of aromatic herbs, which event is often
said to take place on the altar of the sun at
Heliopolis; from its ashes the new phoenix
arises. This version is first mentioned by
Latin authors of the Ist cent. CE, without
any doubt by Martial, Epigram. V.7:1-4, and
Statius, Silvae, 1I.4:33-37; III.2:114. Their
short references to the bird's cremation
prove that this version was already so gener-
ally known that an allusion to it could
suffice, We may assume that both main
versions had been in existence long before
their first attestation in the 1st cent. CE, but
there is no evidence to prove that with any
certainty. It is this state of affairs which
gives the exegesis of Job 29:18 a broader
interest than the correct explanation of this
biblical text only; if the phoenix is really
mentioned there it would be the first text to
attest the bird's cremation.
III. Job 29:18 literally reads: "1 shall die
with my nest (ginni) and I shall multiply my
days like the hôľ”. Wherever the word hôl
occurs in the OT it means ‘sand’. Used as
an image, it indicates a large quantity and so
it seems appropriate to suggest here the idea
of a long life: “I shall multiply my days like
sand”. It was taken in this sense by the Tar-
gum on Job and the Syriac version and by
several modem commentators. On the basis
of the reading of the LXX (Aósper stelechos
phoinikos) and Vg (sicut palma), other
scholars emendated kahél into kannahal
“like the palm tree” (see DE WILDE 1981:
289-291). Taken in itself, the second part of
the verse does not seem to contain any ref-
erence to a bird whatsoever. As a matter of
fact, the only word which suggests that Job
29:18 might deal with a bird is the word
qën, ‘nest’ in the first part of the verse. The
parallelismus membrorum suggests that both
parts of the text express the expectation of a
long life. However, this idea is not immedi-
ately visible in the first part of the verse.
The words “die with my nest” evoke the
idea of a bird that perishes together with its
nest, but they do not say anything about a
long life. Therefore, several commentators
interpreted the word ‘nest’ as meaning
‘children, posterity’ (cf. Deut 32:11; Isa 16:
2) "I shall die with my children" would
then express the expectation of a long life.
Other scholars, led by the reading of thc
LXX (he helikia mou gérasei), emendated
qny, ‘my nest’ into zqny, ‘my old age’.
However, some commentators of Job 29:
18 are convinced that the word hôl in this
particular context indicates a bird (“where
there's nest, there must be a bird!”, Da-
HOOD 1974:86) and refers to the phoenix. It
has been argued that this kôl/phoenix al-
ready occurs in Ugaritic texts (DAHOOD). In
that interpretation, the words “l shall die
with my nest” presuppose the cremation
version of the phoenix myth. But the simple
fact remains that this version is not attested
before the first century of our era and that it
is only known from the Graeco-Roman
world. Therefore, the interpretation by DE
WiLDe (1981) and others who translate
‘palm’, is more favourable. Besides, DE
WILDE (1981:290) recalls the fact, that Job
certainly did not belief in immortality. The
hellenistic Jewish writer Ezekiel the Tra-
gedian, who most probably lived in Alexan-
dria in the 2nd cent. BCE, is the first Jew
known to have introduced the phoenix into
his work. In his Exagoge. 254-269 (pre-
served in Euscbius, Praep. Evang. 1X.29:16;
ed. H. Jacobson [Cambridge 1983] 66-67),
he described the external appearance of the
bird and its manifestation to Israel in the
desert, but without mentioning its name nor
saying anything about its death. It is in the
Midrash on Genesis (Bereshit Rabbah, XIX,
5) that the kôl of Job 29:18 was identified
with the classical phoenix for the first time.
From Gen 3:6 (‘she also gave her husband’)
it is derived that Eve had offered the for-
bidden fruit to all the animals too. Only the
bird #61 refused to eat it, "as it is written:
656
, PLEIADES
“Then I said: 1 shall die with my nest and I
shall multiply my days as the hdl”. The
text continues by saying that there was a
difference concerning its death between the
School of R. Jannai and that of R. Judan ben
R. Simeon. R. Jannai (ca. 225 ce) holds that
the bird was burned with its nest after a
1000 years, R. Judan (ca. 320 CE) that its
body decomposed and its wings dropped
off. In both cases only an egg was left, from
which the /iól came to new life again. These
two traditions reflect so clearly the two main
versions of the classical myth of the phoenix
(which, again, are unknown from Semitic or
Egyptian sources) that there cannot be any
doubt that the rabbis, like many modem
commentators, concluded from the difficult
word ‘nest’ in Job 29:18 and the longevity
mentioned there that the phoenix was meant
by the word hôl (according to KIMCHI,
Sefer-ha-Shorashim, s.v. hwl, the rabbis at
Nehardea pronounced the name as chiil). It
is rather hazardous to assume that the identi-
fication of the Graeco-Roman phoenix with
the /ió] of Job 29:18, as made by rabbis of
the 3rd and 4th cent. CE, was already known
to the author of Job, who is usually thought
to have lived between the Sth and 3rd cent.
BCE. We need not assume that the rabbis
came to their exegesis under the influence of
the LXX reading and the double meaning of
the Gk phoinix, nor that the reading of the
LXX developed out of an original reading
phoinix, meaning the bird.
In some Jewish texts the phoenix func-
tions as an escort of the sun on its daily
journey along the vault of heaven. Accor-
ding to the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (Hi
Baruch), 6-8 (ed. J.-C. Picarp [Leiden
1970]), the bird’s wide-spread wings protect
life on earth from being scorched to death
by the sun’s rays. Here, a related Jewish tra-
dition on the bird ziz (identified with the
hawk of Job 39:26 and with several other
birds) has been transposed to the Greek
phoenix (cf. Baba Bathra, 25a; Gittin, 31b).
According to the short recension of the
Slavonic Enoch (l1 Enoch), 8 (ed. A. VAIL-
LANT [Paris 1952] 21), Enoch sees seven
phoenixes in the sixth heaven. In the long
recension of chapter 6 (ed. VAILLANT, 91-
93), the phoenix and another bird, called
chalkedri, draw the chariot of the sun and
convey dew and heat to the earth. There is a
very complicated interrelationship between
the traditions of /// Baruch, I] Enoch, and
several Byzantine texts which assign the
same functions to the griffin (VAN DEN
BROEK 1972:261-304).
IV. Bibliography
J.-C. BiLLIGMEIER, Origin of the Greek
Word Phoinix, TAAANTA: Proceedings of
the Dutch Archaeological and Historical
Society 8-9 (1977) 1-4; R. VAN DEN BROEK,
The Myth of the Phoenix according to Clas-
sical and Early Christian Traditions (EPRO
24; Leiden 1972); M. Datioon, Nest and
Phoenix in Job 29,18, Bib 48 (1967) 542-
544; DAnooD, Hól 'Phoenix' in Job 29:18
and in Ugaritic, CBQ 36 (1974) 85-88; J.
Husaux & M. Leroy, Le mythe du phénix
dans les littératures grecque et latine
(Liége/Paris 1939); A. RuscH, Phoinix, PW
20/1 (1941) 414-423; A. TAMMISTO, PHOE-
NIX.FELIX.ET.TU: Remarks on the Rep-
resentation of the Phoenix in Roman Art,
Arctos. Acta philologica fennica 20 (1986)
171-225; A. pe Witpe, Das Buch Hiob
(OTS 22; Leiden 1981) 281, 289-291.
R. VAN DEN BROEK
PLEIADES mY?
I. The Hebrew noun rZ, vocalized
kimá, is the name of a -*constellation or
individual -*star mentioned threc times in
the OT (Amos 5:8; Job 9:9; 38:31), in each
instance in connection with késil (-*Orion).
It is usually identified with the Pleiades, al-
though the evidence of the ancient versions
is highly equivocal. This identification is
confirmed by Geez, Tigre kema = Pleiades
and by the appearance (LAMBERT 1984:396-
397) of ka-ma-ti in a lexical list at Ebla as
the equivalent of Sumerian mul-mul, ‘Plei-
ades’, lit. ‘the stars’ (SL IV/2 no, 279;
Honowirz f.c., chap. 7 table 1). The etymol-
ogies proposed relate kîmâ to Ar kûm, ‘herd
(of camels)', and Kümah, ‘heap’, and to Akk
kimtu, kīmu, ‘family’. Thus the basic sense
657
PLEIADES
is that of group or aggregate. A fanciful ety-
mology proposed in the Talmud (b. Ber.
58b) suggests that the constellation is called
kimd because it consists of ‘about a hun-
dred’ (Aram kim’) stars.
The mention of kimé in Amos has some-
times been taken as a veiled polemic against
astral worship. Tur-SINAI (1967) sees in all
three biblical passages an echo of an ancient
myth concerning a rebellion of primeval
heroes against God.
II. The Pleiades and Orion are men-
tioned together in both Homer (/liad 18:
486-489; Odyssey 5:272-4) and Hesiod
(Works and Days 615, 619), as well as in a
number of Mesopotamian texts (SL 1V/2
nos. 279 IV B12, 348 III B4; CAD Z, s.v.
zappu).
III. The passages in the OT in which
kimá (and késfI) appear all describe the tre-
mendous power of God as Lord of Nature.
Generally, they have been taken to refer to
the regular progression of the seasons; but
they have also been interpreted as an im-
plicit polemic against the worship of
heavenly bodies, which are themselves cre-
ations of the Deity, lacking any divine
status. Tur-Sinar (1967) argues that kimd
and késil were primeval heroes in some
lost legend who, having rebelled against
divine authority, were subdued, chained, and
installed in the sky as constellations. So far
as kfind is concerned, the only evidence for
this is the difficult first colon of Job 38:31,
which may be translated “Have you bound
the chains of kima?” Since other translations
are equally possible (JPSV: "Can you tie
cords to Pleiades?” NEB: “Can you bind the
cluster of the Pleiades?"), this is too slender
a thread from which to hang such a theory,
which must be judged as purely speculative.
For the 'sweet influences of Pleiades' of the
KJV, see Driver & Gray 1921:306-307.
The ancient versions show no consistency
in their translations of kfmd. In Amos 5:8
the LXX does not recognize the names of
astronomical bodies; Symmachus and Theo-
dotion translate ‘Pleiades’ and ‘Pleiad’ (the
singular form), respectively; and Aquila and
the Vg give. ‘Arcturus’. In Job 9:9 the LXX
translates ‘Arcturus’ (or, though this re-
quires reordering the text, ‘Pleiad’) and the
Vg 'Hyades'. In Job 38:31 the LXX and
Symmachus translate 'Pleiad' and the Vg
‘Pleiades’. Cognate forms are used to trans-
late kimd in the Tg (kymh, kym’, kymr) and
the Peshitta (kym’).
Among medieval Jewish scholars,
opinions as to the proper identification of
kîmâ varied. Saadya translates it as al-
turayyd, ‘the Pleiades’, while Ibn Janâh
gives the same translation in his Kitâb al-
Uşûl but translates al-fargaddn (= the stars
B, y in Ursa Minor) in the Kitáb al-Luma'.
In his biblical commentaries, Ibn Ezra cites
the ‘opinion of the ancients’ that Kímá —
Pleiades but rejects it in favour of Aldebaran
(‘the left eye of Taurus’); however, in Kei
hanNélióset, his treatise on the astrolabe, he
identifies kfmá with Capella. Identifications
proposed over the past century and a half
include Scorpio, Sirius, Canis Major, and
Draco. However, the balance of evidence
strongly favours the identity kimd = Pleiades
(MowINCKEL 1928:45-51); and the remark-
able persistence of this equation from
ancient Ebla to contemporary Ethiopia
renders this identification virtually certain.
In the Talmud, kimd is mentioned in con-
nection with the Deluge: “[God] took two
stars from kimda and brought a flood on the
world” (b. Ber. 59a, b. RH 11b-12a). It is
also associated with cold (as kěsîl is with
heat): "Were it not for the heat of Késil, the
world could not endure the cold of kímá;
were it not for the cold of kid, the world
could not endure the heat of kesil’ (b. Ber.
58b).
IV. Bibliography
G. DaLMaN, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina 1
(Gütersloh 1928) 39, 485-501; G. R.
DRivER, Two Astronomical Passages in the
Old Testament, JTS N.S. 7 (1956) 1-11; S.
R. Driver & G. B. Gray, The Book of Job
(ICC; Edinburgh 1921); J. J. Hess, Die
Sternbilder in Hiob 99 und 383, f., Fest-
Schrift Georg Jacob (ed. T. Menzel; Leipzig
1932) 94-99; W. Horowr7z, Mesopotamian
Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake f.c.); W.
G. LAMBERT, The Section AN, JI bilin-
658
POLLUX — POSEIDON
guismo a Ebla (ed. L. Cagni; Naples 1984)
393-401; S. MOWINCKEL, Die Sternnamen
im Alten Testament (Oslo 1928) 2 NorTT 29
(1928) 5-75; G. ScHIAPARELLI, Astronomy
in the Old Testament (Oxford 1905) 62-63,
163-167; N. H. Tur-Stnat, The Book of Job
(Jerusalem 1967) 159-161, 531.
L. ZALCMAN
POLLUX ~ DIOSKOUROI
POSEIDON Mooevdav
I. Poseidon, the Greek god of the ->sea,
occurs in the Bible only in the Apocrypha.
as a theophoric name (Poseidonios: 2 Macc
14:19). Numerous dialectal forms occur in
inscriptions, the main division being be-
tween the zoc- and nzot- (western dialects,
Corinth, Crete, Rhodes) forms. The domin-
ant form occurs in a number of Linear B
tablets from Pylos and once at Knossos
(nom. po-se-da-o, also po-si-). But the ‘orig-
inal’ form was probably *IIot(o)etódh-ov.
No etymology so far proposed (a selection
in BURKERT 1985:402 n. 2) is without
serious difficulties: the weakness of the
assumptions that underlie the most common-
ly accepted, (Fick and) P. KRETSCHMER's
“Lord/husband of earth” (Glotta 1 [1909]
27-28), has been exposed by CHADWICK
(1983) among others. The intervocalic aspir-
ate of the ‘original’ form suggests a prehel-
lenic (viz. ‘Pelasgian’) rather than a Greek
Indo-European source (RUUGH 1967), so
that it may well be pointless to look for a
Greek etymology.
II. Throughout the historical period,
Poseidon was overwhelmingly considered a
marine divinity, the god par excellence of
the (eastern) Mediterrancan Sea. This facet
of his personality is dominant from the
Archaic period. Homer describes how, in his
passage across the sea in his chariot, the
creatures of the deep come to the surface
and gambol about him, "and did not ignore
their lord” (/liad 13:20-31). Though he
appears on -*Olympus, his own palace,
golden, eternal, lies beneath the waters off
the coast at Aegae, which in antiquity was
identified with the place of the same name
in the Corinthian Gulf (/l. 13.21; Odyssey
5:381). With his trident he whips up storms
by churning the open sca (Od. 5:291-292)
and wrecks ships on reefs (4:506-507). It is
this aspect which appears in the carliest
iconography, the quantities of late-Corinth-
ian pinakes from the grove of Poscidon
found in 1879 at Pente Skouphia near Acro-
corinth. (A. FURTWANGLER, Beschreibung
der Vasensammlung des Antiquarium |}
(Berlin 1885) nos. 347-540, 787-846; cf. IG
IV. 1, 210-294) and the black-figure vase by
Sophilos in the British Museum depicting
the marriage of Peleus and Thetis (BM
1971.11 - 1.1, 580-570 ncE). Poseidon ap-
pears alone carrying the trident or with
Amphitrite, the nurse of the creatures of the
dcep (Od. 5.421-422; 12.96-97). As the god
of the sea, he is paired, and contrasted, with
his brother -*Zeus, god of Olympus, as on a
black-figure fragment by Kleitias (ca.570
BCE) found at Cyrene (M. B. Moore, The
Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and
Persephone at Cyrene [ed. D. White; Phil-
adelphia 1987] 389, no. 257). In Homer,
Poseidon is represented as the younger
brother obliged to reluctant deference by
Zeus’ superior wisdom (//. 13:351-357), but
this is probably epic local colour: the paint-
ing by Cleanthes of Corinth (6th century BCE)
of the birth of -Athena in the sanctuary of
— Artemis Alpheionia in Elis showed him
bringing a tunny to his brother during the
pains of birth (Athenaeus, Deipn. 8.36:346bc).
Although the Aegean and the Ionian seas
were generally safe between April and Oc-
tober, the variable Etesian winds during high
summer, and the great numbers of local
micro-climates, made sea journeys at best
unpredictable. This uncertainty is reflected
in the very high rates of interest payable on
bottomry loans. Marine Poscidon is lord of
this risk, associated particularly with the
raising of sudden squalls, such as that which
destroyed the Persian fleet off Cape Sepias
in 480 BCE: this was caused by a dawn
North-Eastern wind familiar enough to the
local inhabitants to be given a name, ‘a
Hellespontian', but quite unpredictable to
659
POSEIDON
strangers (Herodotus, Hist. 7.188.2). The
wind was acknowledged as the ultimate
cause, but the Greeks offered libations to
Poseidon sérér as the power that destroyed
the ships. Aside from the famous temples of
Poseidon at Onchestus (cf. SEG 36:434,
436-437; possibly the origin of Poseidón
Helikonios), Helice (cf. Pausanias, Gr.
descr. 7.24.5-6), the Isthmus of Corinth (cf.
Pausanias, 2.1.6-9; SEG 35: 257 [6th cen-
tury BCE]), Sounion, Taenarum (Pausanias,
3.25.4; IG V. 1, 1226-1236), Tenos (JG XII.
5, 812 etc.), and Mykale (Herodotus, 1.148),
there were relatively few institutionalized
cults in the Greek world. The worship of
marine Poseidon was primarily a matter of
votive religion.
In some ways Poseidon is closely asso-
ciated with Pontos, the spirit of the open sea
(Poseidón pelagios, mesopontios, ponto-
médón etc). Since human beings are crea-
tures of the land, Pontos expresses onc
important form of the Other in Greek culture
(DETIENNE 1974:208-215). Whereas the land
is (notionally) stable, the sea is in ceaseless
movement; the land provides food ('barley-
eating mortals’), the sca is ‘sterile’; the land
is criss-crossed by fixed paths, the sea is a
trackless waste. The land, in a word, is pre-
scriptive ‘home’, the sea ‘strange’—only the
magical ships of the Phaeacians can traverse
it without helmsman or stcering-oar (Od. 8:
558-559). This quality of the sea makes it an
ideal place of transformation and marvel, as
in Mikon's painting in the Theseum at
Athens of Theseus diving down to collect
Minos’ ring and surfacing a hero certified by
Amphitrite's gift of a golden wreath (Paus-
anias, 1.17.3) or the tales of dolphins car-
rying persons—Arion, Phalanthos, Enalos
and others—to safety. Poseidon is lord of
this world, and therefore of the ships that
trespass upon it: on their return, the Argo-
nauts dedicated the first ship to Poseidon at
the Isthmus of Corinth (Apollodorus, Bibl.
1.9.27). But his specific form of assistance
is not to guide ship-construction nor aid
navigation nor appear to distressed mariners,
but essentially negative: Poseidon is ‘saver
of ships’ insofar as he neglects to raise
storms at sea (Poseidon asphaleios), cf.
Hom. Hymn. 22:7. As such, he is associated
with mercantile gain (there was an associa-
tion of Poseidoniastai among the Roman
citizens on Delos, in Latin Neptunales: IDé-
los 1751 etc.; cf. Heliodorus, Aethiop. 6.
7.1); with harbour works (cf. the famous
Baliktash at Cyzicus, commemorating the
canals and harbours built at the expense of
Antonia Tryphaena, mother of Rhoemetalces
and Polemon, in 37/38 cE: L. ROBERT, Hel-
lenica 10 [1955] §24); with success in
fishing (Hesiod, Theog. 441-442; Lucian,
Pisc. 47; Pausanias, 10.9.3-4); and with
naval victory (the Greeks dedicated a bronze
colossus of Poseidon at the Isthmus after the
Persian Wars: Herodotus 9.81.1; cf. Tim-
oleon’s dedication after the battle of Krim-
isos in 341 BcE [Corinth 8, 3; no. 23]). In
all these forms of votive religion, it is Posei-
don’s acquiescence in human endeavour that
is emphasized: the disquieting otherness of
the sea is temporarily veiled.
These aspects of Poseidon’s activity self-
evidently cohere: it is the others which have
excited most modern discussion. In the
Homeric poems his most frequent epithets
are évooixy8wv, Yatjoxog, Eévvootyaros,
‘earth-shaking/holding’. They are apparently
unintegrated into the main picture, and point
to a god of earthquakes, or at any rate of the
foundations of the earth. ROBERT (PRELLER
1894) thought that this feature could be
reconciled with the marine divinity by pos-
tulating a folk-representation of the land
encircled by sea, i.e. ‘held’ by it. Such a
notion might explain why Poseidon is also
sO intimately associated with isthmuses, and
why he is a god of fresh water and springs
(Poseidon epilimnios; Aeschylus, Sept. 304-
31H; Pindar, Olymp. 6:58; IG XII. 2, 95 =
SEG 28:690 [Mytilene, 4th century BCEJ;
32:1273 [Phrygia, 2nd-3rd century CE], etc.).
indeed of fertility, Poseidon phytalmios (e.g.
SIG? 1030, Lindos; Zeuxanthios (SEG
42:515, Larissa) cf. Plutarch, Sept. Conv.
5.3.1., 675F). A more radical tack was taken
by vou WILAMOWITZ (1931-32; followed by
Wüsr 1953; WriGHT 1996:353-358), who
sought to show that Poseidon was originally
660
POSEIDON
—
not à marine god at all, but had once been a
high god, later pushed out by —Zeus. The
crucial evidence comes from Arcadia and
indicates that he was a god of the depths of
the earth in the shape of a horse. SCHACHER-
MEYR (1950) picked up this last theory,
urging that Poseidon must have developed
in a creative encounter between Mycenaean
Greeks arriving with the horse, an emblem
of fertility and the underworld, and the pre-
hellenic population, who had a mother-god-
dess. He emphasized esp. Poseidon's cult-
title Hippios (cf. Diod. Sic. 5.69.4;
Pausanias 7.21.8; 8.14.5; Schol. Pindar,
Pyth. 4:246a), cult-myths relating Poseidon
to ^Demeter at Onkion (Thelphusa), Phiga-
leia and Lykosoura, and a myth recounting
how Rhea pretended to Kronos that her baby
Poseidon was a foal, which she gave him to
eat (Pausanias 8.8.2). But at least the asso-
ciation between the Mycenaeans and the
introduction of the horse must be wrong: on
the one hand, the entry of the Indo-Euro-
peans, complete with horse, must be dated
ca. 2000 BCE; on the other, the horse-burial
at Marathon is intrusive (Sub-Mycenaean).
Moreover, the connection between Poseidon
and the horse was also strong in Thessaly
(e.g. Poseidon Impsios, SEG 42:511-514,
Hellenistic), and has no claim to be thought
‘primitive’. Nevertheless PALMER (1983),
basing himself on Kretschmer’s etymology,
has recently argued that there are parallels
between this postulated Mycenaean Posei-
don and the Canaanite divinity —Aliyan,
Lord (of the) Earth, and used the Ugaritic
myth of —Horon and the Mare to suggest
the origin of the Arcadian association
between Poseidon and the Despoinai
(Demeter and Persephone). There are good
general reasons for rejecting this notion;
moreover, it wrongly assumes that the Arca-
dian material is primitive and uncontamina-
ted (cf. BREGLIA-PULCI Doria 1986).
CuHapwick (1985) has emphasized that the
tablets from Pylos provide no information
about the nature of Poseidon there, except
that he had a female counterpart Po-si-da-e-
Ja; Drerric (1965:118-138) had already
shown that there is no need to look beyond
PRETO SEAR NS
the Minoan-Mycenaean world to explain the
complex.
It has seemed to many that what is
needed is a plausible explanation of how
Poseidon’s three main realms relate to one
another. But it remains elusive. NILSSON
(1967), while accepting that Poseidon orig-
inally had the form of a horse, was con-
vinced that he was an Indo-European god of
the waters, salt and fresh, brought with them
by the Greeks: the land-locked Arcadians
developed one aspect, that of earthquakes,
horses and fertility; the Ionians another, the
god of the open sea. The case of Italic Nep-
tunus, originally a god of fresh waters,
might support this. W. POTSCHER once sug-
gested (Gymnasium 66 [1959] 359) that the
essence of Poseidon, as of Zeus, lay in sheer
might, expressed in natural phenomena con-
ceived as the product of quasi-human emo-
tion: the analogy between the raging of the
sea and the trembling of the earth cannot be
overlooked (cf. Hom. Hymn. 22:2). Perhaps
the most promising avenue is the contrastive
*"Dumézilian' approach advocated. by DE-
TIENNE, who showed how Poseidon's rela-
Gon to the horse gains point and meaning
through comparison with Athena Hippia
(1974:176-200). Given the almost complete
absence of reliable dating, there is much to
be said for renouncing pseudo-history in
favour of structure.
III. Despite the extensive evidence for
votive dedications to Poseidon from 6th cen-
tury BCE, personal names calqued on the
god’s name occur only intermittently in the
inscriptions of mainland Greece, and are
absent from the epigraphy of Syria collected
in IGLS, though the Stoic philosopher Posi-
donius (ca.135-51/0 BcE), the most famous
bearer of such a name, came from Apamea
on the Orontes (Kala'at el-Medik), a Posei-
donios of Sidon competed at the Panathena-
ic Games at Athens 1n 191 or 182/181 BCE
(G I2, 2:2314.21), and the marine —Baal
of Berytus was hellenized as Poseidon (cf.
BMC Phoenicia pl. VIL. 1-5, 12; IDélos
1520). Such names, of which Poseidonios
and Poseidippos are by far the most com-
mon, occur with some frequency only in the
661
POWER — PRINCE
Aegean islands and Cyrene. The Posei-
donios of the Macc. passage (directly from
Jason of Cyrene), who acted as a negotiator
between Nicanor, general of Demetrius J,
and Judas Maccabaeus in the discussions
leading up the short-lived truce prior to
Nicanor’s death at the battle of Adasa (13
Adar, 161] BCE), is otherwise unknown,
In post-biblical literature, Poseidon oc-
curs in two pseudepigraphic contexts, m the
Sibylline Oracles. The first passage (3:142)
occurs in the reworking of the story of
Kronos and Rhea based indirectly on the
Sacred History of Euhemerus of Messene
(cf. Ennius’ paraphrase, JacoBY: FGH 63 F
14), and directly on a Stoic commentary on
the mythology of Jupiter of the type also
used by Lactantius in Inst. Div. 1:11. In this
version, Rhea only has to smuggle away her
male children, Zeus, Poseidon and Pluto.
The reference to Poseidon is unfortunately
bref; the most elaborate surviving alle-
gorical account of the god in this general
vein is L. Annaeus Cornutus, 7heol. graec.
comp. 22 (first century CE) (cf. G. W. MOST,
ANRW 36, 3 [1989] 2014-2065). The second
passage (5:157) is unintelligible in its con-
text (see GEFFCKEN ad loc.), and must have
been displaced from elsewhere. But in itself,
jt draws both on the common metonymy by
which Poseidon or Neptune stands for the
sea (e.g. Aeschylus Pers. 749-750; Horace,
Epod. 7:3-4) and on the familiar institution
of propitiatory sacrifice to Poseidon before a
Sea-journey to avoid a storm (Homer, Od.
3:178-179; Appian, Bell. civ. 5:98).
IV. Bibliography
L. BaEGUIA-Purci DoniA, Demeter Erinys
Tilphussaia tra Poseidon e Ares, Les
Grandes Figures religieuses: Colloque Be-
sangon 1984 (Ann. litt. Besancon, 329; Paris
1986) 107-126; W. BURKERT, Greek Re-
ligion (Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford 1985)
136-139; J. CHADWICK, Intervention after L.
R. Palmer’s paper, in Res Mycenaeae: Akten
des VI] int. mykenologischen Coiloquiums
(Niimberg 1981) (eds. A. Heubeck & G.
Neumann; Göttingen 1983) 363-365; CHAD-
WICK, What do we know about Mycenaean
religion?, Linear B: A 1984 Survey: Pro-
ceedings of the Mycenaean Colloquium
(Dublin 1984) (eds. A. Morpurgo-Davies &
Y. Duhoux; Bibl. Inst. Ling. Louvain 26;
Louvain-la-Neuve 1985) 191-202; M. Der-
TIENNE, Le Mors éveillé, and La Corneille
de mer, Les ruses de l'intelligence: la metis
des grecs (M. Detienne & J.-P. Vernant;
Paris 1974) 176-200, 201-241; B. C. DIET-
RICH, Death, Fate and the Gods (London
1965) 118-135; M. P. NILSSON, Geschichte
der griechischen Religion I (München
19673) 444-452; L. R. PALMER, Mycenaean
Religion. Methodological Choices, Res
Mycenaeae: Akten des VH int. mykenologi-
schen Colloquiums (Niirnberg 1981) (eds. A.
Heubeck & G. Neumann; Göttingen 1983)
338-362; L. PRELLER, Griechische Mytholo-
gie L2 (rev. ed. C. Robert; Berlin 18944)
566-596; C. J. RUIGH, Sur le nom de Poséi-
don et sur les noms en -a-Fov, -i-Fov-, REG
80 (1967) 6-16; F. SCHACHERMEYR, Posei-
don und die Entstehung des griechischen
Güiterglaubens (Bern/München 1950) (with
Nilsson's review, AJP 74 [1953] 161-168);
U. voN WiLAMOWIIZ-MOLLENDOR*F, Der
Glaube der Hellenen I (Berlin 1931-1932,
repr. Basel 1956) 211-216; C. WRIGHT,
Myths of Poseidon: the development of the
role of the god as reflected in myth, Reli-
gion in the Ancient World: New Themes and
Approaches (ed. C. Wright; Amsterdam
1996) 533-547; E. Wüst, Poseidon, PW 22
(1953) 446-557.
R. L. GORDON
POWER > DYNAMIS
PRESBYTEROI > ELDERS
PRINCE “Ù
L In Dan 10:13, the angelic interpreter
tells Daniel that he has been sent in
response to the visionary’s prayer, but he
has been delayed because “the prince of the
kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one
days, so Michael, one of the chief princes,
came to help me". He adds that when he I$
through with this first prince, "the prince of
Greece will come” (10:20). He also refers to
662
PRINCE
Michael as “your prince” (10:21) and as
"the great prince, the protector of your
people” (12:1). By analogy with Michael it
js clear that the "princes" of Greece and
Persia are the patron angels of these nations.
Il. The notion that different nations were
allotted to different gods or heavenly beings
was widespread in the ancient world. In
Deut 32:8-9 we read that “When the Most
High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men, he fixed
the bounds of the peoples according to the
number of the sons of God" (The MT reads
“sons of Israel" but the LXX reading
ayyék@v O0£00 is now supported by a
Hebrew fragment from Qumran Cave 4
(4QDeut] which reads OTR °H; DET-
RICH & LoRETZ 1992:153-157).
The origin of this idea is to be sought in
the ancient Near Eastern concept of the
Divine Council. The existence of ‘national
‘deities is assumed in the Rabshakeh’s taunt:
“Who among all the gods of the countries
have delivered their countries out of my
hand that the Lorp should deliver Jerusalem
out of my hand?” (2 Kgs 18:35 = Isa 36:20).
‘Closer to the time of Daniel, Sirach
teaffirms Deuteronomy 32: “He appointed a
Fuler over every nation, but Israel is the
‘LORD’ s own portion” (Sir 17:17; cf. Jub
35:31-32). In the Animal Apocalypse (1
‘Enoch 89:50) the —angels or gods of the
jiations are represented by seventy —shep-
herds, to whom Israel is handed over. It
should be noted that in the Hebrew Bible
‘prior to Daniel, the Lorp serves as ruler of
dstael, a role Biven to Michael here.
d The title ‘prince’ might seem to imply a
demotion for the old national gods, but this
s not necessanly so. In Dan 8:11 we read
that the "little horn” acted arrogantly against
ithe. “prince of the host", and took away his
‘but offering and overthrew the sanctuary.
pane prince of the host here can be none
‘ger than the God of Israel (cf. Dan 11:36,
SWhere the king speaks horrendous things
Béainst the God of gods).
aA precedent for the title ‘prince’ applied
joan angel can be found in the R2N ^D
asy ; the prince of the army of the LORD,
who appears in Josh 5:14. Before the siege
of Jericho, Joshua encounters a man stand-
ing before him with a drawn sword in his
hand. Joshua asks whether he is “one of us
or one of our adversaries”. The man then
identifies himself as "the prince of the army
of the Lorp”. The implication is that Joshua
will be aided by an angelic army in his
assault on Jericho. The prince, in this case,
is not further identified. His function is that
of a military. commander.
HI. The reference to an angelic ‘prince’
in the Book of Joshua is an isolated occur-
‘rence in the Hebrew Bible. In the Hellenistic
period, however, ‘principal angels’ became
the subject of considerable speculation. In
the dualistic world of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
‘princes’ of light and darkness hold sov-
ereignty under God. “All the children of
righteousness are ruled by the Prince of
Lights, and walk in the ways of light, but all
the children of falsehood are ruled by the
Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of
darkness” (1QS 3:20; compare CD 5:18,
where Moses and Aaron arose by the hand
of the Prince of Lights, while ^ Belial raised
up Jannes and Jambres). According to 1QM
13:10, God appointed the Prince of light to
protect the faithful, while he made Belial to
corrupt. In 1QM 17:5-6, Belial is the “prince
of the dominion of wickedness”. The do-
minion of thèse rival princes is called TWI,
a term derived from “W. So we read of the
guilty authority (DON n^n) of Belial
1QM 13:4) and the dominion of ^Michael
sD X23) among the gods (DN),
which parallels the rule of Israel among all
flesh (1QM 17:7). Not all Jews welcomed
the new prominence of these angelic princes.
The Book of Jubilees still insists, in the
spirit of Deuteronomy 32, that over Israel
God appointed no angel or spirit, for he
alone is their ruler (Jub 15:32).
We also find a more generic use of
‘princes’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the
Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice we read of
‘princes of holiness’ (dap ~O), and an-
other word for prince, oI, is often used for
angels (NEWSOM 1985: 26-28).
IV. Bibliography
663
PRINCE (NT) — PRONOIA
W. BoussET, Die Religion des Judentums
(Berlin 1903) 324 [Tübingen 19664]. M.
Dietrich & O. Loretz, “Jahwe und seine
Aschera". Anthropomorphes Kultbild in
Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel (UBL 9;
Münster 1992); M. Macu, Entwicklungs-
stadien des jiidischen Engelsglauben in vor-
rabbinischer Zeit (Tiibingen 1992) 257-262;
A. MONTGOMERY, Daniel (New York 1927)
419-20; C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta 1985);
Y. YADIN, The Scroll of the War of the Sons
of Light against the Sons of Darkness
(Oxford 1962).
J.J. CoLuins
PRINCE (NT) ~ ARCHON
PRINCE OF THE ARMY OF YAHWEH
> PRINCE
PRINCIPALITIES > ARCHAI
PRONOIA Ipóvora
I. Pronoia, Latin Providentia, means in
Homer anticipation or foreknowledge, but
already by the Sth century BCE often ex-
pressed intention, especially in a legal sense,
and care, for one’s family and in military
planning. An analogous care was ascribed to
the gods; the early Stoa built on this tradi-
tional sense in developing its notion of
providence, the divine governance of the
world, equivalent of Zeus and —Logos.
This sense, more or less indebted to Stoic
theory and always qualified by ‘divine’ or
the like, is to be found in some Hellenistic
biblical texts (Wis 14:3; 17:2; 3 Macc 4:21;
5:30; 4 Mace 9:24; 13:19; 17:22) and else-
where, especially in Philo, an extensive
fragment of whose Stoicizing On Provi-
dence survives in Greek.
II. The concept of divine providence is
intimately linked with the process of ratio-
nalizing traditional Greek religious belief.
At the same time, it formalizes a notion of
divine purposiveness which in some guise or
other is essential to any religious view of
the world, and certainly present in Greek
religious thinking: the Homeric scenario of
divine debate on -Olympus is both a narra-
tive framing device and an assertion that
beneath the apparent confusion of events
there lies a purposive order; Hesiodic Zeus
safeguards his power by swallowing Metis
and marrying Themis (Theog. 886, 901).
Alcman (say 650-600 BCE) calls ->7yche
daughter of Promathéa (frg.64 Page, PMG).
Standard religious reinterpretation of ‘coin-
cidence' (Euripides, Phoen. 637; Sophocles,
Oed. Col. 1180), the separation of civic and
religious spheres (Antig. 282-283) and the
issue of divine foreknowledge institutional-
ized in public and private oracles (Trach.
823; Oed.Rex 978; Xenophon, Mem. 4:3,
12) provided nodes around which specula-
tion buzzed. Anaxagoras’s cosmogonic Nous,
the idea of divine intentionality as a primal
cause (59 B11-14 DiELS & KRANZ, fl. 470-
460 BCE), is thus based indirectly on tradi-
tional concepts. A more specific view of
divine providence, drawing upon Anaxa-
goras and Heraclitus, was developed by one
of the last Presocratics, Diogenes of Apol-
lonia (fl. 440-430 ncE) His On Nature
urged a providential view of the ordering of
the seasons and weather-patterns, and appar-
ently all other natural phenomena, including
anatomical and physiological details, by
sentient, all-knowing soul-air (64 A4, B3, 5,
8 D-K). Some carly texts that explicitly
adduce divine providence do so in con-
nection with puzzles taken from the natural
world, the difference in reproductive energy
between predators and their prey (Hdt 3:
108, 1), and the exquisite organization of the
body (Xenophon Mem. 1:4, 5-6); it has been
plausibly urged that they are at least inspired
by Diogenes (THEILER 1924). On the other
hand, an argument standard among Stoic
justifications for providence, that animals
exist in order to be exploited by mankind,
which is also adduced by the Xenophontic
Socrates (Mem. 4:3, 10), probably derives
from another late 5th century BCE source,
perhaps even from Socrates himself (LONG
1996:20-21). The context of this later Sth
century BCE speculation about divine provi-
dence was a vigorous interest in human pro-
664
PRONOIA
vision for the future (e.g. Thucydides 2:89,
9; Xen., Mem. 2:10, 3) and ability to antici-
pate (e.g. Thucydides. 2:62, 5; 3:38, 6;
Xenophon Cyrop. 8:1, 13). Both are taken
as typical expressions of human rationality;
once rationality came to be an essential pre-
dicate of divinity, providence was sure to
become an explicit theme.
Plato’s arguments for the providentialism
of the world order, from the purpose of the
senses (Tim. 46c-48c), and the demonstra-
tions of the intelligence of the world (Tim.
29d-30b) and of the gods’ epimeleia (Laws
10:897c-903a), thus emerge from earlier
debate. It was this position that Epicurus
denied: the world is evidently imperfect, and
cannot therefore have been divinely ordered
(Lucretius, Rer. nat. 5:156-194). The Stoic
defence of divine providence, which draws
upon Plato either through Polemon the third
head of the Academy or through Theo-
phrastus, was specifically aimed at Epicurus.
Pronoia became central to Stoic theology,
as the lists of equations indicate (= heimar-
mené, physis: SVF 1:176; = Zeus, logos,
dikë: SVF 2:937). For Zeno (say 333/332-
262 BCE), god is unique, immortal, rational,
self-sufficient in blessedness, impervious to
evil, tpovontixóv xóouou t& Kai tv EV
xóouo (SVF 2:1021). The traditional gods
of the Greek pantheon are merely ‘powers’
or aspects of the one god. The cosmos is
itself rational and vital (Épyvxoc) (LoNc &
SEDLEY 1987:§ 54F, G). In Cleanthes’ (after
330-232/231 BCE) Hymn to Zeus, this view
of providence is expressed in traditional
terms: “Nothing supervenes, Lord, on earth,
in the divine vault of heaven or in the sea,
without you" (SVF 1:537, 15-16). For
Chrysippus (say 281/277-208/204 BCE), who
wrote a book On Providence in at least four
volumes, god is not merely immortal and
blessed but also beneficent, provident and
succouring (SVF 2:1126). The cosmos is
rational and sentient (Cicero, Nat. Deor. 2:
38): the existence of providence is demon-
strated by the ordering of its constituent
parts (Cic., Nat. Deor. 2:75-76; cf. 90-153).
Zeno’s view of Pronoia is intimately linked
to his reflections on Plato’s and Aristotle’s
cosmology (MANSFELD 1979:161-169). Anal-
ogously, Chrysippus argued that Zeus and
the ordered universe resemble the composite
human being: Pronoia, equivalent of the
World-Soul, is to the universe what the soul
is to man (Plutarch, Comm. not. 36, 1077c
with Cherniss, LCL). At ekpyrosis, Zeus
“retires into Pronoia” and together they
become Aither, the ruling part of the cosmos
(SVF 2:1064).
The implications of this view of Provi-
dence were followed up rigorously by the
early Stoa. The cosmos has a purpose, it
exists for the sake of its reasonable beings,
gods and mankind (Cic., Nat.Deor. 2:133).
‘Nature’ is both a descriptive and a norma-
tive notion: man was formed by the gods to
live a virtuous life (LonG 1996:137-141).
Teleology was pushed to absurdity in Chry-
sippus' argument that bed-bugs have been
created in order to make sure we wake up
betimes, and that flies ensure that we do not
lay things down carelessly (SVF 2:1163); or
that pigs exist in order to be sacrificed
(Lonc & SEDLEY 1987:§ 54P). And the
further the arguments from design were
pressed, the more tricky became the issue of
evil. Chrysippus had two main theses here:
moral failings, and their consequences in
action, are the necessary corollary of moral
virtues (there must be evil if there is good);
and evil, esp. disease and infirmity, is an
unintended but necessary consequence
(kata napakoàoúðnow) of the beneficial
design of the world (SVF 2:1169-1170).
Moreover, particular evils do not affect the
economy of the cosmos as a whole, and can
only function within that economy (SVF
2:937; 1181) (LONG 1968). It was in relation
to this issue that Cleanthes already differen-
tiated between Fate and Providence (SVF
2:933), and on which the sceptic Carneades
(ca. 214-129 BCE) later roundly attacked the
very notion of Providence (Cic., Nat. Deor.
3:79-85). In the face of this, contemporary
Stoics, notably Panaetius, preferred to
muffle the cosmic role of Pronoia and save
the freedom of the individual to live in kee-
ping with his rational nature. Posidonius (ca.
135-51/50 BCE) succeeded in producing a
665
PRONOIA
theory that reaffirmed Pronoia’s identity
with god as ‘artisan of destiny’, while
making each individual responsible for his
own rational development. Later Stoics were
mostly content to resume this position
(DRAGONA-MONACHOU 1994:4436-52).
Stoic Pronoia thus tended to Jose its distinc-
tive cast, and merge with the traditional
view of the gods’ beneficence (e.g. /Kyme
13:90, 106 [after 130 BCE]; SEG 32: 1385.8-
9 [after 62 BcE}). Philo’s On Providence 2
(largely preserved in Greek in Eusebius, PE
8.14: 386-399, cf. Colson in LCL 9:458-
506) provides a good example of the tone of
first century CE school debate (cf. Confus.
Ling 114-5). Mediated through Cicero as
Providentia deorum, this weak sense beca-
me a Significant prop of imperial ideology
(MARTIN 1982). With Antiochus of Ascalon
(first century BCE), providence came to play
a role in the cosmology and anthropology of
the Academy, embroiling Middle Platonists
in a tricky tension between determinism and
free wil] (cf. Plutarch, de facie 927a-e; cf.
DRAGONA-MoNACcHOU 1994:4461-76). The
Neo-Platonism of Plotinus is the crucial
intermediary between the Middle Platonists
on the one hand, and Augustine and Pro-
clus' De decem dubitationibus circa provi-
dentiam on the other (cf. GERsH 1978:117-
121). On this. view, which tends to identify
Fate with a Jower Providence, moral evil is
man's responsibility entirely, the divine
Logos operating as a melody which ‘results
from conflicting sounds’ (Ennead 3.2.16).
Cosmic evil is due to matter, but on the
whole serves to temper humankind to virtue
(cf. PARMA 1971:157-159). The latest
significant deployment of the concept in a
political sense is Synesius’ integration of
pronoia into the neoplatonic hierarchy of
existence in De providentia 1 (July 400 cE)
(CAMERON & LONG 1993).
IM. The providential plan of God for his
people is a fundamental theme of the OT,
expressed in devotional contexts in terms of
the individual] being in God's hands (BEHM
1940:1008). In wisdom and apocalyptic lite-
rature one conventional expression of this
providence js the schematization of world
666
history, another, the notion that history has a
goal, the establishment of God's kingdom:
Individual wisdom writers, such as Ben Sira
(J. MARBOCK, Weisheit im Wandel (Bonn
1971] 88-94, 143-145) and Anstobulus and
the translator of the LXX version of Prov.
8:22-31, associate cosmic ^ wisdom (hokmá),
as a regulative principle in the world created
by God, with the history of Israel both
collective and individual (HENGEL 19732),
The spread of Hellenistic rhetorical and
philosophical education within the Jewish
élite both in Palestine and the Diaspora
encouraged the emergence of a ‘providential
koine’ from the 2nd century BCE into the
2nd century cE: the congruence between
Hellenistic Jewish wisdom and Stoic Pro-
noia is expressly marked by ‘Menedemus’
in Ep. Arist 20] (MARTIN’s redating to ca.
210-190 BcE [1982:24 n.135} is quite un-
founded). This blending is apparent in Wis-
dom and 3-4 Maccabees, where Pronoia is a
natural force (4 Macc 13:19), a synonym for
God’s saving intervention at decisive junc-
tures (Wis 6:7; 14:3; 3 Macc 4:21; 5:30) but
also his long-term plan for his people (Wis
17:2; 4 Macc 9:24; 17:22). In Philo, with his
forma] knowledge of Greek philosophy, we
can observe a modulation between Poseidon-
ian themes, including the role of divination
(De los. 116, 161; Vit. Mos. 2:16; Virt. 215),
and wisdom theology. Several arguments
seem to allude to Poseidonian themes: those
who assert that the world is eternal and
uncreated ‘occlude Providence’—the creator
necessarily cares for his creation just as
parents for their children (Opif. Mundi 9-10;
cf. Praem. 42; Ebr. 199; Spec. Leg. 2:310,
318); our bodies have a physical existence
over time thanks to God's Pronoia (Quis
rer. div. 58); this same Pronoia makes the
world eternal (Decal. 58; Aetern. 47) and 18
- indeed its Soul (Aetern. 49-51). Others are
drawn from wisdom themes: —Joseph’s
story is an exemplification of God’s Pronola
(Jos. 236); the burning bush represents
God's care for his people (Vit. Mos. 1:67);
the prophets take cognizance of God's Pro-.
noia (Mut. nom. 25). By contrast, the usage
in Josephus is flattened and banalized: he;
DARAUS ei.
PROTECTORS
draws much more upon the conventional
invocation of divine beneficence ( BJ 4:219;
7:82, 318, 453; AJ 4:157, 239; 5:107; 6:159
etc.); much the same applies to the usage in
Sib. Or. 5: 227, 323. The occasional deploy-
ment of Pronoia in Gnostic cosmologies
(e.g. Apocryphon of John 5:16; 6:5, 22, 30,
etc. [NGH 1L.1]; Origin 108:11. 15; 111:18,
32 [ILS]; Expos.Valent. 37:21 [XI.2]) pre-
sumably draws upon the Hellenistic-Jewish
‘koine’.
Though the NT takes over and adapts
much Hellenistic wisdom thinking, it ig-
nores Pronoia in this sense, employing only
traditional non-philosophical denotations of
the term: the scrupulous execution of his
supervisory duties by a middle-ranking
official (Acts 24:2, cf. MaRrIN 1982:11-12);
"care" or "thought for" (Rom 13:14, in a
standard phrase, c.g. Dan 6:18 LXX; Philo,
Ebr. 87). Providentialism is nevertheless dif-
fused, in the notion of God's fatherhood,
protection of creation, and working out of
his purpose within individuals (Phil 2:13). It
is in this soteriological perspective that
God's Pronoia is invoked in the apostolic
writings, in the context of the argument for
resurrection from the crop-cycle in / Clem.
24:5, and in a hendiadys with sophia at
Hermas Vis. 1:3, 4. The apologists tend to
revive the philosophical perspective; the
most systematic patristic exploitation of
divine Pronoia is by Clement of Alexandria,
who develops its activity at three levels, the
natural world, human communities (esp. the
Jews), the individual (Str. 7:6, 1), material-
ly, spiritually and intellectually (FLoyb
1971).
IV. Bibliography
J. BEHM, Ilpovoéo xtA., TWAT 4 (1940)
1004-1011; A. CAMERON & J. LONG, Bar-
barians and Politics at the Court of Ar-
cadius (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1993) 253-
336; M. DRAGONA-MONACHOU, Providence
and Fate in Stoicism and Prae-neoplatonism:
Calcidius as an authority on Cleanthes’
theodicy. Philosophia 3 (Athens 1973) 262-
306; DRAGONA-MONACHOU, The Stoic
Arguments for the Existence and Providence
of the Gods (Athens 1976); DRAGONA-
MoNacHOU, Divine Providence in the
Philosophy of the Empire, ANRW II 36.7
(1994) 4417-4490; W. E. G. FLovp, Cle-
ment of Alexandria's Treatment of the
Problem of Evil (London 1971) 34-40, 92-
97; S. GrERsH, From lamblichus to Eriugena
(Leiden 1978); M. HENGEL, Judentum und
Hellenismus (Tübingen 19732); A. A. LONG,
The Problem of Evil in Stoicism, PhilQuart
18 (1968) 329.343; LoNG, Stoic Studies
(Cambridge 1996); A. A. Loa & D. N.
SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers 2
(Cambridge 1987) §54; J. MANSFELD, Pro-
vidence and the Destruction of the Universe
in early Stoic Thought, Studies in Hellenis-
tic Religions (ed. M. J. Vermaseren; EPRO
78: Leiden 1979) 129-188; J.-P. MARTIN,
Providentia Deorum: Aspects religieux du
pouvoir romain (Coll. Ecole fr. de Rome 61;
Rome 1982); C. PARMA, Pronoia und Provi-
dentia. Der Vorsehungsbegriff Plotins und
Augustins (Leiden 1971); M. PourENz, Die
Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung
2 (Göttingen 1959) 1: 98-101, 2; 55-58; W.
THEILER, Zur Geschichte der teleologischen
Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles (Diss.
Zürich 1924) 6-36.
R. L. GORDON
PROTECTORS
I. The common semitic verb SwWIII
ZMR/DMR 'to protect; to watch' can be used
with a religious connotation, as becomes
clear from personal names like Zimri-Lim,
'—-Lim is my Protection’. At Ugarit, the
ancestral gods (-*llib) are probably once
depicted as dmr "trh, 'Protector(s) of his
place’. In the OT Yahweh is seen as the
‘protector’ of his people (e.g. Exod 15:2; Ps
121). At Nah 2:3 zémdréhem Sihéti might
be rendered as ‘slaughtered their protectors’.
II. In the epic of Aghat a list of filial
duties is given. One of these duties is that a
son is supposed to be the “one who sets up
the stelae of his ancestral gods, in the sanc-
tuary the marjoram of his clan, one who
makes his smoke come out from the earth,
from the dust dmr "tri" (KTU 1.17 1:26-28).
The final words of this unit have bcen inter-
667
PTAH
preted as ‘the Protector(s) of his place’ (O.
Loretz, BN 8 [1979] 14-17; DE Moor
1986; MARGALIT 1989; DE Moor 1990; J.
C. DE Moor, Standing Stones and Ancestor
Worship, UF 27 [1995] 7-9). This interpre-
tation implies that the ancestral deities were
seen as protective spirits comparable to the
~Rephaim. This interpretation is, however,
not unchallenged. Others have construed
dmr as a perfect tense and translate the
phrase with “ ... and from the dust protect
his place” (e.g. A. Caquot, M. SZNYcER &
A. HERDNER, Textes Ougaritiques I [LAPO
7; Paris 1974] 422; K. VAN DER TOORN,
Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in
Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible, BiOr 48
[1991] 45-46). The interpretation of Y.
AvISHUR (UF 17 [1985] 52-53) who trans-
lates dmr 7trh” by ‘the perfumes of his
place’ is to be dismissed since it rests on an
obsolete etymology.
III. In Biblical Hebrew the Semitic root
DMR is generally developed into the verb
SMR ‘to protect’. Metaphorically, Yahweh is
seen as the 3ómér, ‘protector’, of Israel
(Num 6:24; Ps 121; 146:6; M. KORPEL,
JSOT 45 [1989] 3-13). In some dialects of
Hebrew the verb III ZMR, ‘to watch, to pro-
tect’ is attested. In Ex 15:2—a text quoted at
Isa 12:2 and Ps 118:14—the formula ‘ozz?
wézimráti yhwh should be rendered ‘my
strength and my protection is Yahweh'. DE
MooR (1990) compares this formula with a
line from an Ugaritic incantation—recited at
the banquet on the New Year festival as de
Moor surmises—in which the Uganitic king
prays to the founder-fathers of his dynasty,
the ancestral gods Yaqaru and Gathru, for ‘z,
‘strength’, and dmr, ‘protection’, (KTU 1.
108:21-24; J. N. Forp, UF 24 [1992] 76-
80). DE Moor interprets this comparison in
the framework of an originally ancestral
character of Yahweh (1990).
The enigmatic text Nah 2:1-3 has been
clarified by VAN DER WouDE (1977:115-
120). The traditional rendition of the word
zémoéréhem, ‘their shoots; vines’, should be
abandoned since it is a masculine plural to a
female noun zémórá, ‘shoot’. Therefore, the
noun can better be related to Ugar dmr, ‘to
protect; protection’ and Heb zimrd, ‘pro-
tection’. WAN DER WouDE (1977:119)
renders *zéméréhem with ‘their soldiers’.
The word, however, can better be translated
with ‘their protectors’. Nah 2:3b depicts the
fate of Nineveh, the city that held captive
the exiles from Israel. But now “plunderers
shall plunder them and slaughter their pro-
tectors”, i.e. Nineveh will stand without def-
ence in days of disaster to come. The pro-
tectors probably refer to military aid but
might contain a reminiscence of ancestral
deities.
IV. Bibliography
B. MARGALIT, The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT
(BZAW 182; Berlin/New York 1989) 118,
144, 273; J. C. DE Moor, The Ancestral
Cult in KTU 1.17:1.26-28, UF 17 (1986)
407-409; pE Moon, The Rise of Yahwism
(BETL 91; Leuven 1990) 247-248; A. S.
VAN DER Woupr, The Book of Nahum: a
Letter written in Exile, Instruction and
Interpretation (OTS 20; Leiden 1977) 108-
126.
B. BECKING
PTAH *"5 / *nn5
I. Josh 15:9 and 18:15 mention the
"(Spring of the) Water of Neptóah ". This
is, however, a secondary interpretation of
the "(Spring of) Merenptah". This Meren-
ptah is Pharaoh Merenptah (ca. 1224-1214
BCE) whose name (Mr.n Pth) means “Be-
loved by (the god) Ptah”. Other occurrences
of the Egyptian god Ptah have been found in
the expression battuhét (Job 38:36; GónRG
1980) and in the Hebrew word Topheth
(Gónc 1988).
HI. Ptah is anthropomorphic. His close-
fitting garment covers his feet and legs,
which are not apart, and arms hardly
showing. He usually has a staff in his hands
and wears a cap. Ptah was the main deity of
Memphis, the Egyptian capital and royal
residence until the end of the Old Kingdom,
and a very influential centre ever since. This
explains Ptah's high nationa? position, inde-
pendent and unweakened throughout Egypt-
ian history. The link between him, “King of
668
PYTHON
the two lands (2 Egypt)". and the Pharaohs
remained very strong. They were enthroned
in his local temple.
The god is creative, a master craftsman,
identified as Hephaistos in the interpretatio
graeca. His high-priest is the "greatest of
those who direct crafts". His cap, and
perhaps his name, point in the same direc-
tion. His productive activities cover a wider
field. Being the demiurge, he is self-be-
gotten, as well as the creator of the cosmos.
Gods originated from his body, and men
were made by him. He created all that
exists, ever feeding his creatures.
The most comprehensive and impressive
document in this respect is the “Memphite
theology”. This is a highly intellectual treat-
ise. Though its antiquity is in dispute, it cer-
tainly contains some very ancient ideas. It
tells how Ptah allotted life to all gods and
every other being. He conceived of his cre-
ation by thinking and realized it by speak-
ing. His tongue repeated what his heart de-
vised; his mouth pronounced the names of
all things. Food and offerings are also due to
his utterance. At his command, the righteous
are rewarded with life, while the wrongdoers
have to face death. Being a source of cre-
ativity, the god passed on his power to his
creatures. Their activities emanate from his
thought and word in an uninterrupted flow.
The “Memphite theology” mentions a
number of deities as forms or as parts of
Ptah. Among them, the chthonic Tatenen is
often syncretized with him in other texts,
whereas Nefertem became his son by a mar-
nage arranged with the —lioness Sekhmet.
Relations with the local necropolis god
Sokar, also a craftsman, became so close
that they resulted in the union Ptah-Sokar.
The Memphite bull —Apis too is on the
record as a son. Ptah, by rewarding and
punishing is a deity of destiny and "Lord of
Truth". He is quite popular in personal
devotion and piety as the one "who listens
to prayer".
III. Though the occurrence of Ptah as a
theophoric element in the toponym Ne-
phtoah is uncontested (for the location of the
spring see KRAUSS 1980:74 n. 13), the other
biblical references to Ptah are very dubious.
The interpretation of Topheth (tópet) as a
simplified Egyptianism going back to 1? (st
n) Pth, ‘the place of Ptah’ (Ptah being de-
fined as a god of fire), may be simply dis-
missed as a far-fetched speculation (pace
GörG 1988). The suggestion that the expres-
sion ba(tuhót (Job 38:36) conceals in fact a
reference to Ptah deserves more serious con-
sideration (G6rG 1980). The relevant verse
speaks about -wisdom, a characteristic at-
tribute of Ptah. Yet in view of the occur-
rence of tuhét in Ps 51:8 and Job 12:6, an
emendation of Job 38:36 does not commend
itself. A meaning ‘hidden recesses (of the
earth)’ makes good sense (cf. Y. TIRQEL,
Beth Mikra 26 [1981] 353-357 [Hebrew].
IV. Bibliography
H. Bonnet, Ptah, RARG 614-619; J.
CERNf, Ancient Egyptian Religion (London
1952) 158; M. GÖRG, Ijob aus dem Lande
‘Us: Ein Beitrag zur ‘theologischen Geo-
graphie’, BN 12 (1980) 7-12; GónG, Topaet
(Tofet): Dic (Stitte) des Feuergottes?, BN 43
(1988) 12-13; E. HORNUNG, Der Eine und
die Vielen (Darmstadt 1971) 277; R.
Krauss, Merenptah, LdA IV (1980) 71-76;
G. RENDSBURG, Merneptah in Canaan,
JSSEA 11 (1981) 171-172; M. SANDMAN-
HOLMBERG, The God Ptah (Lund 1946); H.
TE VELDE, Ptah, LdA IV (1982) 1177-1180.
M. HEERMA VAN Voss
PYTHON Ilv@wv
|. Pythón occurs just once in NT and
indicates the oracular spirit of a slave-girl
(Acts 16:16). There are two further occur-
rences in the Sibylline Oracles (5:182; 11:
315). Sib. Or. 11:315 is possibly connected
with the dragon Python. Traditions concern-
ing Python may be incorporated in Rev 12.
II. Python is the Dragon (drakón Euri-
pides, /ph. Taur. 1245; Pausanias 10.6.6;
Lucian, De Astr. 23; draco ingens Hyginus,
Fab. 140; 6páxawa Hom. Hymn to Apollo
300) or —Serpent (FONTENROSE 1980:55)
that protected the sanctuary of Delphi near
Mount Parnassus (see e.g. Strabo 9.3.12)
before the arrival of Apollo. His link with
669
PYTHON
Delphi may, however, be secondary, since
many places besides Delphi claimed Apol-
lo’s triumph over the dragon as their local
legend (Orro 1962:107-108; cf. FONTEN-
ROSE 1980:46-69). Ephorus (fourth century
BCE) seems to have been the first author
who used the name Python for this Delphic
‘dragon’ in a rationalistic version of the
myth (FGH 70 Fragm. 31; Strabo 9.3.12).
Python is usually considered a son of Ge.
According to Hom. Hymn to Apollo the
dragon is female, see e.g. vv 300-306. The
name is related to the site of Delphi (Pythé)
and is associated with the rotting of the dead
body of the dragon (Hom. Hymn to Apollo
356-374; Pausanias 10.6.5; pythó = ‘become
rotten’). Python was defeated by Apollo,
who took over the oracle and became the
patron deity of the sanctuary of Delphi. This
struggle for rulership over the sanctuary (see
e.g. Euripides, /p/h. Taur. 1245-1258) can be
considered as a conflict between a chthonic
god and a god of a different kind (Von
GEISAU 1972). Mythographers describe how
Python pursued the pregnant Leto in order
to prevent the birth of Apollo and —Arte-
mis. Apollo killed him, however, as a new-
born babe (Euripides, /ph. Taur. 1249; Hygi-
nus, Fab. 140). According to some texts
Python was sent on his deathly mission by
—Hera who was jealous because of the
favours of —Zeus to Leto.
From several (late) sources there appears
a semantic development from the specific
Delphic dragon to an oracular spirit in
general. According to the Suda, sub voce
Pythónos, Python was a daimonion manti-
kos. This development is probably con-
nected with the figure of the Pythia, the
prophetic priestess of Apollo at Delphi, who
was called a mantis (Aeschylus, Eum. 29) or
a promantis (Herodotus 6.66). Hyginus,
Fab. 140, considers Python himself a
prophet and suggests that he revealed the
oracular sayings before the time of Apollo.
His mortal remains were said to have been
buried under the tripod of the Pythia or to
be preserved in this tripod (Hyginus, Fab.
140). Some sources suggest that the odour
of Python’s dead body inspired the Pythia
(FOERSTER 1978:919).
HI. Acts 16:16 refers to a slave-girl who
was possessed by an oracular spirit. Pythón
occurs as apposition to pneuma. The pas-
sage can be interpreted against the backg-
round of the semantic development of
Python. The Delphic dragon himself became
a mantic animal (cf. Hyginus, Fab. 140;
Lucian, De Astr. 23) and lent his name to
predicting demons. In Philo, Prob. 19;
160, the word pythochréstos is used with the
general meaning ‘oracular saying’. Accord-
ing to FOERSTER (1978:918-920) pythôn can
only mean a ventriloquist in the first century
CE (synonym of eggastrimythos; sce c.g.
Plutarch, De def. orac. 9 = Mor. 414E),
which is possibly connected with the strange
sounds of the Pythia. Ventriloquism was,
however, usually thought to be inspired by a
god or a demon (Origen, Princ. 3.3.5). The-
refore, Acts 16:16 should not be necessarily
understood as a reference to a female ventri-
loquist. The passage may refer in a more
general sense to a predicting demon (cf.
Pseudo-Clement, Hom. 9.16.3; also Vg Lev
20:27 pythonicus spiritus, FOERSTER 1978:
919).
Traditions concerning Python are prob-
ably incorporated into the passages on the
Dragon in Revelation, although the name
Python is not used (YArBRO COLLINS 1975:
57-100; 245-252 building upon DIETERICH
1891). The pattern of the Leto-Apollo-
Python myth, especially in the version of
Hyginus, Fab. 140, is closely related to the
war of the Dragon in Rev 12 (and 20), and
this myth was widely known in Asia Minor.
Nevertheless, there are also some dissimi-
larities (Python pursues Leto before the birth
of Apollo and Artemis, the rescue of Leto
by Boreas and -*Poseidon does not match
the rescue of the woman in Rev 12 and the
dragon in Revelation is originally located in
heaven and has several opponents). More-
over, there are also striking correspondences
with combat myths concerning —Typhon,
which implies that John may have incor-
porated traditions concerning Typhon as
well.
In Sib. Or. 5:182 Pythón is a corruption
of the name Pithom for an Egyptian city, but
in Sib. Or. 11:315 Pythón probably refers to
670
PYTHON
the area or city of Pytho which was con-
nected with Delphi, as appears from the
second name in this passage Panopeia (=
Panopeus), which indicates a city in the
neighbourhood of Delphi. This seems to
imply that the Sibyl presents herself at the
end of book 11 as the chanter of oracles of
Apollo (vv 315-324; cf. Pausanias 10.12.6),
although this is denied explicitly in Sib. Or.
4:4-5.
IV. Bibliography
A. DiETERICH, Abraxas: Studien zur Reli-
gionsgeschichte des späteren — Altertums
(Leipzig 1891) 111-126; W. FOERSTER,
nvOwv, TDNT VI (Grand Rapids 1978) 917-
920; J. FONTENROSE, Python. A Study of
Delphic Myth and its Origins (Berkeley &
671
Los Angeles 1959; 19802); H. voN GEISAU,
Python, PW 24 (Stuttgart 1963) 606-610; H.
VON GEISAU, Python, KP 4 (1972) 1280; K.
KERENyI, Die Mythologie der Griechen. Die
Gótter- und Menschheitsgeschichten (Zürich
1951) 128-136; O. KERN, Die Religion der
Griechen (Berlin 1935) II 96-97, 102-110;
W. F. Orro, Mythos von Leto, dem Drachen
und der Geburt, Das Wort der Antike (Stutt-
gart 1962) 90-128; H. D. SarrnEY, Relire
l'Apocalypse à Patmos, RB 82 (1975) 416-
417; G. Türk, Python, ALGRM III.2 (Leip-
zig 1902-1909) 3400-3412; A. YARBRO
COLLINS, The Combat Myth in the Book of
Revelation (Missoula 1975).
J. W. VAN HENTEN
QATAR
|. The name gédar, Qedar, carried by a
tribe of the Ishmaelites as well as by its epo-
nymous ancestor (Gen 25:13; 1 Chron 1:29;
Isa 21:16.17; 42:11; 60:7; Jer 2:10; 49:28;
Ezek 27:21; Ps 120:5; Cant 1:5), has been
related to the alleged Amorite deity Qudur
or Qadar (Lewy 1934:48). The suggestion
lacks sufficient ground.
II. According to Lewy (1934:48 n. 48),
the name of an Amorite deity Qudur/Qudar/
Qadar is attested as theophoric element in
four Mesopotamian names: gù-du-ur-ì-li
(AO 9356:1); qú-da-ri-li (BIN IV 25:34);
qá-dá-ar-AN (BAUER 1926:17) and ya-şi-qa-
dar (BAUER 1926:30). The interpretation of
these names by Lewy is problematical, how-
ever, because he fails to separate the el-
ement Qudur/Kudur from the name Qatar/
Qatar. Qudur/Kudur may be interpreted as
the Akkadian form of Elamite kutur, *pro-
tector’, used to qualify gods and kings
(ZADOK 1984). With Bauer (1926:91) it
must .be. distinguished from the theonym
Qatar (Bauer reads Ga-ta-ar-AN and Ja-si-
ga-tar) or Qatar (GELB 1980). Since this
allegedly Amorite deity is otherwise not
attested, its character cannot be determined.
Etymologically the name Qatar may be con-
nected to the Semitic root QTR/QTR ‘to make
smoke, to make incense’ (cf. HALAT 1002).
The Qedarites were one of the most pro-
minent tribes of the Ishmaelites. The earliest
attestation of their land is to be found in an
inscription from Tiglath Pileser III from 738
BCE containing a list of tributaries (L. D.
LEVINE, Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran
(Toronto 1972] 18, 1:2; cf. M. WriPPERT,
ZDPV 89 [1973] 26-53); here Qedar is men-
tioned alongside Arabia. Since 'Zabibi, the
queen of the Arabs' is the only Arab men-
tioned in the list, it may be assumed that she
is the first known ruler of the Qedarites
672
(KNAUF 1985:4 n.17). Qedar and the Qedar-
ites are further known from Assyrian,
Persian and Hellenistic sources up to Pliny
(Nat. Hist. V 11 [12] 65: Cedrei; KNAUF
1985:66.96-108).
IIl. In the OT, the Qedarites are men-
tioned in oracles against the nations (Isa 21:
16.17; Jer 49:28) and in poetic texts as in-
habiting the ends of the earth (Isa 42:11;
Jer 2:10; Ps 120:5). They are depicted as
sea-faring traders (Isa 60:7; Ezek 27:21).
Their tent-dwellings were famous for their
beauty (Cant 1:5). All these occurrences
reflect Judahite knowledge of the Bedouin
tribe in late pre-exilic, exilic and early post-
exilic times. The Priestly author of Gen
25:13 has used this knowledge in his recon-
struction of the earliest history of the Israel-
ites in relation to neighbouring groups and
nations (KNAUF 1985:56-65). Most prob-
ably, Qedar was not an historical figure
from the second millennium BCE, but a
retrojection of a people living in post-exilic
times into times immemorial. Qedar can
hardly be interpreted as a god or a semi-
god; a relation with the Amorite deity Qatar
is implausible.
IV. Bibliography
T. Bauer, Die Ostkanaander (Leipzig
1926); I. J. GELB, Computer-aided Analysis
of Amorite (AS 21; Chicago 1980) 173; E.
A. Knaur, Ismael (ADPV 1; Wiesbaden
1985); J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens
et l'Ancient Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 29-
65; R. ZADOK, The Elamite Onomasticon
(Suppl. AION 40; Napels 1984) 24-25.
B. BECKING & K. VAN DER TOORN
QEDAR > QATAR
QEDOSHIM > SAINTS
QETEB
OETEB 235p
Y. The term Qeteb appears four times in
the OT. Its basic significance is ‘destruc-
tion’, (perhaps etymologically ‘that which is
cut off) though the contexts suggest that
other nuances are present. Various scholars
have translated it as ‘plague’ or ‘pestilence’
in the context of its parallel use with regep,
deber. The term has overtones of a divine
name.
JI. gzb occurs once in Ugaritic (KTU 1.5
ii:24) and may be a kinsman of >Mot (J. C.
DE Moor, ‘O Death, Where ìs Thy Sting’,
Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other
Studies in Memory of P. C. Craigie (ed. L.
Eslinger & G. Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Shef-
field 1988) 100-107), but the text is broken.
DEL OLMO LETE links this word with gsb,
‘cut’ (Mitos y leyendas de Canaan [Madrid
1981] 617). In the treaty between Esarhad-
don and Baal of Tyre R. DUSSAUD (Les reli-
gions des Hittites et des Hourrites, des Phé-
niciens et des Syriens [Mana 2; Paris 1945]
361) detected a deity Qatiba ('entité incer-
laine"), but failed to give a specific refer-
ence; the suggestion is apparently based on
a misreading of iv 6 (DINGIR-a Qa-ti-ba x?-
[xxx]x instead of 4A-na-ti-Ba-a°[-a-ti DINGI]
R.MES).
~ I. With so few biblical references to
work from, each must be treated exhaustive-
ly:to glean what information such scant evi-
dence may provide. The most useful infor-
mation comes from Deut 32:24, where the
following tricolon occurs in — Yahweh's
curse of apostate -—Jacob: mézé rà'àb
fsucked dry by Hunger*', üléhumé re&ep
‘and devoured* by Pestilence*’ wégeteb
mérirt ‘and bitter* Destruction*’. Several
words here (marked *) are ambiguous,
giving rise to rich nuances. Thus ‘Hunger’ is
Probably an epithet of Mot (Heb Mawer),
Bod of death; Zhumé, ‘devoured’, can also
be construed as ‘fought against’, cf. the
arrow metaphor of v 23; ‘Pestilence’ is per-
Sonified as ~Resheph, the plague-god, who
in. Ugaritic is represented as an archer (KTU
1:82:3); Qeteb appears to be a divine name,
ii accordance with the other two, while
perm, ‘bitter’, may also have the sense of
‘strong’ (M. J. DaHoop, Qoheleth and
Recent Discoveries, Bib 39 [1958} 302-318,
esp. 309-310) or even ‘eclipse’ (M. H. POPE,
Job [AB 15: New York 1973] 29); cf.
Meriri. There is no compelling reason not
to accept the clearly mythological sense of
this passage, which appears therefore to list
a triad of demonic figures, all associated
with death (R. Gorpis, The Asseverative
kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew, JAOS 63
[1943] 176-178, esp. 178). Since however
both Mot and Resheph are identified with
Babylonian —Nergal, whose cult was at-
tested in Palestine as late as hellenistic times
(J. B. Curtis, An Investigation of the
Mount of Olives in the Judaeo-Christian
Tradition, HUCA 28 [1957] 137-180), it is
as plausible to see all three terms above as
relating to the one figure. ‘Destruction’
would thus represent the full implementation
of Death’s powers.
Ps 91:5-6 lists. enemies from whom
Yahweh will rescue the faithful. They ap-
pear, following v 3 with its references to the
Fowler (Trompe 1969:175) and Pestilence
(Deber), to be confederates or aspects of
Death. The tetracolon of vv 5-6 is complex,
and needs to be analysed as a whole: lo
tira’? mippahad layla ‘You will not fear the
"Terror of the night, méheg ya‘ip yomam
‘nor the arrow fiying by. day’; middeber
b@épel yahdlok ‘nor Pestilence that stalks
the gloom’, miggeteb yaád sohdrayim ‘nor
Destruction that devastates at noon’. Oeteb
occurs in v 6 in parallel to Deber: in some
sense, therefore, it complements it. But its
diuma] danger, in contrast to Deber’s noc-
turnal threat, also balances the diurnal arrow
of v 5, which in turn contrasts with the "Ter-
ror by night’. The arrow provides the clue,
being a metaphor for the fevers sent by
Resheph the plague-god. Since Deber seems
here to be his double, the two gods oper-
ating by day and by night respectively, we
arrive at the following equation: the Terror
is Deber, while the arrow (of Resheph) is
Qeteb, the personification of the destruction
the god wreaks. This seems to corroborate
our findings in Deut 32:24 above. But there
may also be a chiasmus over the whole
673
QÔS
tetracolon, giving rise to the equations Ter-
ror = Destruction (a and d) and Arrow (of
Resheph) = Deber (b and c). The demonic
powers are of protean form and character.
At Hos 13:14, in the two bicola of the
verse, Sheol and Death are found twice in
parallel, indicating that Sheol is here another
name for the god of death, by metonymy. In
the second bicolon, Deber and Qeteb (or
rather Qoteb, see H. BAUER & P. LEANDER,
Historische Grammatik der hebräischen
Sprache [Halle 1922] 582) are again parallel
terms, and are clearly the agents of Death's
purposes: miyyad §é@ 61 epdm ‘Shall I
ransom them from the hand of Sheol’,
mimmdwet ’eg’além ‘shall I redeem them
from Mot?’, ?eh? débarékà mawet ‘Where
are your Pestilences, Mot?’, *ehf gotobka
s@61 “Where is your Destruction, Sheol?’
The LXX of the second bicolon is para-
phrased (as a hymnic excerpt?) at 1 Cor
15:55 (~Thanatos).
Isa 28:2 is part of a taunt against
Ephraim, alluding to the agent of Yahweh’s
destructive visilation which is imminent:
hinneh hdzaq wéammis la’déndy ‘Lo, the
Lord has someone Bold and Powerful’,
kézerem bárád $a'ar gqateb ‘like a storm of
hail (~Barad), a tempest of Destruction’,
kézerem mayim kabbirim Sotépim ‘like a
storm of mighty flooding waters.’ As in the
first passage, many of the words used here
are susceptible of a mythological interpreta-
tion, in particular Báràd and Mayim. Qeteb
appears to operate here through the tempest,
and here too there is the possibility of delib-
erate ambiguity, where Sa‘ar suggests the
arch-demonic form of a —satyr, fá'ír. The
tempest metaphor, continuing that of Hail, is
probably to be taken to combine the two
figures of overwhelming flood-waters, and
the dart-like effects of hail and heavy rain,
evoking the arrows of the plague-god. Both
are metaphors for Death and its powers.
Our four passages are allusive rather than
Strictly informative, but suggest that Qeteb
is more than a literary figure, living as a
Spiritual, and highly dangerous, reality in the
minds of poets and readers. We can see a
slow process of reinterpretation taking place
in the treatment of the four passages in
LXX, where in each instance it is translated
by a different term. These are respectively
opisthotonos ‘vengeance’ (lit. “bending back-
wards’ or ‘drawn’, as of a bow), sympfoma,
‘occurrence, accident’, kentron, ‘goad, sting’,
and ouk ... skepé, ‘no ... shelter’. It may be
coincidence that in discussing ‘the destruc-
tion that ravageth at noon’ in Ps 91, GASTER
(1969:770) explains Qeteb as sunstroke, and
notes that Theocritus identifies ‘this demon’
with Pan (cf. the ‘satyr’ suggestion at Isa
28:2).
IV. Bibliography
A. CaqQuoT, Sur quelques démons de
l'Ancien Testament: Reshep, Qeteb, Deber,
Sem 6 (1956) 53-68; T. H. GASTER, Myth,
Legend and Custom in the Old Testament
(London 1969) 321, 770; W. O. E. OESTER-
LY & T. H. RoBINSON, Hebrew Religion, its
Origin and Development (London 1930) 70-
75; N. J. TRomp, Primitive Conceptions of
Death and the Netherworld in the Old Tes-
tament (BibOr 21; Rome 1969) 107-108,
163.
N. WYATT
Qds wip
I. Qs is the national deity of ~Edom.
He is attested only once in the Hebrew
Bible as an element in the personal name
Barqos, *Qós gleamed forth" (cf. Lihyanite
qwsbr; BARTLETT 1989: no. 34; South Safait-
ic brqs, BARTLETT 1989: no. 36), indicating
the ‘father’ of an exiled clan of nétinim
returning from Babylon (Ezra 2:53 = Neh
7:55). This clan or family must have been of
Edomite or Idumaean origin. (The name
Kushaiah, 1 Chr 15:17, cannot be connected
with Qós [pace BARTLETT 1989:200-201]:
according to 1 Chr 6:29, Etan’s father was
also called Kishi, and Qés is never spelled
with [3] in Canaanite and Aramaic texts).
II. Well before the emergence of an
Edomite state and an Edomite nation (8th
century BCE; cf. BARTLETT 1989; KNAUF
1992), Qós was already present in or near
his later domain. Egyptian listings (SIMONS
1937:XXIII 7; 9; 13; 21) of what must have
674
QOS
—
been the names of Shasu clans from the
13th century Bce (ODED 1971; KNAUF
1984) mention 9§r° (“Qés is [my] shepherd”
or “Qés is {my} friend”), gsSpt, gísnrm
(“Qés is verily exalted”, Egyptian /n/ stands
for Semitic /I), and gfrbn (“Qés is brilliant,
radiant”; here, Egyptian /r/ stands for Sem-
itic /I/).
As Edom's national deity, Qés is attested
in the names of the Edomite kings Qaus-
malak (BARTLETT 1989: no. 1), contempor-
ary with Tiglath-Pileser III, and Qaus-gabar,
who ruled under Esarhaddon and Ashur-
banipal (BARTLETY 1989: nos. 2 and 8). His
official status is also attested by the Horvat
‘Uza ostracon, a piece of Edomite adminis-
trative correspondence from the first half of
the 6th century: Abrktk l-qws "I bless you
(in the name) of Qés” (KNAUF 19882:78-79;
BARTLETT 1989:221-222). Qós may have
been the owner of an estate at (or the recipi-
ent of revenues from) Aroer in the Negeb
(BARTLETT 1989:213 no. 4). He is also men-
tioned, in a broken context, however, at the
‘Edomite capital Bozrah (BARTLETT 1989:
223 no. 3). Qés is further attested in the
non-royal Edomite names gws‘nl (BARTLEIT
1989: no. 9; BARTLETT 1989:214 no. 6; cf.
Idumaean Késanélou BARTLETT 1989: no.
51), bdqws (BARTLETT 1989: no. 10), pa‘qws
{BARTLETT 1989: no. 11), qwsb[nh] (BART-
LETT 1989: no. 12, cf. Kosbanou BARTLETT
1989: no. 52), and gwsny (BARTLETY 1989:
no. 13; BanrLETT 1989: 219-220 no. 7)
from Tell el-Kheleifeh/ancient Elath, and
qws' from Aroer in the Negeb (BARTLETT
1989: no. 14). A building complex from the
seventh/sixth century BCE excavated at
Horvat Qitmit—10 km south of Arad—has
been interpreted as an Edomite santuary
(BEIT-ARIEH 1985:201-202). Archaeological
findings indicate that Qós had been wor-
‘shipped there together with an unnamed
female consort. An abundance of ostriches
among the votive gifts characterize him as a
desert god, and as another god fulfilling the
Tole of the ‘lord of the beasts’ (see
s>Shadday; cf. KEEL & UEHLINGER 1992:
1440-444),
ve Most references to Qés derive from the
AALS EE py aoe e
period after the decline of the Edomite state
(552 BcE) and testify to an uninterrupted
continuity of population in southern Pales-
tine and the Transjordan in the second half
of the first millennium BCE.
The majority of the references to Qés is
Idumaean. Although Idumaea was not or-
ganized as a distinct administrative district
before the early 4th century Bce, the Edom-
ites of the post-state period can conveniently
be called Idumaeans. A cuneiform contract
found at Tawilan and dated to the accession
year of (most probably) Darius I contains
two Qós-names: Qós-$ama' and Qós-yada'
(BARTLETT 1989: nos. 3 and 4). Edomites/
Idumaeans exiled to Babylonia are attested
under Artaxerxes I (Qós-yada' and Qós-
yahab from Nippur, BARTLETT 1989: nos. 5
and 6). The Aramaic ostraca from Tell es-
Seba‘ (ca. 400 BCE) contain 14 Qés-names
(BarrLetr 1989: nos. 15-28). Whereas
qwsyngm (33.3), qwsbrk (33.4, cf. Kosba-
rakos BARTLETT 1989: no. 53), qwsml[k]
(33.4, cf. Kosmalachos BARTLETY 1989: no.
55), qwsgbr (37.4) and qwshnn (sic! ed.
princeps xeads -hbn] (41.6) continue Edom-
ite/Canaanite name types, some of the
Idumaean names are Arabic: qwsnhr (28.2;
with Arabic nahdr replacing Canaanite nur),
gwswt (34.1; -gaut) and gwswhb (36.1);
qws'dr (34.60; cf. Kosadaros. BARTLETT
1989: no. 49) could be Aramaic as well as
Canaanite.
Most Qés-names in Greek inscriptions
and papyri (mostly from Egypt) should have
belonged to Idumaeans (some may refer to
Nabataeans or Hijazians, see below). In
addition to those already mentioned, these
include Abdokés/bdqws (BARTLETT 1989:
no. 48), Kosadowqws'dh (from Marissa,
BARTLETT 1989: no. 50), Kosgérou/qwsgr
(BARTLETT 1989: no. 54), Kosnatanos (Maris-
sa; BARTLETT 1989: no. 56) and Kowsna-
tanos/qwsnin (BARTLETT 1989: no. 59; from
Zenon’s archive, 259 mB.C.E), Kosramos/
qwsrm (BARTLETT 1989: no. 57), Kostobaros/
qwsgbr (or -br? BARTLETT 1989: no. 58; Jos.
Ant. XV 8,9) and Pakeidokéséi/pqydqws
(BARTLETT 1989: no. 60, from Delos). A
bilingual ostracon from Khirbet el-Qé6m,
675
Qds
dated to 277 BCE (GERATY 1975), contains
the Idumaean name qwsyd"/Koside (line 2).
In the course of the first half of the 6th
century BCE, Edom established a colony at
Dedan. a North Arabian caravan town (Isa
21:13; Jer 49:8; Ezek 25:13; Thr 4:21).
Hence, some Qós-names are attested in local
inscriptions (fifth - third century BCE), e.g.
qwsmlk (BARTLETT 1989: nos. 32-33) and
qwsbr ( 334; BARTLETT 1989: no. 34; names
ending in -qs may refer to the North Ara-
bian deity Qais, and North Minaean símtqs
[BARTLETT 1989: no. 35] is better disre-
garded in the present context, as Minacan
transliterates foreign /s/ by []).
The southern part of what had been Edom
became the cultic centre of the Nabataean
realm (in Arabic, a3-Sará, culminating in
the environs of Petra) The Nabataean na-
tional deity Dushara (Dii-Sarád) *The One of
the Shará-Mountains' can hardly refer to
any deity other than Qós (KNAUF 1989:
110-111; 158-159; KNAuF 1991). Under his
proper name, Qós is mentioned in the
Nabataean inscriptions of Jebel et-Tannur,
where his consort is a goddess belonging to
the ->Atargatis-type. Here, Qôs is called the
"god of Haura” (/nvrw^, presently el-
Humaimah, in the Hismà district of South-
ern Jordan; KNAUF 1988b:89-90) by a cer-
tain gsmlk (BARTLETT 1989: no. 47). After
the decline of the Nabatacan state, Qós still
receives the dedication of an eagle at Bosra
(IGLS XII! 9003; 2nd-3rd centuries CE;
BARTLETT 1989: no. 44). From roughly the
same period stem the graffiti in the Nabatae-
an script in southern Sinai, whose authors
mostly came from the northern Hejiz
(Moritz 1916); here, another qws‘dr (CIS 1l
923.2; BARTLETT 1989: no. 45) is attested;
from Hegra (Madi’in Salih, the Nabataean
successor of Dedan el-'Ulà) came a qsnin
(CIS 11 209; BARrLETT 1989: no. 46). Fur-
thermore, Edomite emigration is attested by
the occurrence of the personal names
qwśnhr and qwśdkr in the Samaria-papyri
excavated at Wadi ed-Daliyeh.
As a deity, gws is once mentioned in a
Thamudic inscription from the vicinity of
Jerash (KNAUF 1981, roughly contemporary
with the Nabataean references to Qés).
Several Safaitic and Thamudic persons were
called qs, which is better interpreted as
*Qais, a frequent Arabic name (BARTLETT
1989: nos. 37-42), and two Safaites named
qsl (BARTLETT 1989: nos. 42-43) may have
been called either *Qosil, "Qós is (my)
god", or, more likely, *Qesil.
It is generally accepted that the etymon of
Qós is Arabic qaus "bow" (BARTLETT 1989:
200-204). The Semitic word for "bow"
belongs to the few words with biradical
roots: *qs, became triradical by suffixation
of a -t in Akkadian, Ethiopic, Canaanite and
Aramaic (Heb qeset, pl. qésátór), and by in-
figation of an -u- in Arabic (qaus, pl. qusiyy
and qisiyy). The orthography of the divine
name in Edomite and Aramaic poses, how-
ever, a problem which is widely disre-
garded: Proto-Semitic /s,/ corresponds to /š/
in Ist millennium BCE Canaanite, whereas
Qoós is consistently spelled with «s» (repre-
senting Proto-Semitic /s3/). An historic solu-
tion of this problem assumes that /qaus;/ is
a loan-word in Canaanite Edomite from a
language that had not yet participated in the
Canaanite shift /s;/: [s] » [8]; /s3/: [ts] > {s]
(KNAUF 1988b:73-76), i.e. Qós was at home
in one of the Proto-Arabian languages of the
Shasu-bedouins in southern Edom at the end
of the 2nd millennium BCE (with Egyptian
/sf for /s,/) and was borrowed into the
Canaanite Edomite of the incipient Edomite
state (originating in northem Edom; KNAUF
1992) during or shortly before the 8th cen-
tury (KNAUF 1984b).
Meaning “bow”, Qés is the deified
weapon of the weathergod (cf. Gen 9:13) or
a war-god (hardly an alternative in the bare-
ly specialized pantheon of a simple farmer-
herder society at the fringe of the agricul-
tural area); deified divine weapons or tools
are also known from Ugarit (ygr3 KTU 1.2
iv:12). Although the inventory of the Qitmit
sanctuary is rather late, it presents Qés in
the role of the ‘lord of the animals’ (a role
also played by a close relative of Qés, the
Israclite --Yahweh; see below), a connec-
tion that may help to elucidate Esau’s ‘ritual
hunt’ in Genesis 27 (cf. esp. 27:27-29). The
676
QÔS
worship of Qôs seems to originate in South-
em Edom, i.e. south of Wādi-l-Ghuwecir or
even south of Ràs en-Naqb, in the Hisma
area of southern Jordan and Northwest
Arabia. Close to the present Saudi-Jordanian
border, a Jabal al-Qaus is recorded (MusiL
1926:41). According to his attestations, Qós
entered the Edomite pantheon not long be-
fore, probably with the foundation of the
Edomite state in the 8th century BCE. He
was supremely en vogue among the Idu-
maeans under Persian rule, when loyalty to
the national deity probably compensated for
the loss of national independence (a process
that may find a parallel in the history of
Yahweh). The presence of Qós in North
Arabia and among ancient Arabs can be
explained as a cultural loan from the Edom-
ites (and their successors). The inscriptions
from Khirbet et-Tannür, still link him though
to the Hismà.
III. His area of origin and his nature as
an aspect of the Syrian weathergod present
Qés as closely related to Yahweh. Could the
two have originally been identical? At Kun-
tillet Ajrud around 800 BCE, a “Yahweh of
Teman” is attested besides “Yahweh of
Samaria”. Teman was another designation
for northem Edom (cf. Amos 1:12; Jer 49:
7.20; Ezek 25:13), but could also refer to
any area south of Samaria in this context. In
addition, Yahweh arrives from Scir to fight
for his people in the archaic song of Debo-
rah (Judg 5:5; Ps 68:9). One may further
note that Qds is not mentioned in the
Hebrew Bible (nor is there any ‘national
deity’ for Edom mentioned), whereas the
Ammonite -Milcom and the Moabite
~Chemosh are (BARTLETT 1989:197-200).
Yahweh, Qós and Dushara are primarily
epithets that were used instead of the god’s
real name, -*Haddu/Hadad (another of his
epithets was, of course, —Baal). From an
historical point of view, one may claim the
five deities mentioned as differentiations of
a single deity; his different names indicate,
however, that various groups of believers
stressed various aspects of that generic
‘Syrian weathergod'. What they thought
about the identity or non-identity of their
respective. gods is, for the lack of unam-
biguously phrased source material, presently
beyond our insight (cf. KNAUF 1991).
IV. Bibliography
I. Berrn-Arien, Horvat Qitmit, /EJ 35
(1985) 201-202; J. R. BARTLETT, Edom and
the Edomites (JSOTSup 77; Sheffield 1989);
J. A. DEARMAN, Edomite Religion: A Sur-
vey and an Examination of Some Recent
Contributions, You Shall not Abhor an Edo-
mite for He is Your Brother (ed. D. V. Edel-
man; Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3;
Atlanta 1995) 119-136; L. T. GERATY, Thc
Khirbet cl-Kóm bilingual ostracon, BASOR
220 (1975) 57-61; O. KEEL & C. UEHLIN-
GER, Géttinnen, Gétter und Gottessymbole
(Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1992); E. A. KNAUF,
Zwei thamudische Inschriften aus der
Gegend von Gera’, ZDPV 97 1981) 188-192;
KNAUF, Qaus in Agypten, GM 73 (1984a)
33-36; KNAUF, Qaus, UF 16 (1984b) 93-95;
KNAUF, Supplementa Ismaelitica 13: Edom
und Arabien, BN 45 (1988a) 62-81; KNAUF,
Midian. | Untersuchungen | zur Geschichte
Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des
2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden
1988b); KNaur, /smael. Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte Paltistinas und Nordarabiens
im l. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV 7, Wiesba-
den ?1989); KNavr, Dushara and Shai’ al-
Qaum. Yhwh und Baal. Dieu, in: Lectio
difficilior probabilior? L'exégése comme
expérience de décloisonnement. Mélanges
offerts à Frangoise Smyth-Florentin (ed. Th.
Rómer: DBAT Beih 12; Heidelberg 1991),
19-29: KNaur, The cultural impact of
secondary state formation: the cases of the
Edomites and Moabites, Early Edom and
Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in
Southern Jordan (ed. P. Bienkowski;
Sheffield 1992); B. Monnz, Der Sinaikult
in heidnischer Zeit (Berlin 1916); A. MUSIL,
The Northern He£áz (New York 1926); B.
Opep, Egyptian References to the Edomite
Deity Qaus, AUSS 9 (1971) 47-50; J.
Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egypt-
ian Topographical Lists relating to Western
Asia (Leiden 1937).
E. A. KNAUF
677
QUEEN OF HEAVEN
QUEEN OF HEAVEN DJT monn
I. As a designation of a goddess, *mal-
kat hassámayim occurs in Jer 7:18; 44:17-
19.25 as well as in Hermopolis Letter 4.1
from South Egypt (Sth century BCE; BRES-
CIANI & Kamit 1966). In the MT omilkt (a
number of MSS have mlk?r) h$mym has been
vocalized as — ;mnéleket (= — méle'ket)
ha3$ámayim, "the work of heaven" which,
as appears from a comparison of Gen 2:1
with Gen 2:2, apparently has to be inter-
preted as séba’ hasSdmayim, “the host of
heaven" (cf. LXX Jer 7:18, hé stratid tou
ouranou, "the host of heaven”). So it is
likely that the punctuators of the Hebrew
text wanted to suggest that Jer 7:18; 44:17-
25 deal with the worship of the heavenly
bodies, It. is now commonly agrced that the
Original vocalization of mlkt himym was
malkat ha3sámayim, "the Queen of Heaven"
(cf. LXX Jer 51 (44]:17-25, hé basilissa tou
ouranou). Evidently the Masoretic vocaliza-
tion was an intentional variation which was
focused on the removal of any suggestion
that the people of Judah had engaged in the
worship of the Queen of Heaven.
II. The designation "Queen of Heaven"
qualifies its bearer as a mighty, universal
and leading goddess. In the ancient Near
East similar designations were borne by pro-
minent divinities such as the Babylonian-
Assyrian goddess -*Ishtar and the West
Semitic goddesses -*Anat and -*Astarte.
They have several traits of character in com-
mon and are generally regarded as fertility
goddesses. It is doubtful whether they are
characterized by their title as astral divin-
ities. With regard to Ishtar and Astarte such
an interpretation is possible—they are
equated with Venus—, but with regard to
Anat, for instance, the identification with a
heavenly body is not likely.
Ishtar is called malkat šamāmi, “Queen of
Heaven," Sarrat Samàmi u kakkabé, "Sov-
ereign of Heaven and Stars", Sarrat Samé,
"Sovereign of Heaven", belit Samé, “Lady
of Heaven”, etc. (AKkKGE 39, 64, 129, 186,
239, 240). In numerous inscriptions from
New Kingdom Egypt the epithet rnb.t p.t,
‘Lady of Heaven’, is used for Anat, Astane,
Ishtar and also for Qudshu, “the Holy One”
(STADELMANN 1967:88-123). The identity
of Qudshu is disputed. Her equation with
Canaanite -Asherah is defended (e.g.,
OLYAN 1987: 163). In the Ugaritic literature
Anat is called b‘lr Smm rmm, “Lady of the
Exalted Heaven", (KTU 1.108:7). According
to a current but uncertain interpretation (cf.
Cur. Butrerweck, TUAT 2 [1988] 592)
imm "drm in the Phoenician Esmun‘azar in-
scription (KA/ 14:16) must be construed as a
tide of Astarte, “Lady of the Highest
Heaven". Oriental >Aphrodite (= Astarte),
whose cult is attested in the latter half of the
first millennium and was spread throughout
the Mediterranean world, was designated by
the title Ourania, ‘The Heavenly One’ (cf.
Decor 1982: 115-119; Hodric 1979: 41,
125, 158-159).
III. In the book of Jeremiah only the
goddess’ title is mentioned. Her proper
name is concealed. Because all of the great
goddesses of the ancient Near East could be
denoted by epithets such as Lady of Heaven,
it is not surprising that various suggestions
are made with regard to the identity of the
Judaean Queen of Heaven. Ishtar, Anat,
Astarte, Asherah and even the Ug sun-god-
dess Shapshu (Danuoop 1960:166-168) are
presented as candidates. Evidently. the
Queen of Heaven was a Canaanite fertility
goddess, a mother goddess, whose cult was
known and practised in Israel and Judah
long before Jeremiah. It is possible that
Manasseh as a vassal of Assur introduced
the cult of Ishtar in Jerusalem, but in prac-
tice his concern would certainly be a stimu-
lus for the people to worship a Canaanite
counterpart of the Mesopotamian goddess.
AS a matter of course the time-honoured
connections of Canaan with Mesopotamia
can have resulted in the adoption of some
foreign traits in the Canaanite/Israelite cult.
In this connection it is worth mentioning
that kawwaním, the term for the cakes which
were used in the cult of the Queen of
Heaven (Jer 7:18; 44:19), is cognate to Akk
kamanu, which is used among others in con-
nection with offerings to Ishtar (CAD 8
[1971] 110-111). As for the identity of the
678
QUEEN OF HEAVEN
Queen of Heaven, it is difficult to make a
choice between Anat—Anatyahü and Anat-
bayt'il of the fifth century BcE Elephantine
papyri (B. PoRTEN 1968: 171, 177, 179)—,
Asherah (2 Kgs 21:7; 23:4.7) and the West
Semitic Astarte (e.g., OLYAN 1987:166-174).
The question of her identity appears,
however, not to be of considerable import-
ance. In the syncretistic world of the first
millennium BCE Near East, the title Queen
of Heaven was evidently a designation for
the universal mother goddess, who accord-
ing to the time and the place of her worship
could have a different character. The use of
the goddess’ title without mentioning her
proper name may be considered as a symp-
tom of a religious atmosphere in which the
qualities of a deity are held to be of more
importance than her name (cf. DELCOR 1982:
115-119).
The cult of the Queen of Heaven, as
depicted in the book of Jeremiah, was prac-
tised in Jerusalem and the cities of Judah
(Jer 7:17) as well as among the Judaean
emigrants in Egypt (Jer 44:15). The people
of Judah, but also their kings and princes,
were devoted to her worship (Jer 44:17).
Her cult was a task of the whole family, but
the leading role in it was played by the
women (Jer 7:18; 44:15.19). In honour of
the Queen of Heaven sacrifices were burned
and drink-offerings were poured out (Jer
44:17-19). By the women cakes were made,
either in the shape of the (naked?) goddess
or of a star, her emblem, or marked with her
image or her emblem (Jer 7:18; 44:19).
Prosperity and protection against calamities
were regarded as the consequences of pay-
ing homage to her (Jer 44:8.17).
In the Bible no sanctuary is mentioned in
connection with the cult of the Queen of
Heaven (cf. Jer 7:17; 44:17). It goes too far,
however, to conclude that her cult was only
of a private nature (cf. 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:4.7).
In the Hermopolis letter 4:1, which is of
non-Jewish origin, mention is made of a
temple to the Queen of Heaven (byt mikt
Smyn) in Syene, in that part of Egypt where
Judaean emigrants had established them-
selves (cf. Jer 44:1.15).
IV. The cult of the Queen of Heaven
maintained its position long into thc
Christian Era. Epiphanius (4th century) criti-
cizes certain women in Thracia, Scythia, and
Arabia, on account of their habit of adoring
the Virgin Mary as a goddess and offering
to her a certain kind of cake (kollyrida tina),
whence he calls them “Collyridians” (Adv.
Haereses LXXIX; PG 42 [1863] 741, 752).
Isaac of Antioch (Sth century) equates the
Queen of Heaven of the book of Jeremiah
with the Syr goddess Kaukabta, "the Star"
(2 Venus). He also identifies the Arab god-
dess Al-Uzza with the Queen of Heaven
(Opera omnia Y, ed. G. BicKEL [Giessen
1873} 210, 244-247). Some traits in the cult
of Al-Uzza have been borrowed from her
cult (J. WELLHAUSEN 1897:34-45). Ac-
quaintance with the cult of the Queen of
Heaven may be present in 7g. Jer. 7:18;
44:17-19.25. mikt h3mym has been translated
with kwkbt $my', 'the —stars of heaven' (cf.
MT) or more likely ‘the Star of Heaven’ (=
Venus). In the worship of the Blessed
Virgin Mary (Regina Coeli) the cult of the
Queen of Heaven is continued up to the
present (OLYAN 1987:169; LoreTz 1990:
88).
V. Bibliography
S. ACKERMANN, “And the Women Knead
Dough”: The Worship of the Queen of
Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah, Gender and
Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. P. L. Day;
Minneapolis 1989) 109-124; E. BRESCIANI
& M. KaMiL, Le Lettre aramaiche di Her-
mopoli (Rome 1966); M. DaHoop, La Re-
gina del Cielo in Geremia, RivBib 8 (1960)
166-168; *M. DtErcom, Le culte de la
"Reine du Ciel" selon Jer 7.18; 44,1-19,25
et ses survivances, Von Kanaan bis Kerala.
Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. J. P. M. van
der Ploeg O.P. (ed. W. C. Delsman et al.;
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982) 101-122;
M. HóniG, Dea Syria (AOAT 208;
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979); *C.
HouTMAN, Der Himmel im Alten Testament
(OTS 30; Leiden 1993); K. KocH, Aschera
als Himmelskónigin in Jerusalem, UF 20
(1988) 97-120; O. Loretz, Ugarit und die
Bibel (Darmstadt 1990); W. McKane,
679
QUIRINUS
Worship of the Queen of Heaven (Jer 44),
“Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Gottern?”.
Festschrift fiir Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburt-
stag (ed. I. Kottsieper et al); Géóttingen
1994) 318-324; R. pu MESNIL DU
Buisson, Etudes sur les dieux phéniciens
hérités par l'empire romain (Leiden 1970)
119, 126-127; J. T. MiLiK, Les papyrus
araméens d'Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-
phéniciens en Egypte perse, Bib 48 (1967)
556-564; *M. OLvAN, Some Observations
concerning the Identity of the Queen of
Heaven, UF 19 (1987) 161-174; B. PORTEN,
Archives: from Elephantine (Berkeley/Los
Angeles 1968); W. E. Rasr, Cakes for the
Queen of Heaven, Scripture in History and
Theology. Essays in Honor of J. Coert
Rylaarsdam (ed. A. L. Merrill & T. W.
Overholt; Pittsburgh 1974) 167-180; S.
SCHROER, /n Israel gab es Bilder (OBO 74;
Freiburg/Góttingen 1987) 273-281; R.
STADELMANN, Syrisch-Paldstinensische Gott-
heiten in Ägypten (Leiden 1967); C. UEH-
LINGER, Die Frau im Efa (Sach 5, 5-11).
Eine Programmvision von der Abschiedung
der Göttin, Bibel und Kirche 49 (1994) 93-
103; J. WELLHAUSEN, Reste arabischen
Heidentums (Berlin 1897) 34-45; U. WiN-
TER, Frau und Göttin (OBO 53; Frei-
burg/Göttingen 1983) 561-576.
C. HOUTMAN
QUIRINUS
I. Quirinus, a Roman god progressively
identified with Romulus, occurs as a theo-
phoric element in the name of P. Sulpicius
Quirinius at Luke 2:2.
II. It is difficult to obtain any accurate
understanding of archaic Roman religion
(say, before 509 BCE) and Quirinus is even
by these standards unclear. His festival is
obviously the Quirinalia on 17th February,
but what happened there is known neither to
us nor, apparently, to Ovid. For some reason
his name links with the title of the Roman
citizens in assembly, the ‘Quirites’. The
Quirinal Hill at Rome is evidently named
after him and his temple there is "one of the
oldest shrines” in Rome (Pliny, HN 15:200).
But his name, an adjective in formation, has
suggested that he was the god of a forgotten
area *Quirium, perhaps the home of the
original Quintes (Wissowa 1912:153, an
idea which largely goes back to B. G.
NIEBUHR, cf. KRETSCHMER 1920:147).
Others, since antiquity, have considered the
possibility that he is a peaceful form of
Mars, Mars Quirinus, Mars of the Quirites
(PALMER 1970:167, but cf. ScHoLz 1970:
18-20 and RADKE 1981:140-141). He cer-
tainly has features in common with Mars.
Both have a flamen, the archaic Roman
priesthood perhaps cognate with the Sanskrit
brahman: the three major flamines are, in
order, the flamen Dialis (of Jupiter), the
flamen Martialis and the flamen Quirinalis.
Like Mars, he has a set of Salii, ‘Leaping’
priests whose duties notably included dances
in armour during March (the month of
Mars); and like Mars he had his own
weapons and armour (Festus p. 238 Lindsay,
cf. PALMER 1970:162). One reading of the
evidence associates him with the structuring
of early Roman society into curiae (voting
divisions; >*co-uiriae) and with the as-
sembled Roman citizenry (Quirites), making
him very much the god of the Roman
*Mànnerbund' (e.g. KRETSCHMER 1920:150;
DuMEzIL 1966; but cf. RADKE 1981:144-
147). Whatever his origins, the deified
Romulus came gradually to be identified
with him during the last centuries BCE and
this at least gave him an identity for
Romans in the time of — Christ.
III. Quirinus, with his awkward Latin
Qui- (pronounced Ki-), is Kupivos in
Greek (e.g. Dion.Hal., Ant.Rom. 2, 63, 3)
and Quirinius is Kuprivios in Luke; in turn
this is rendered back into Latin as Cyrinus
in Vg. It seems, therefore, unlikely that
Jerome (or even Luke) was particularly
aware of the theophoric nature of this name.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was a man of
relatively undistinguished origins whose
military skills had won him a consulate in
12 BcE. He displayed consistent loyalty to
the future emperor Tiberius (Tac., Annals
3:48) which won him influence and ulti-
mately (21 CE) a public funeral. He was
680
QUIRINUS
governor of Syria in 6 CE (Jos., Ant. 18:26),
which poses chronological difficulties for
his mention at Luke 2:2 in connection with
the contentious census. PW lists seven
Quirini, mostly from the Greek eastern
Mediterranean and also a Quirinius, but
Luke's is the only Sulpicius Quirinius
known to us.
IV. Bibliography
A. BnELICH, Quirinus. Una divinità romana
alla luce della comparazione storica, SMSR
31 (1960) 63-119; G. DUMÉZIL, La religion
romaine archaïque (Paris 1966) ch. v; C.
KocaH, Quirinus, PW 24 (1963) 1306-22; P.
KRETSCHMER, Lat. Quirites und quiritare,
Glotta 10 (1920) 147-57; K. LATTE, Rö-
mische Religionsgeschichte (München 1960)
133-134; R. E. A. PALMER, The Archaic
Community of the Romans (Cambridge
1970) 160-172; G. RADKE; Zur Entwicklung
der Gottesvorstellung und der Gottesver-
ehrung in Rom (Darmstadt 1987) 138-156;
*RADKE, Quirinus. Eine kritische Über-
prüfung der Uberlieferung und ein Versuch,
ANRW 1.17.1 (1981) 276-299 [{& lit}; U.
W. SCHOLZ, Studien zum altitalischen und
altrömischen Marskult und Marsmythos
(Heidelberg 1970); R. SYME, The Augustan
Aristocracy (Oxford 1986) 55. 338-340; G.
WissoWA, Religion und Kultus der Rómer
(nd ed. München 1912) 153-156; G.
Wissowa, Quirinus, ALGRM iv (1909-15)
10-18...
K. DOWDEN
681
RABISU yon
Y. Rabisu (Sum magkim) is formally an
Akkadian participle from rabdsu, ‘to crouch,
lie in wait’. Evidence from Arabic suggests
that Proto-Semitic contained two different
roots: RBD and RBS. In Arabic the former is
used with reference to small cattle and de-
notes their ‘crouching’ or ‘lying down’ (cf.
OSA mrbdn, ‘sheepfold’), though it can also
mean ‘to lurk’. The latter has the second
(negative) meaning only. The root is not used
as à divine element in Semitic onomastica.
In Akkadian texts, the tide rabisu is also
applied to certain deities. In Gen 4:7, the
Hebrew word robés is often considered a
loan of Akk rabisu: sin is ‘crouching’ at
Cain’s door like a demon.
HU. The root meaning of Akk rdbisu
seems to be 'one who lies in wait'. Yet the
term was not always employed in a negative
sense. Its usage may be divided into two
categories: (a) referring to human officials
and (b) referring to deities or demons:
Rabisu was the name of a high official in
Mesopotamia (the title is often translated
‘commissary’, ‘bailiff’, Sachwalter, etc.).
The office included a judicial aspect. It is
well attested in the Ur III period, where the
rabisu was the most important official after
the judge and was responsible for the pre-
liminary examination at trials. A ‘rabisu of
the judge’ (rabis dayydnim) is attested at
Sippar from the time of Sabium until that of
Samsi-iluna of Babylon.
No mention of the rdbisu is found in
Mesopotamian legal and administrative texts
after the Old Babylonian period (OPpPEN-
HEIM 1968:178); yet the title continued in
use in the West. In the Amarna correspon-
dence rābişu designated a high Pharaonic
official to whom the local ruler was answer-
able. In EA 256:9 (cf. 362:69) LÓ.MES.MASXIM
js glossed by sú-ki-ni (probably Canaanite
*sékinu—cf, Phoen skn, ‘ruler, governor’)
and in 131:21 by ma-lik.MES, ‘counsellors’.
At Ugarit the rabisu (LÓ.MASKIM) appears as
a contracting party or a witness in docu-
ments. In RS 16.145:25-26 he is listed as
the last witness, and is described as “he who
brings forth the royal seal".
The title is applied to certain deities
(chiefly male) in a positive sense, desig-
nating them as heavenly counterparts of the
human rabisu. Underlying this conception
may be his judicial role: in the event of cer-
tain transgressions such deities could be ex-
pected to bring guilty parties to judgment.
Moreover, gods could be invoked in curses
to act as a rabisu against the offending
party. The drafters of these curses may have
had the demonic aspect of the rdbisu in
mind. One also finds certain unnamed dei-
ties or demons bearing the title rabis X,
usually with respect to a certain city (e.g.
Mari: ARM 10 no. 9 rev 23’-26’) or temple
(Taákultu Yll rev 66). Here belongs also rábis
$ulmim, *ràbisu of well-being' (YOS 10, 53:
30), whose opposite is the ràbis lemuttim
(rábisu of evil).
Late in the Old Babylonian period the
rabisu developed the character of a malevo-
lent demon, often qualified as Jemnu, ‘evil’.
This development may have arisen from the
aspect of the human official as a powerful
and fearsome figure (OPPENHEIM 1968:178-
79), someone not to be trifled with
(EDZARD & WIGGERMANN 1989-450). Such.
demons are typically named in the context
of other evil spirits and are considered
responsible for various evils. In medical
omen texts one finds the diagnosis, “a
rübigu has seized him” (TDP 158:12) and
“he has walked in the path of a rabisu
(TPD 34:23). Such texts also mention
specific types of rábisu, who were thought
to ambush their victims in various places:
682
RACHEL
rabis ari, “the rabisu of the roof" (TPD
214:11); rabis musdti, “the rabisu of the
lavatory” (TPD 188: 13): rabis nari, “the
rübisu of the river/canal" (TPD 190:24-25);
rabis harbati, "the rábisu of the wasteland”
(STT 91:84); ràbig urhi, "the rabisu of the
road" (TPD 182:40).
III. It is commonly held among OT com-
mentators that Akk rdbisu appears as a loan-
word in Gen 4:7 (Hebr róbés). Unfortunatc-
ly this hypothesis is complicated by the
extremely problematic nature of this pas-
sage; no satisfactory solution to its diffi-
culties has yet been reached. The verse in
question is situated in a context in which
-—Yahweh is addressing -*Cain, who was
depressed and angry ("his face fell"—4:5)
because an offering from his harvest was not
pleasing to God. The reason for the divine
disapproval is not stated.
The import of God's words to Cain in v 7
is far from clear. Specifically, we?inm 16’ rétib
lappetah hatta’t rébés is usually understood
to mean, “But if you do not do well/do your
best, sin is a croucher-demon at the door”.
This interpretation has the advantage of pro-
viding the masculine antecedent presup-
posed in the subsequent clause (1éstiqaté ...
b6; the same idiom occurs in Gen 3:16). But
there are problems. For example, one would
expect the antecedent to be the tenor of the
metaphor (atta’r, ‘sin’) rather than the vehi-
cle (róbés). Also, the position of lappetah is
odd if in fact it means ‘at the door/opening
[of a tent]'. On this interpretation it should
most likely come after harta’t rébés.
Nevertheless, if one accepts the MT read-
ing, the /iapax legomenon róbés could refer
to a rabisu demon, instigating Cain to com-
mit murder. The fact that this demon is said
to lurk "at the (tent?)-opening" fits with the
character of the rdbisu, namely to lurk in
ordinary places to spring his ambush. On the
other hand, the Akkadian sources portray the
rabisu as a being that attacks its victims, not
as one that tempts them to commit sin.
IV. Bibliography
*D. O. EpzagD & F. A. M. WiGGER-
MANN, maskim (rdbisu) ‘Kommissar, An-
walt, Sachwalter’, RLA 7 (1989) 449-455 [&
lit}; A. L. Oppenneim, The Eyes of the
Lord, JAOS 88 (1968) 173-180; *C. WESTER-
MANN, Genesis 1-]] (2d ed.; BKAT 1/1;
Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976) 406-410 [& lit].
M. L. BARRÉ
RACHEL ^75
Il. Rachel is in biblical tradition
—Jacob's favourite wife and mother of
—Joseph and Benjamin (Gen 30:23-24;
35:16-20). Outside the Pentateuch she is
mentioned in 1 Sam 10:2; Ruth 4:11 and Jer
31:15. Rachel was originally an animal
name. The noun rahél, ‘ewe’, is attested in
Hebrew (Gen 31:38; Isa 53:7), Aramaic
(also the Deir Alla inscription 1,11) and
classical Arabic. SrApE (1881), Haurr
(1909), O. ProckscH (Die Genesis [KAT
1; Leipzig 1913) 334-335), and M. Norn
(Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels
[Stuttgart 1930] 83) believed her name, as
well as ->Leah’s, was originally an emblem
of different tribal groups of cattle-breeders.
In these animal names other scholars dis-
covered evidence of animal worship and
totemism in early Israel (SMITH 1894; Gray
1896; MEYER 1906:274); some even saw in
Rachel a mythological personification of the
rain-clouds ((Wolkenkuh', GOLDZIHER 1876).
H. The Akkadian word lahru (ewe) is
often quoted as a cognate to rahél (CAD L
42-44; AHW 528; HALAT 1134), but this
linguistic connection is not certain. Lahar
({uDU].Ug) is a Babylonian cattle-god, pre-
sumably of Sumerian origin, usually men-
tioned together with the grain-god Ashnan
(W. G. LAMBERT, Lahar, RLA 6 [1980-83]
431). Even if a connection exists, the Baby-
lonian cattle-god and biblical Rachel hardly
share more than a common etymology.
Rachel was neither a totem nor a local
numen, whose sanctuary was turned into a
sepulchre (MEYER 1906:274), Ict alone a fer-
tility-goddess, though she was certainly
venerated in Israel as an ancestral saint.
III. The location of the tomb of Rachel
on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim near
Ramah (Gen 30:16,18; 48:7; 1 Sam 10:2;
Jer 31:15; ef. Jer 40:1, presumably at pres-
683
RAHAB
ent er-Ram at the head of W. Fara, cf.
HALAT 908; J. J. Symons, The Geographi-
cal and Topographical Texts of the OT
[Leiden 1959] $ 327.1.8), confirms Rachel’s
connection to the early Israelite tribes of
Joseph and Benjamin. The location south of
Ramat Rachel near Bethlehem—where a
mediaeval gubbet Rahil is still shown—may
reflect a secondary Judaean location
(JEREMIAS 1958:75-76, pace SIMONS, The
Geographical and Topographical Texts of
the OT §§ 383, 666-668), which gained pro-
minence in Jater Jewish and Christian tradi-
tion (Matt 2:16-18). Two explicit references
from the monarchic period (1 Sam 10:2; Jer
31:15) and the ancient blessing, preserved in
Ruth 4:11, present limited but clear evi-
dence of a living ancestral cult around
Rachel's tomb in OT times (TsEvAT 1962).
It is not surprising to find evidence for more
than one tomb. Also in modern times
Muslim and Christian saints sometimes have
more than one magaam with a shrine or a
cenotaph (E. W. LANE, Manners and
Customs of the Modern Egyptians [London
1836; repr. 1978}). The existence of a
younger rival tradition near Bethlehem can-
not be excluded (examples in JEREMIAS
1958:114-117). The bold personification of
.mother. Rachel in Jer 31:15-16 is more than
prophetic imagination or figurative speech:
Even if the historial reference is to the Exile
of 587 sce, the underlying tradition is that
of the barren Rachel crying for children she
cannot conceive (Gen 30:1-2; 1 Sam 1:7-8).
It is only 1n the interpretation of the prophet
and in the midrash of Matt 2:18 that the
barren Rachel also becomes the bereft
mother of Israel] (cf. the role of Ephraim in
] Chr 7:22). Her cry may refer to a ritual
performed by women at her tomb, vener-
ating her as the ancestral mother. These
women, having experienced barrenness and
bereavement, may have honoured her as
their patroness, and may have asked for her
intercession (Gen 35:16-20; Ruth 4:11; Jer
31:16). Part of the folklore was also the
application of Mandragora as an aphrodiasic
stimulating sexual desire and fertility (Gen
30:14-15; Cant 7:14; J. G. Frazer, Folk-
lore in the Old Testament, Vol 2 [London
1918] 372-397; G. DALMAN, Arbeit und
Sitte, Vol. I [Gütersloh 1928] 250-251), a
phenomenon which is quite well attested in
other ancient fertility and modem saint cults.
IV. Bibliography
I. dGorpzirm, Der Mythos bei den
Hebrüern und seine geschichtliche Entwick-
lung (Leipzig 1876; repr. 1987) 187-191; G.
B. GRAY, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names
(London 1896) 86; P. Haurr, Lea und
Rachel, ZAW 29 (1909) 281-286; J. JERE-
MIAS, Heiligengrüber in Jesu Umwelt (Gót-
üngen 1958); E. MEYER, Die Israeliten und
thre Nachbarstimme (Halle 1906); W.
ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures on the Religion
of the Semites (London 19273; repr. 1969)
288-311; B. STADE, Lea und Rachel, ZAW 1
(1881) 112-116; M. TsEvat, Saul at
Rache!'s Tomb, HUCA 33 (1962) 107-118.
M. DIJKSTRA
RAHAB 3m
Y. Rahab is one of the names in the OT
of the chaos monster(s) (cf. also —Levia-
than, —Tannin, Tehom [(-Tiamat], and
Yam). Although there are in the neighbou-
ring cultures many parallels to this pheno-
menon of chaos monsters, the name Rahab
seems to have no cognates. The only excep-
tion is in an Akkadian text about a chaos
monster usually called Labbu. The first syl-
Jable in this name is written with the sign
KAL which can be read as lab as well as reb;
so the reading Rebbu (<*reb-bu) is possible
too (LAMBERT 1986:55 n-1). The Hebrew
name is probably related to Heb RHE,
'assail', *press', and Akk ra'ábu(m), "trem-
ble (with fear or rage)' and especially with
jts derivate rūbu, ‘overflow’, because this is
not only said of rage but also of water, whe-
reas Rahab is usually related to the ~sea. It
occurs as a divine name in Isa 51:9; Ps
89:11; Job 9:13; 26:12; and Sir 43:25; and
as a reference to Egypt in Isa 30:7 and Ps
87:4. The plural réhabim in Ps 40:5 can be
interpreted as a reference to related
— demons.
Il. The reference to Rahab in the OT
684
RAHAB
should be read against the background of
ancient Near Eastern mythology describing
creation as based on victory over the powers
of chaos, viz. the primordial oceans. These
powers are represented as monsters. The
best known example is the Babylonian myth
Enüma eli$ describing —Marduk's creation
of the kosmos by defeating the chaos
monster Tiamat with her helpers. In the
Ugaritic myth of >Baal there are references
to a primordial battle between Baal or his
consort Anat against the god of the Sea
Yam and other chaos monsters (KTU? 1.2
iv; 1.3 ài; 1.5 1). The same myth tells us that
this battle did not stop with the creation of
the world: the powers of chaos remain a
threat which has to be confronted again and
again. A ritual text (KTU? 1.82) describes
how these forces can afflict human life and
how they can be exorcized.
A clear picture of such a watery chaos
monster can be found on an Assyrian cyl-
inder seal (KEEL 1977:43, pl.48) which
shows a —dragon with a body of waves.
The dragon is attacked by a wamior with
two helpers. On a Hittite cylinder seal
(ANEP 670 and KEEL 1977:44, pl.50) we
see two gods fighting a dragon pictured as
waves curling over.
IA. In the OT texts relating Rahab to the
sea its original character of chaos monster is
preserved. They also point to a conception
of a battle between > Yahweh and chaos
preceding the creation of —heaven and
earth. Job 26 describes the steadfast order
of the universe preserved by God after
having struck down Rahab (cf. also Ps 89:7-
13). Job 9:13 mentions Rahab’s helpers.
This has a parallel in the army of monsters
siding with Tiamat according to Enuma elis
1 125ff and also in ‘the Big Ones’, monsters
supporting the sea god Yam, the adversary
of Baal and Anat in KTU? 1.3 iii:38ff. And
the ritual text KTU? 1.109:21 mentions
helper-gods among a number of gods re-
siding in the netherworld (TUAT IU3, 317).
In Isa 51:9-10 the reference to Yahweh as
victor in the battle ‘in the days of old’
against the monsters of chaos is used, just as
in the Ugaritic myth of Baal, as a reason for
hope in the present sitoation: this victory
can be repeated in new situations of distress.
The prophet has associated the creation of
heaven and earth out of the oceans of chaos
with the deliverance of the people of Israel
out of Egypt through the waters of the Reed
Sea. The god of Israel is called upon to
repeat such an act of salvation on behalf of
the people of Judah living in exile by the
rivers of Babylon. The prophet appears to
have been inspired by the prophecy in Isa
30:7 against Egypt. To the people looking
for help against Assyria, Egypt is described
as a worthless ally. This is expressed in
what must have been intended to be a nick-
name: rahab hém $àüber, "You are Rahab?
Inaction!’ Because of its uncommon syntax
this is usually emended to rahab ham-
mosbat, ‘Rahab who is brought to a stand-
still’. The problem of the best text can be
Jeft aside here, because the prophet’s mess-
age is clear: Egypt is like one of the
monsters of chaos, but lacks their power.
When we take into account the etymology
of the narne of Rahab proposed above, the
words of this text are in fact a contradictio
in terminis. This can be compared to the
mocking song on the king of Babylon in Isa
14, celebrating his downfall into the realm
of death. Isa 14:4 also speaks of him being
stopped (Heb sbt) and he seems to be deno-
ted by a word derived from the stem rhb as
well. Unfortunately, the Hebrew text is
uncertain here too.
Ps 87:4 shows that this nickname for
Egypt became more or less common, be-
cause it is used here without further com-
ment. This may have been favoured by the
fact that travelling from Israel to Egypt has
always been called 'going down', using the
same verb that denotes the journey from the
land of the living to the world of the dead,
which is surrounded by the watery powers
of chaos.
The plural réhabim in Ps 40:5 can be
interpreted as referring to demonic forces
related to Rahab. In this psalm they are
opposed to Yahweh: ‘Blessed is the one
who trusts in Yahweh, who turns not to
réhabim and becomes entangled in —false-
685
RAKIB-EL
hood’. This last word (Heb ka@zab) is used in
Isa 28:15 to describe a ‘covenant with
death' and in Amos 2:4 it denotes the false
gods. Al this makes it likely that Ps 40:5
refers, as was earlier suggested by GUNKEL
and others, to the forbidden attempt to
obtain help from divine forces in the nether-
world. The OT leaves us in no doubt that
this was incompatible with the worship of
Yahweh as the one god, just as in Ps 40:5
the réhabim are oppossed to Yahweh. The
attestation of réhàbtm next to Rahab can be
compared to the relation between rpum
(^Rephaim) and the god Rapi'u in the relig-
ion of Ugarit. There may also be a con-
nection with the ‘helpers of Rahab’ men-
tioned in Job 9:13. From Ugaritic ritual texts
we learn that not only benign powers from
the netherworld were invoked; evil forces
were also called upon. In an incantation
recited 'to cast out the flying demons which
possess a young man’ it is said of ~Horon,
master of black magic: ‘Jet him be a friend’
(KTU? 1.160:9-10; ARTU 185; differently
DLU, t, 172). Apparently one hoped to per-
suade this dreadful god to use his powers in
a favourable way. In this way a ‘covenant
with death’ (Isa 28:15) could benefit the
living. The same conception seems to be
hinted at. in Matt. 12:25, "driving out the evil
spirits by Beelzebul, the lord of the spirits".
IV. Bibliography
J. Dav, God's Conflict with the Dragon and
the Sea (Cambridge 1985); J. Day, Rahab,
ABD 5 (New York 1992) 610-611; G. R.
Driver, Mythical Monsters in the Old Tes-
tament, Studi orientalistici in onore di
Georgio Levi della Vida, 1 (Roma 1956)
234-249; O. KEEL, Die Welt der altorienta-
listischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testa-
ment am Beispiel der Psalmen (Neukirchen-
Vluyn 2. Auflage 1977); W. G. LAMBERT,
Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic
of Creation, Keilschriftliche Literaturen:
Ausgewählte Vorträge der X. Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale (ed. K. Hecker
& W. Sommerfeld; Berlin 1986) 55-60; U.
RUTERSWGRDEN, Rahab, TWAT 7 (1990)
372-378 [& lit].
K. SPRONK
686
RAKIB-EL ;
I. Rakib-El is known to have been the
god of the kings of Sam’al, a Neo-Hittite
dynasty in South-East Anatolia. It has been
suggested that the Rechabites, a religious
minority group in ancient Israel, were orig-
inally named after Rakib-El (RAMEY 1968).
A variant proposal connects the name with
the god Rkb, presumably short for Rakib-E]
or the epithet rkb ‘rpt, ‘Rider of the clouds’
(BLENKINSOPP 1972)
IL. Rakib-El is a poorly known deity
whose name occurs a number of times in
Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions from
Zinjirli (KAJ 24:16; 25:4.6; 214:2.3.11.18;
215:22; 216:5). He was worshipped by King
Kilamuwa and his family as their divine pa-
tron (bl bt, ‘Lord of the Dynasty’). The
character of Rakib-E] has not been estab-
lished beyond doubt. If LANDSBERGER is
correct in his understanding of the name as
‘Charioteer of -E]’ (1948), it is quite poss-
ible that Rakib-E] has to be associated with
the storm-god —Hadad. In Ugaritic texts
Hadad (better known as —Baal) bears the
epithet ‘Rider of the clouds’ (rkb ‘rpi;
Rakib-E] could be another epithet of the
same deity. Others have suggested that
Rakib-El was a moon-god identical to the
Ugaritic god Yarih, adducing in support of
this identification the parallelism between
Rakib-E] and Baal Haran (‘the lord of
Haran’), an epithet of the moon-god Sin,
and because of the lunar symbolism on the
Zinjirli stela (e.g. F. M. Cross, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge 1973]
10 n. 32; more cautiously LANDSBERGER
1948: Donner & ROLLIG 1964:237). The
arguments in support of the lunar character
of Rakib-El are not entirely convincing,
however. The mere fact that ‘the Lord of
Haran’ is also referred to as ‘my Jord’
(mry) by Bar-Rakib (KAJ 218) need not
imply an identity for him and Rakib-El,
since we cannot be sure that the title was
used for one god exclusively.
HI. Irrespective of the specific nature of
Rakib-El, the hypothesis which links him
with the Rechabites appears to be far-
fetched. In the biblical tradition the Rechab-
DAY rS ee
RAM — RAPHA
ites figure as staunch defenders of an aus-
terely Yahwistic religion, in which there is
no place for the recognition of other gods
(VAN DER TooRN 1996). Morcover, it
should be remembered that the title ‘Rider’
or ‘Charioteer’ is not attested independently
as a divine epithet; should the name Rechab
(from whom the Rechabites descended) be
connected with Rakib-El, the form of the
anthroponym would have to be longer. An
independent “Semitic storm-deity rkb” is
simply a phantom (pace BLENKINSOPP
1972).
IV. Bibliography
R. D. Barnett, The Gods of Zinjirli,
Compte-rendu de l'onzième Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale (Leiden 1964)
59-87; J. BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon and Israel
(Cambridge 1972) 24; H. Donner & W.
RórLiG, KA/ If (1964) 34; B. LANps-
BERGER, Sarral: Studien zur Entdeckung der
Ruinenstätte Karatepe (Ankara 1948) 45-46;
G. G. RAMEY, The Horse and the Chariot in
Israelite Religion (unpub. Ph.D. diss. South-
em Baptist Theological Seminary 1968), see
ZAW 81 (1969) 253; K. VAN DER TOORN,
Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and
Israel (SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996) 344-352.
K. VAN DER TOORN
RAM
I. Ram has been speculated to be the
name of a deity on the basis of the name
Abram, interpreted theophorically as ‘Ram
is father’ (Lewy 1934).
II. The only extra-biblical evidence in
support of an alleged deity Ram is the
Assyrian anthroponym Shu-Rama, ‘He of
Rama’ (Lewy 1934:59 n. 72). There can be
no doubt about the correctness of Lewy’s
reading. In addition to the two references
given by Lewy (CCT 1 Pl. 46a:20; Pl. 46b:
14). the name also occurs in AKT 1.72:2.3.6;
KBo 9.6:2; KBo 28.159:2; 167:3. Though
the element Ra-ma is never preceded by the
divine determinative DINGIR, the form of the
personal name does suggest that Rama is the
name of a god (cf. e.g. Shu-Nunu, Shu-
Laban). Yet HiRSCH does not mention Rama
in his survey of theophoric elements in Old
Assyrian names (1972:31-34), and the
theophoric interpretation is far from assured.
It could be a geographical reference.
III. As the traditional interpretation of the
name Abram as 'the (divine) Father is
Exalted’ is perfectly satisfactory (NoTH, /PN,
52), there is no need to have recourse to an
obscure divine name in order to explain the
biblical name. Lewy’s suggestion should
therefore be regarded as mistaken.
IV. Bibliography
H. HinRscH, Untersuchungen zur altassy-
rischen Religion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; Osna-
briick 1972-); J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-
assyriens et l’Ancien Testament, RHR 110
(1934) 58-59.
K. VAN DER TOORN
RAPHA 757%
I. In 2 Sam 21:16.18.20.22 (// 1 Chron
20:4.6.8) mention is made of rdpd, *Rapha’,
the ancestor of various warriors who battled
with David. Rapha has been connected to
the -*Rephaim and interpreted as a deity
whose cult centre was in Gath (L’HEUREUX
1974; McCarter 1983:449-450; HALAT
1191).
IL. 1 Sam 21:15-22 relates quarrels
between David and a group of Philistine
warriors: Jisni-Benob; Saph and an anony-
mous -*giant with six fingers on each hand.
They are presented as yélidé harapa, ‘de-
scendants of Rapha’. WILLESON (1958)
interpreted. hàrápá as the rendition of a
Greek word apzn, ‘scimitar’, supposing that
the Philistines were via the Sea Peoples re-
lated to the Greek world. The expression
then would refer to a distinguished guild of
Philistine soldiers. With L'HEUREUX and
McCarter the word hdrapd can better be
seen as a variant to Heb Adrapa’, lit. ‘the
Healer’, connecting the ancestor of this
group of soldiers with the Rephaim. Rapha
would then refer to a Canaanite underworld
deity. Recently, J. C. pe Moor, Standing
Stones and Ancestor Worship, UF 27 (1995)
11, has suggested that the retroversion of
LXX Amos 5:26 should be reconstructed as
follows: *w7t kwkb rp? *lhykm, ‘and the star
of your god Rapha'. LXX Amos 5:26,
687
RAPHAEL — RAVEN
however, clearly reads Patdav and thus con-
tains a reference to -*Rephan.
III. Bibliography
C. L'Heureux, The Ugaritic and Biblical
Rephaim, HTR 67 (1974) 265-274; P. K.
McCarter, // Samuel (AB; Garden City
1983) 449-450; F. WILLESON, The Philistine
Corps of the Scimitar from Gath, JSS 3
(1958) 327-335.
B. BECKING
RAPHAEL X55
I. This name is based upon the Hebrew
root RP’, to heal, hence rdpé’, physician etc.
Raphael, then, might be translated 'God
healed’. The relation of this name to the
-Rephaim has not yet been studied.
II. The angel Raphael occurs in biblical
literature for the first time in the book Tobit.
He is apparently one of the four highest
angels, known as the archangels in most
of the old lists (four in most manuscripts of
] Enoch 9. 10. 40:9; 54:6; 71:8-9. 13; IQM
9. 15; Apoc. Mos. 40; seven 1 Enoch 20).
Most revealing is his short speech, Tob 12:
11-15, which shows that Raphael is one of
the seven angels who are allowed to enter
before the —glory of God. According to Tob
3:16, 12:12, Raphael listens to the prayers of
the righteous ones. He accompanies Tobit's
son, Tobias, and acts according to his secret
knowledge as healer: i.e. as a physician as
well as a binder of demons. He knows how
to use the power inherent in some parts of
an extraordinary fish (6:1-9), only a part of
which is used to heal a disease of Tobit's
eyes, the others help to expel the demon
-—Asmodaeus who is bound by Raphael
(8:3). It is in accordance with this that
Raphael’s task in / Enoch is described as
healing the earth from all the deeds of the
fallen angels, including the binding of
—Azazel (10:1-11; cf. 54:6). He is ‘set over
all disease and every wound of the children
of the people’ (/ Enoch 40:9). Raphael also
knows other details which have been told in
his absence (Tob 6:16). Only seldom is
Raphael connected with the future fate of
souls as in / Enoch 22:3; Gk Apoc. Ezra
6:1-2 or with the divine judgment: Sib. Or.
2:215. Sometimes he functions as angelus
interpres e.g. 7 Enoch 22:2; 32:6. He is
called àápxio:pátnyog in Gk Apoc. Ezra 1:4.
III. His healing activity is mentioned
later in rabbinic writings (e.g. b.Yoma 37a)
as well as in numerous magical texts: In T.
Sol. he stands over against the sixth demon
(5:9; 13:6; 18:8; 23P). Jewish magical texts
as well as prayers address him (SrÜBE 1895:
28, line 55; PRADEL 1907:55-56; NAVEH &
SHAKED 1985:Amulet 3:9; 7:2), as do Chris-
tian ones: Kropp 1930/1931:XLVIII 38-40.
117; LXXVI 79-122; XLVII 2, 5; PGM
XXXV 3; XXXVI 170 (cf. A. TRAVERSA,
Dai papiri inediti della raccolta milanese: 25
Frammento di papiro magico, Aegyptus 33
[1953], 57-62; ET: H.-D. BErz, The Greek
Magical Papyri in Translation including the
Demotic Spells Vol. 1: Texts. Chicago/
London 1986, 302 [text no. XC]) and F.
MALTOMINI, I Papiri Greci, Studi Classici e
Orientali 29 (1979), 55-124, here papyrus 1,
line 59, ET: BETZ ibid. no. CXXIIIa; cf.
also MONTGOMERY, Text 15, 9 and 96-97.
IV. Bibliography
A. M. KroPP, Ausgewählte koptische Zau-
bertexte 1-3 (Bruxelles 1930/1931); *J.
MICHL, Engel VIII (Raphael), RAC 5, 252-
254; J. A. MONTGOMERY, Aramaic Incan-
tation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia
1913); J. NAVEH & S. SHAKED, Amulets and
Magic Bowls. Aramaic Incantations of Late
Antiquity (Jerusalem/Leiden 1985); F.
PRADEL, Griechische und süditalienische
Gebete, Beschwórungen und Rezepte des
Mittelalters (Giessen 1907); R. STÜBE,
Jüdisch-Babylonische | Zaubertexte (Halle
1895).
M. Maci
RAVEN D99
I. The raven, known in the Old Testa-
ment as a messenger bird (Gen 8:7), has
been associated with the divine in Mesopot-
amia (NASH 1990:75) and Ugarit.
II. In the Neo-Assyrian ‘God description
text’, the parts of the body of a deity are
mystically compared with elements, metals,
animals, foods, trees, fruits etc. known from
the physical world. The ‘mole’ of the deity
688
is metaphorically seen as a ‘raven’: U.NAGA.
MUSEN (Gribu) ki-pil-S%t ‘his mole is a raven’
(LIVINGSTONE 1986:94 1:9 = SAA 3, 39:9).
In the Neo-Assyrian incantation cycle
Utukkü lemniütu, a passage occurs in which
the incantation priest has two birds in his
hands. Both the raven and the hawk function
as animals in which antidemonic divine
powers are present (Utukkü lemnütu 1, 129-
135; NasH 1990:75). From Neo-Assyrian
astrological reports a -*star (or -*constella-
tion?) MUL.UGA“84 ‘Raven’ is known (SAA
8. 74 Rev:l; 82:5; 414 Rev:l). Although
Stars are scen as divine in Mesopotamia, the
name of the Raven-star is never preceded by
the determinative for a deity.
In Ugarit, birds were seen as divine mess-
engers of the deities (KORPEL 1990:544-
549). In a passage from the Legend of
Keret, it is stated that the divine beings Ilisu
(ilf) and his wife were heralds of >El. The
wording of this function (ngr/ngrt, meaning
‘raven’ in the first place; KoRPEL 1990:292)
indicates that they were seen as ravens
(KTU 1.16 [Keret II] iv:10-16).
HI. In the ancient Near East the raven is
only associated with the divine and not
identified as such. In the Old Testament
stories of Noah and -*Elijah, the raven is
only interpreted as instrumental, either to
give orientation after the flood (Gen 8:7;
KEEL 1977:79-91) or to feed an isolated
prophet (1 Kgs 17:2-6).
IV. Bibliography
O. KEEL, Vögel als Boten (OBO 14; Frei-
burg/Göttingen 1977); M. C. A. KORPEL, A
Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew
Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; Münster
1990); A. LivıNGSTONE, Mystical and
Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyr-
ian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford 1986);
T. Nasu, Devils, Demons and Disease.
Folklore in Ancient Near Eastern Rites of
Atonement, The Bible in the Light of Cunei-
form Literature. Scripture in Context Ill
(eds. W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones & G. L.
Mattingly; Lewiston 1990) 57-88.
B. BECKING
RE 2^
I. Re (R‘w, Akk. Rifa, Heb Ra‘) occurs
as a theophoric element in Potiphera
(DADO = Prdjp:R‘w, name of the father of
Asenath Gen 41:45), a short form of Poti-
phar (C503) the name of Joseph's Egypt-
ian employer, Gen 37:36; 39:1) and Hophra
(y^2n) Jer 44:30 (A'jbR'w, Gk Apries.
name of Pharao WiljbR'w).
Re is the Egyptian god of creation, the
sun and the state, for he symbolizes the cos-
mogonic energies and qualities that rule the
universe and that find their terrestrial incar-
nation in Pharaoh. Re is the chief of the
gods and the father of the king. —^Amun
achieves this same position only via syncret-
istic identification with Re. The traditional
centre of Re-worship is Jwnw, Heb jis
(Ezek 30:17) iN (Gen 41:45), the Greek
Heliopolis.
II. The Egyptians divided the day into
three periods which correspond to three
phases of the solar journey, the apparent
course of the sun around the carth, which
the Egyptians depicted as a journey in two
boats, one for the day (M'ndr) and one for
the night (Msk). These periods are
morning, midday and evening, or sunrise,
crossing and sunset. The night usually
belongs to the third phase. The three phases
of the solar circuit are expressed in a triad
of gods: Chepre (morning), Re (midday) and
—Atum (evening and night). But these three
gods can also be seen as mere aspects of
one single god who is called either Re or
Re-Harakhte. Later theological speculation
develops a doctrine of 12 or 24 forms of Re,
one for every hour. The ‘litany of Re’, a text
belonging to the ‘books of the netherworld’,
praises Re in 75 different forms (HORNUNG
1975). Each of the three major forms of Re
has a special religious significance. Chepre
symbolizes the cosmogonic energies; he is
the god who “emerged by himself" (/ipr ds.f,
Gk autogenés.) Re symbolizes the rulership
of the creator, his justice, executive power
and omniscience; Atum symbolizes the vir-
tuality of preexistence into which the creator
relapses during the night in order to start
creation again the following morning
(ASSMANN 1969).
689
The traditional cult of Re addresses not
only the god but rather the ‘solar circuit’,
which is considered the central life process
of the universe and a drama in which virtu-
ally the whole pantheon cooperates. The cult
supports this drama by incessant ritual per-
formances, mostly in the form of hourly
recitations of hymns (‘hourly ritual’,
ASSMANN 19753:1-12), but also fumiga-
tions, libations, offerings and the like. The
popular sun hymns reflect the 3-phase struc-
ture of the solar circuit: they usually contain
three stanzas, each of them devoted to a
specific phase of the journey. The topic of
thesc.hymns is not the theology of the sun
god, but the drama of the solar journey
(ASSMANN 1969; 1983 chap. 2).
The Heliopolitan concept of cosmogony
does not know of any closure of the creative
process but conceives of creation as the
‘first time’ (zp tpj) of an endless cycle of
decay and regeneration (E. HORNUNG,
Verfall und Regeneration der Schöpfung,
Eranos 46 [1977] 411-449). But unlike the
‘first time’ when light and life were dis-
closed without meeting any resistance, the
daily circuit has continuously to combat a
cosmic enemy, the personification of chaos,
darkness, dissolution and evil who in the
form of a huge -*serpent threatens to swal-
low up the celestial ocean and to bring the
solar course to a standstill, This enemy has
constantly to be overthrown, he can never
be definitely annihilated but remains omni-
present as a kind of gravitation towards
—chaos or ‘virtual apocalypse’ which must
be averted by incessant effort in order to
keep the world going. The cult is the terres-
trial part of this effort of cosmic mainten-
ance. It is the task of the king whom Re
“has installed on the earth of the living for
ever and ever, judging men and satisfying
gods, realising Ma‘at (truth/justice/order)
and annihilating Isfet (disorder)” (Text ed.
' ASSMANN 1971; cf. ASSMANN 1990:205-
212). There exists a close parallelism be-
tween the dominance of the creator which
he exerts in the sky in order to maintain cre-
ation against the rebellious resistance of
chaos, and the governance of Pharaoh on
RE
earth and his struggle against political en-
emies, 2 parallelism which reveals much of
the “solar language” that can be found in
Biblical texts (M. SmutH, The Early History
of God [San Francisco 1990] 115-144; B.
JANOWSKI, RettungsgewiBheit und Epi-
phanie des Heils. Das Motiv der Hilfe Got-
tes «am Morgen» im Alten Orient und im
Alten Testament. Band I: Alter Orient
[WMANT 59; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989])
But the solar journey reflects or imparts
not only the political conceptions about
justice, rulership and political welfare, but
also the anthropological conceptions about
death, rebirth and immortality. The individ-
ual hopes to enter the cosmic cycle after
death and to be reborn in the hereafter to
join the retinue of the solar boat (the "bark
of millions"). The nocturnal phase of the
solar journey is depicted in the form of a
descensus ad inferos (HoRNUNG 1984). The
god who himself undergoes death and resur-
rection/rebirth during this journey, visits the
corpses in the depth of the earth and reani-
mates them temporarily by his radiance and
his life-giving words. At midnight, in the
extreme depth of the netherworld, the sun
god unites with -*Osiris, the ‘Ba’-soul with
his corpse. This union links ‘yesterday’ and
‘tomorrow’, ‘Neheh’-time in form of endless
repetition and 'Djet'-time in form of inalter-
able duration, father (Osiris) and son (Re z
Horus) and thus produces continuity.
Between one cycle and another, there is the
mystery of renewal which for a moment
dives into the outworldly depths of pre-
existence. A Jate text describes this union as
a most dangerous secret: "Whoever gives
this away will die of a violent death, for this
is a very great secret. It is Re and it is
Osiris" (Pap. Salt 825, xviii.1-2; P. Der-
CHAIN, Le Papyrus Salt 825 (B.M. 10051),
rituel pour la conservation de la vie en
Égypte [Brussels 1965]). This same mysteri-
ous union forms the basis also for the indi-
vidual's hope for renewal and immortality.
The cosmic drama is interpreted, by 'ana-
logical imagination', in a way that reflects
the fundamentals of human life: social jus-
tice and harmony, political order and author-
690
ity, and individual hopes for health, prosper-
ity and—above all—life after death. It is
this relationship of mutual illumination of
cosmic, sociopolitical and individual essen-
tials that conveys to this world-view and in-
terpretation of reality the character of truth
and of natural evidence.
During the New Kingdom, a new concept
of the solar journey arises according to
which the sun god performs his course in
complete solitude. The traditional imagery
of the living god—reliving and rejuvenating
his daily life within the constellations of the
divine world—is now transformed into the
concept of the life-giving god who is not
included and embedded in divine interaction
but confronts the world from high above and
sends from there his life-giving rays into the
world (For the vertical division of the world
into upper and lower, heaven and earth see
ASSMANN 1969:302-306). The transforma-
tion can be described as one from constella-
tional intransitivity to confrontational transi-
tivity. Instead of a reciprocal relationship
between heavenly and earthly, cosmic and
political action, we have the direct tran-
sitive subject-object relation between god
and earth. God and world, creator and cre-
ation, are confronted in a huge distance to
each other. The world, however, still in-
cludes the traditional deities and is still di-
vine. But the monotheistic revolution of
Akhenaten does away even with this last
remnant of traditional polytheism. But this
is a radicalization which did not affect the
new world view. After Amama, the devel-
opment resumed. The great discovery of
Akhenaten which lay behind his mono-
theistic revolution consisted in the observa-
tion that the sun not only generated the
light but also time, time in the double
sense of divine cosmic energy and individ-
ual lifetime. Cosmic time and the lifetime of
all living creatures are created by the motion
of the sun as the light is created by its radia-
tion.
After Amama, this concept of the
constant divine creation or ‘emission’ of
lifetime develops into a concept of divine
will and human fate. Re not only generates
RE
time but also its content, i.e. fate and des-
tiny, history and biography, life with all its
vicissitudes on the individual, social and
political planes emanate from the will of Re
who creates time (ASSMANN 19755). The
rule of Re over time implies a concept of
omniscience. In two hymns this idea is
expressed in terms strongly reminiscent of
Ps 90:4: "eternity is in your eyes as yester-
day when it has passed" (ASSMANN
1975*:Nr.127B, 82; Nr.144A, 27). But this
concept of time and fate as emanations of
divine planning remains not restricted to
solar theology but develops into a gencral
‘theology of will’ that changes the structure
and essence of Egyptian religion.
In hymns of the Ramesside and later
periods, the ‘non-constellative’ view of the
solar journcy as the action of a solitary god
animating, ruling and preserving his creation
strangely coexists with the ‘constellative’
one that views the same journey as a drama
where many gods cooperate and where the
sun god plays not only the active roles of
ruler, judge and saviour, but also the passive
ones of a child that is born and raised, a
king who is crowned and adored, an old
man who is guided and helped, a dead man
who is ‘transfigured’, rejuvenated and
reborn.
In the Late Period, Re and Osiris, who
according to the traditional conception
‘unite’ during midnight, fuse into a syncret-
istic deity.
III. Potiphera, the Egyptian name of the
father of Asenath (Gen 41:45), means ‘the
one given by Re’ (KAI Il, p. 280; cf. Poti-
phar in Gen 37:36; 39:1). The noun in the
name of the Egyptian king Hophra (Jer
44:30; cf. 37:5) means 'Happy-hearted is
Re’ (D. B. Reprorp, Hophra, ABD 3 [1992]
286). The suggestion according to which the
Hebrew expression R'H rá'á / bérà' in Exod
5:19; 10:10 etc. contains a reference to Re
should be rejected as fanciful and unfounded
(pace RENDSBURG 1988).
IV. Bibliography
J. ASSMANN, Liturgische Lieder an den
Sonnengott. Untersuchungen zur alt-
ägyptischen Hymnik I (Berlin 1969); J.
691
REPHAIM
ASSMANN, Der Kónig als Sonnenpriester.
Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kul-
tischen | Sonnenhymnik in — thebanischen
Tempeln und Grdbern (Gliickstadt 1970);
ASSMANN, Agyptische Hymnen und Gebete
(Zürich 19753); ASSMANN, Zeit und Ewig-
keit im alten Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Ewigkeit. (Heidelberg 1975°);
ASSMANN, Re und Amun. Die Krise des
polytheistischen Weltbilds im Agypten der
18.-20. Dynastie (OBO 51; Fribourg/Góttin-
gen 1983235; ASSMANN, Sonnenhymnen in
thebanischen Gräbern (Theben 1) (Mainz
1983>); ASSMANN, Agypten—Theologie und
Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Stutt-
gart 1984); AssMANN, Maʻat. Gerechtigkeit
und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten (Mün-
chen 1990); E. HorNuNG, Das Amduat. Die
Schrift des Verborgenen Raumes, 3 vols.
(Wiesbaden 1963/67); HoRNUNG, Das Buch
der Anbetung des Re im Westen (Sonnen-
litanei), 2 vols. (Geneva 1975); HORNUNG,
Ägyptische Unterweltsbücher (Zürich 71984);
G. A. RENDSBURG, The Egyptian Sun-God
Ra in the Pentateuch, Henoch 10 (1988) 3-
15.
J. ASSMANN
REPHAIM NDN
I. The term répd’im occurs 25 times in
the Hebrew Bible, most notably in the poeti-
cal and the so-called ‘historical’ books.
Designating the spirits of the dead, the
Hebrew term is related to Ug rpum, a name
for the deified royal ancestors. In several
places in the Hebrew Bible, the Rephaim
designate the ancient inhabitants of Pales-
tine, characterized by gigantic size. The
most probable etymology of the term con-
nects it with the root RP’, ‘to heal’.
IJ. The Rephaim, commonly vocalized
as an active participle rdpi’tina, from RP’,
‘to heal’, occur frequently in texts from
Ugarit. In ATU 1.6 vi:45-46, a fragment
from a hymn to Shapshu, the rpum occur in
parallelism with the ilnym, ‘divine ones’.
Both groups are said to be ‘under’ (tht) the
sun goddess, i.e. submitted to her. The loca-
tion corresponds with their place in the
netherworld, an idea also familiar from the
biblical writings. Lines 47-48 of the same
text mentions the ilm (gods) and the mtm
—(dead) as denizens of the same abode.
Close to them lives Kothar-wa-Khasis
(—Koshar), who navigates and travels like
them (KTU 1.108:6).
The so-called Rephaim text, KTU 1.20-
22, consists of three fragmentary tablets that
share as a kind of chorus line an invitation
addressed to the rpum. According to DEL
Orwo LeTE (1981:405-424) and SPRONK
(1986), it is Dan'ilu who invites the rpum to
his palace. VAN DER Toorn (1991:54)
construes the series of invitations as being
formulated by different speakers. Among the
more limpid parts of this obscure text, there
is a reference to a three-day journey by
chariot leading to the ‘threshing floors’ and
the ‘orchards’ where a seven-day banquet is
celebrated. The rpum leave the city to parti-
cipate in the revelry—no doubt a metaphor
for their ascent from the underworld.
According to SPRONK (1986:276), Hos 6:1-3
is to be interpreted in the light of this text: it
is a polemical allusion to the Ugaritic con-
ceptions of the afterworld, and more particu-
larly to the three-day journey of KTU 1.20
i:24-25. The swiftness required of the rpum
(KTU 1.20 ii:1-7; 21 ii:1-13; 22 ii:1-25)
accentuates the urgency of the convocation,
to be situated. perhaps in the interval
between the death of a king and his burial.
If the rendering of KTU 1.20 i:3, k mt
mtm, as "when the men are dead" is ac-
cepted (so A. Caquot & M. SZNYCER,
Textes ougaritiques, Vol. 1 [LAPO 7; Paris
1974] 477; M. DIJKSTRA & J. C. DE MOOR,
Problematica! Passages in the Legend of
Aqhátu, UF 7 [1975] 171-215, esp. 214). the
link between the rpum and the dead is ex-
plicit from the outset. In KTU 1.22 i:8-10,
two rpum are mention, viz., “Thamaqu, the
rpu of Ba'lu (Baal), warrior of Ba'lu, war-
rior of Anat", and "Yahipanu, the cham-
pion, the everlasting royal prince”. The
anthroponym Thamaqu is also known from
KTU 4.93 iv:3. An alternative translation for
rpu b'l (‘the rpu of Ba‘lu’) is ‘the Rephaite,
the lord’. The expression dnil [mi.rpi] in
692
REPHAIM
KTU 1.20 ii:8 might be understood as
"Dan'ilu, the man of healing", that is, the
man bound to be delivered from his suffer-
ing—a suffering caused by his childlessness
after Aqhat's death. Alternatively, one could
opt for the translation "the man of rpu", the
rpu being "the title of a god known under
another name, or a particular deity"
(CaQuor 1985:351). The latter interpreta-
tion might explain the frequency of the
expression in the cycle of Dan'ilu (KTU
1.17 i:1.17.34.37.42; 11:28; v:5.14.34; vi:52;
KTU 1.19 1:20.36-39; 11:41; iv:13.17.36). C.
VIROLLEAUD rendered it as “Mot guéris-
seur” (—'Mot the healer’), and drew a com-
parison with Shadrapha, ‘Shed the healer’
(La légende phénicienne de Danel [Paris
1936] 87). The correspondences reveal the
affinity—recognized by Virolleaud—be-
tween the cycle of Dan'ilu and Aqhat, on
the one hand, and the ‘Rephaim text’, on the
other. It is possible that the conditions of the
murder of Aqhat were recreated by means of
a ritual that sought to undo the conse-
quences of his death (KTU 1.22 i:11) with
the help of an intervention by the rpum
(CaQuor 1985:346). The beneficial action
of the latter would consist of their restoring
the lost fertility, not so much that of the
country (in spite of the mention of the
‘threshing floors’ and ‘orchards’), both a
reflection and a result of the death of Aqhat
(J. Gray, The Rephaim, PEQ 81 [1948-49]
127-139), but rather that of the king they
were bound to bless with offspring (KTU
1.22 i:1-5). According to Spronk (1986:
160-161), the ‘Rephaim text’ is a witness to
the belief in the ability of Ilu (-*EI) and/or
Ba‘lu to revivify the dead. Their return
among the living would take place during
the autumn festival (SPRONK 1986:164). For
TROPPER (1989:141) and VAN DER TOORN
(1991:52), KTU 1.22 i:1-4 is a dynastic or-
acle. TROPPER does not regard the autumn
festival as the setting for a return to life of
some of the dead, but for necromantic prac-
tices. VAN DER TOORN argues that the rela-
tions between Dan'ilu and the rpum do not
prove that there was an annual mecting
between the living and the death, whether
provoked by a marzahu or by necromancy.
The Kirtu legend contains two allusions
to the rpum. Toward the end of a benc-
diction, the god Ilu expresses the wish that
Kirtu be glorified “among the rpim of the
earth, in the assembly of the clan of Ditanu"
(btk rpi arg bphr qbg dtn, KTU 1.15 iii:3-
4.14-15). The blessing introduces the annun-
ciation to Kirtu of the birth of six daughters.
Initially the rpum were believed to designate
the original inhabitants of the country. J.
Gray (Din and rp’um in Ancient Ugarit,
PEQ 84 [1952] 39-41) showed that these
‘healers’ or ‘dispensers of fertility’ of the
earth were the kings of yore; his demonstra-
tion carried general conviction (cf. for this
concept in the Greek world Hesiod, Works
and Days, 121-123). M. HELTZER has
voiced dissent (The rabba'um in Mari and
the rpi(m) in Ugarit, OLP 9 [1978] 5-20,
esp. 15). He urges that the rpum must be
clan members, analogous to the rabba'um of
Mari, since Kirtu appears to be onc of them.
The seeming contradiction is resolved by
CaQUor (1985:353), who suggests that the
poetic blessing is posterior to the rest of thc
poem and is to be situated after the death of
Kirtu. Though din has been interpreted as
‘kingdom’ (Ginsberg, Driver), and ‘men in
command’ (so Jirku, arguing on the basis of
the equivalence made in Akkadian between
datnu and qarradu, cf. AHW 165), it is now
generally regarded as a personal name.
ATU 1.161, either the libretto of a funer-
ary service for a king who recently died, or
a ritual in commemoration of his death,
completes the information yielded by ATU
1.20-22. The king in question could be
Niqmaddu III, predecessor of Ammurapi
and last king of Ugarit (A. CAQUoOT, Textes
Ougaritiques, Vol. 2 [LAPO 14; Paris 1989]
104). The sacrifice lasts seven days, just like
the banquet offered to the rpum in KTU 1.22
1:22-25. The rpum are also called zm:
meaning ‘shadows’ rather than ‘images’ (M.
DietricH & O. Loretz, Neue Studien zu
den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (II)—nr. 6—
Epigrafische und inhaltliche Probleme in
KTU 1.161, UF 15 [1983] 17-24). The
expression brings to mind the biblical Reph-
693
REPHAIM
aim. Like the Rephaim, too, the rpum act as
a group, viz. as the company of Ditanu
(KTU 1.161:3 and 10, cf. Prov 21:6). This
din, to be identified with the din mentioned
in KTU 1.15 iii:3-4 and 14-15, is most likely
one of their leaders, if not their leader in
command. The role of Shapshu as psycho-
pompos in ll. 18-19 conforms with her func-
tion in the cycle of Ba'lu, where she assists
Anat in her quest for the dead god (KTU 1.6
i:8-9.13-15; iii:24; iv:1-22). T. H. GASTER
compares the role of Shapshu (known as
‘the lamp of the gods") to that of Helios in
the myth of ^Demeter and Kore, and to that
of the sun god in the myth of Telepinu
(Thespis [New York 1950, 19612] 162-184,
resp. 172-200). Also the expression "tr b'Ik,
‘after your lord’ (KTU 1.161:20) is reminis-
cent of the descent of Ba‘lu (the ‘Lord’)
among the dead—unless the b'l in question
be Didanu or rpu (also known as b‘l in KTU
1.22 1:8). The journey to the underworld and
the descent into the dust agree with what is
known about the biblical Rephaim. Lines
31-32 of the text express the purpose of the
ritual: peace to the king and the citizens of
Ugarit.
KTU 1.108 is a ritual for the royal dead.
The obverse of the broken tablet describes a
banquet for the rpum presided at by one rpu.
D. PARDEE (Les textes paramythologiques
[Paris 1988] 118; so too C. E. L'HEUREUX,
Rank Among the Canaanite Gods {HSM 21;
Missoula 1979] 186) feels that the mytho-
logical elements predominate over the ritual
traits. The presence of Anat at this feast of
the dead (Il. 6-10) is hardly surprising, con-
sidering her complex role in the poem of
Aghat-and her endeavours to save Ba‘lu
from the death. The banquet of the dead in
company with the god rpu is reminiscent of
the food enjoyed by the ‘soul’ of Panammu
in the company of -Hadad, mentioned in
KAI 214:21-22 (Caquot, LAPO 14 [1989]
. 111). The Ugaritic text closes with a bles-
sing by the rpu of—presumably—the king
‘in the middle of Ugarit (btk ugrt)', which
confirms the dynastic and political bias of
` the ritual. The rpu who presides over the
banquet is also referred to as mik ‘lm. The
latter expression has been rendered as ‘king
of the world’ (Virolleaud), ‘king everlasting’
(see also the majority of scholars), and—
recently—as ‘king of yore’ (PARKER 1970:
249; CaQuor 1976:299). This mik ‘Im can
be identified neither with Ba'lu (pace J. DE
Moor, Studies in the new Alphabetic Texts
from Ras Shamra, 1, UF 1 [1969] 167-188,
esp. 176; DE Moor 1976:329; A. F. Rat-
NEY, The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica 5,
JAOS 94 [1974] 184-194, esp. 188) nor with
Ilu (pace J. BLAU & J. C. GREENFIELD,
Ugaritic Glosses, BASOR 200 [1970] 11-17,
esp. 12; GEsE RAAM: 92; A. S. KAPELRUD,
The Ugaritic Text RS 24.252 and King
David, JNSL 3 [1974] 35-39, esp. 35;
L'HEUnEUX 1974:268; J. Day, The Daniel
of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the
Book of Daniel, VT 30 [1980] 174-184, esp.
176). The mt rpi (KTU 1.20 ii:8), then, is
‘the man of rpu’ (B. MaRGULIS, A Ugaritic
Psalm (RS 24.252), JBL 89 [1970] 292-303,
esp. 301; PARKER 1970:249; CaquoT
1976:299), that is, the man of the mik ‘Im.
Gatharu and Yaqaru, instead of being alter-
native designations of the rpu, are rather
members of the group of the rpum. In Il. 2-3
the names ‘grt and hdr'i refer to the two
dwelling-places of -*Og king of -*Bashan.
the remnant of the Rephaim (Deut 1:4; 3:11;
MARGULIS 1970:301); their interpretation as
theonyms (—Astarte and ‘Haddu the shep-
herd’) is best abandoned.
According to SPRONK (1986:184), KTU
1.108 is to be situated in the context of the
New Year festival during which Ba‘lu re-
turned to life. He identifies rpu mlk ‘im (line
1) and ‘nt gtr (line 6) with Ba‘lu (so too
TROPPER) and “Anat (the spouse) of Gatha-
ru”, respectively. Anat occurs here as the
tutelary goddess of the king. VAN DER
Toorn (1991:57) understands rpu (to be
vocalised as rapi’u or rapu), in the ex-
pression rpu mik ‘Im, as an adjective with
the meaning ‘pure’, rather than an active
participle meaning ‘healer’ (so DE MOOR
1976:329) or a stative meaning ‘hale’ (F. M.
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic
(Cambridge, Mass. 1973} 263; L’HEUREUX
1974:269-270; E. T. MULLEN, The Divine
694
REPHAIM
Council [HSM 24; Chico 1980] 262; Lewis
1989:14). Rpu mik ‘lm can be equated with
Milku, who can be equated in tum with Og
(VAN DER Toorn 1991:57-58, against PAR-
DEE 1988:85-90, who rejects the identi-
fication with Og). It is because Milku reigns
over the kings in the netherworld, whom he
represents, that he is in the forefront of the
liturgy (VAN DER TOORN 1991:59).
The rpum revel amid music and dance (Il.
3-4). Their characterization as libr ktr tbm,
"the happy companions of Kothar" (CAQUOT
1989:115), underlines that, on the onc hand,
the rpiwn, just like the biblical Rephaim,
constitute a homogeneous group, and that,
on the other hand, Kothar, who accompa-
nied Shapshu during her descent to the
netherworld, is still going to and fro in the
realm of the dead. The liturgy closes with an
extended blessing (ll. 19-27) addressed first
to the rpwn of the underworld, then to the
actual king, and finally to the citizens of
Ugarit for ever more.
KTU 1.124 is another ‘paramythological’
text yet, the mythology being put to the
service of a ritual. Ditanu, the protagonist of
the text, intervenes in the world of the living
in order to lift the blight of infertility. His
ability to do so is based upon the power of
the rpwn to grant offspring to the royal
family. The first two lines mention one adn
ilm rbm, ‘master of the many gods’: is this
Ilu (Caquor 1989:119)? PARDEE (1988:
185) believes Yaqaru is this master, the
‘great gods’ being the more recent members
of the rpum. SpRONK opts for Ba‘lu
(1986:193), whereas TROPPER takes it as a
designation of the necromancer in charge of
the royal cult of the rpum (1989:154). VAN
DER Toorn (1991), finally, considers
various infernal deities as possible candi-
dates: Milku, Yarikhu, and Yaqaru. The
‘decision concerning the child’ (smtpt yld)
could imply that the child is ill; yet the term
hth might also refer to problems caused by
infertility or a painful delivery (CAQuor,
LAPO 14 [1989] 119-123).
According to VAN DER ToorN (1991:62),
KTU 1.124 cannot be adduced as a witness
to the belief in a regular return to life of
Ba'lu and the dead, nor as proof of the
existence of necromancy at Ugarit; it merely
illustrates the conviction that some ex-
ceptional dead such as Ditanu had thera-
peutic knowledge which they could commu-
nicate to the living by means of a divine
intermediary. The relations between the
living and the dead were limited to mortuary
offerings (1991:65). To say that the biblical
authors were convinced of God's power to
vivify the dead, but that they refrained from
explicitly expressing this idea for fear of
Baalism, is based on preconceived ideas.
There is no reason to dismiss the wide-
spread opinion that the extension of God's
power over the realm of the dead is a later
development in [sraelite religion (1991:64).
In addition to the occurences of the rpum
in the Ugaritic text, the extra-biblical evi-
dence about the Rephaim includes three at-
testations from the first millennium BCE.
Two funerary inscriptions from the kings
Tabnit and Eshmunazar from Sidon (KAI 13
and 14), from the 6th and Sth centuries,
wam anyone contemplating violating the
royal tomb that, should he execute his plans,
there will be no resting-place for him with
the rpm (cf. Isa 14:18-20). The Neo-
Punic/Latin bilingual of Al-Amruni (KA/
117) has the Latin D(is) M(anibus) as the
equivalent of ZCR2W^i N[1]222, "to the gods
of the Rephaim” or RENIN [2] 225, *to the
gods [ie.] the Rephaim” (J. FRIEDRICH,
Kleine Bemerkungen zu Texten aus Ras
Schamra und zu phónizischen Inschriften,
AfO 10 [1935-1936] 80-83, esp. 83).
Ill. The treatment of the biblical material
concerning the Rephaim should distinguish
between the occurrences in the poctic texts,
and those in the so-called historical texts. A
Key text in the books of the prophets is Isa
14:9. Here the Rephaim are mentioned in
parallelism with “all the leaders (literally:
goats) of the earth” (kol-‘aitfidé ’dres) and
“all the kings of the nations” (kdl malké
góyim). Their royal character is evident. The
text in question is part of a funerary com-
plaint (a so-called gind) addressed to the
king of Babylonia in view of his imminent
death. The song describes the prospective
695
REPHAIM
upheaval among the defunct monarchs come
to meet his royal highness, now become one
of them—and even their inferior because he
has died without burial, name or offspring.
The Rephaim all belong to “the netherworld
below" (v 9, 261 mittahat), deep down in
the Pit (v 15, yarkété-bór). They constitute a
somnolent community, waking up only to
greet and speak with a new arrival (vv 9-
I0). Like him, they were leaders and kings
in life (v 9), yet realize they are now with-
out force ("You too have become as weak
as we", v 10). The text establishes a link
between the Rephaim and the deceased
kings; every dead monarch is one of them,
whether his end be glorious or ignominious,
and whether he rest in a grave or on 'a bed
of maggots' (v 11). Transcending the bound-
aries of time, space, and morality, the com-
munity of the Rephaim embraces all the
royal dead. If the ‘mountain of the divine
assembly’, the ‘far north (sdpén; —Zaph-
on)’, and the highest heaven which the de-
ceased hoped to reach do not correspond
with the usual topographic notions of a
Babylonian king, they faithfully reflect the
mythical geography of Ugarit. It is presum-
ably because the very notion of the Rephaim
originates from northern Syria that the bibli-
cal passage mentions Mt Zaphon, the Jebel
el-‘Aqra, as the divine abode.
Isaiah 26, part of the Apocalypse of
Isaiah (Isa 24-27), is a kind of psalm in
which the Rephaim occur twice. At v 14,
they appear in a synonymous parallelism
with the dead: “The dead will not live, the
Rephaim will not rise”. Using the same im-
agery as Isa 14:9 (QwM), the passage affirms
the impossibility of a resurrection. Also in
this text there are Canaanite traits. Those
who who have ‘ruled over’ (B‘L) the Israel-
ites, “other lords besides thee” ('"ádónim
zflátekd), are the Baals worshipped by the
people; their name and remembrance is
wiped out by Yahweh (vv 13-14). This pol-
emical allusion to Ba‘lu seems to be based
on the association (or analogy) between the
Ugaritic rpum—the deified royal ances-
tors—and the god Ba'lu, believed to die
annually at the period of drought and to
return to life at the onset of the rainy season
(cf. Hos 6:2). Isa 26:19 also mentions the
Rephaim, but in a rather different context;
the text strikes a note of optimism at the
conclusion of a rather grim oracle. The
author has used nouns (dead, corpses, dust,
earth) and verbs (to live, to rise, to awaken,
to arouse) which belong to the semantic
field of death and the afterlife. Whereas the
dead and the Rephaim of v 14 are to be
identified with the Baals mentioned in v 13,
the resurrected dead of v 19 are contrasted
with the infertility of the inhabitants of the
land in v 18 (note that the last part of v 19,
"and Earth will make the Rephaim fall".
means that the underworld will reject the
dead). The expression “your dead” in v 19
(mé1éka) refers to all the Israelite dead who
will participate in a national restoration of
the kind described in Ezck 37:1-14. The
Peshitta of v 19 reads “You will make the
land of the -*giants perish", thus establish-
ing a link between the texts presenting the
Rephaim as the inhabitants of -—Shcol, on
the one hand, and those presenting them as
the original inhabitants of Syria and Trans-
jordania, on the other.
The notion of the Rephaim as denizens of
the netherworld is also found in the Books
of Job and Psalms. According to Job 26:5,
the Rephaim are situated “below the waters
and their inhabitants”. Canaanite imagery is
present in v 7 with such terms as as
‘Zaphon’ (sapén, north), ‘void’ (röhû),
'(under)world' (eres) and ‘nothing’ (béli-
mah). Not too far removed from the Job
passage is Ps 88, an individual complaint
arguing that only the living can experience
God's goodness: "Do you work wonders for
the dead? Will the Rephaim rise up to praise
you?" (v 11[10]). The syllogism is based on
the premise that the dead and the Rephaim
are identical; for neither of them there is
hope, like in Isa 14. According to SPRONK
(1986:272), the verse is a polemic against
the Canaanite belief in the revivification of
the dead: the dead are unable to rise (QwM).
Also belonging to the semantic field of the
Rephaim and the dead are such expressions
as yórédé-bór, ‘those who go down to the
Pit’ (v 5[4]), geber ’én-’éydi, ‘man without
strength’ (v 5[4]), hálalim $okébé qeber,
696
REPHAIM
‘the slain that lie in the grave’ (v 6{5]),
‘aser 16 zékartam ‘ôd, ‘those whom you
remember no more’ (v 6[5]), bór tahtiyyót,
‘the depths of the Pit' (v 7[6]), mahásakkim,
*dark places' (v 7[6], cf. 13(12] and 19[18]),
mésólót, 'deep regions' (v 7[6]) geber,
"tomb' (v 12[11]), "ábaddón, 'the place of
destruction’ (v 12[11], —Abaddon) and
‘eres néStyyd, ‘land of forgetfulness’ (v
13[12]). The affinities between Ps 88 and
Job 26:5-14 do not diminish the resem-
blances with Isa 14. In contrast to Isa 14,
however, Isa 26:19, Job 26:5 and Ps 88:
11[10] do not speak of tbe royal dead.
At the three places where the Rephaim
are mentioned in the Book of Proverbs they
symbolize death. Death is the destiny of
those who follow the strange woman, Lady
Folly, the counterpart of Lady Wisdom:
“her house sinks down to death, and her
paths to the Rephaim” (Prov 2:18). From
this realm of the dead there is no way back
(Prov 2:19). It is the place where the wicked
are gathered, according to the moralist view
of the sapiential writers. The context of Prov
9:18 is similar. Those who yield to the invi-
tations of Lady Folly ignore tbe fact that
“the Rephaim are there (i.e. in her house)”
and that "her guests are in the depths of
Sheol". The verse qualifies for a comparison
with the description of the sojourn of Baal
in the world below (KTU 1.5 vi:4-7 = 27-
30). The expression ‘guests’ (literally ‘her
invited ones’, géru’éhd) 1§ reminiscent of
KTU 1.161, notably lines 2, 9-10 (gritm), 4-
7, 11-12. (gra), and 8 (gru). The message is
the same in Prov 21:16, a text belonging to
àn ancient collection of wisdom counsels:
“A man who wanders from the way of
understanding will rest in the assembly of
the Rephaim". The verse is situated in a
series of oppositions between the wicked
and the righteous: the former will meet with
anxiety and death, whereas the latter will be
Tewarded with life and prosperity—in con-
formity with the doctrine of retribution. The
Company (géhal) of the Rephaim, con-
demned to rest (NWH), belong to the realm
‘Of fear and death.
dn the ‘historical’ books (i.e. the Hexa-
euch and the Books of Samuel) different
E
aspects are stressed. According to Deut
3:11, “Og, king of Bashan, was the only
remnant of the last Rephaim". Og is con-
nected with a region North-East of Israel,
and South of Syro-Phoenicia. He is a king
of giants, dwelling in the ever-terrifying
North (Jer 46:20.24; 47:2). Deut 3:10-11
specifies that Og, whose large iron bedstead
was still to be seen at Rabbat Ammon,
reigned at Salecah and Edrei in Bashan. The
dimensions given for his bedstead bring to
mind the legends surrounding the dolmens
from Brittany, and allow one to grasp how
an historical kernel (a làng imprisoned in his
capital) could develop into a fanciful tale.
Also the early inhabitants of Moab,
known as the ?émím, were considered to
have been Rephaim, just like the Anakim
(cf. G. L. MATTINGLY, Anak, ABD 1 [1992]
222), whom they resembled in size and
number (ëmîm seems to have been the
Moabite designation of the Anakim). The
Rephaim were believed to have occupied
almost all Transjordania, since they also
inhabited—under the name of Zamzum-
mim—the Jand of the Ammonites before the
latter disinherited them (Deut 2:20). Thus,
the term Rephaim, like Anakim, seems to
have served as a general designation of the
mythical inhabitants of southern Syria and
Transjordania, before the settlement of the
Ammonites and the. Moabites. Deut 3:13
limits their expansion to the northern part of
Gilead and to Bashan, the kingdom of Og:
“All the region of Argob, with all of
Bashan, is called the land of the Rephaim”.
Og also occurs in Josh 12:4. In an enumer-
ation of the Transjordanian territories
conquered by the Israelites, various kings
are listed, beginning with Sihon the Amor-
ite, who dominated the land from southern
Gilead to the Arabah. The second one is Og,
king of Bashan “one of the remnant of the
Rephaim, who dwelt at Ashtaroth [Tel Ash-
tara, about 20 km NW of Dera'a] and at
Edrei (modern Dera'a, at the Syro-Jordanian
border]." The relation with the Ugaritic mik
‘Im reigning at ‘ttrt and hdr‘y (KTU1.108:2-
3) is clear. The Rephaim are also mentioned
as a group of original inhabitants of Trans-
jordania in Josh 17:15.
697
REPHAIM
Gen 14:5 describes the victory of Chedor-
laomer over the Rephaim at Ashtaroth-kar-
naim, south of Damascus, the Zuzim at Ham
(presumably to be identified with the Zam-
zummim of Ammon mentioned in Deut
2:20), and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim in
Moab (modern el-Qureyat or el-Qaryatein,
cf. also Deut 2:20). The chapter apparently
contains mixed traditions, since the coalition
of the kings, after its victory over the Syro-
Transjordanian populations, descends again
towards the southern tip of the Dead Sea
(where they had initially come together) to
subdue al] the country of the Amalekites
around Kadesh and Hazazon-tamar (cf. 2
Sam 21:15-22).
Another occurrence of the Rephaim is
found in the list of the inhabitants of the
land between the —Nile and the —Euph-
rates—the land that Yahweh will give to
Abram’s seed (Gen 15:19-21). They are
mentioned after the Kenites, Kenizzites,
Kadmonites (South-West of Palestine), Hit-
tites and Perizzites (Central-West and North-
Centra]-East), and before the Amorites,
Canaanites, Girgashites and the Jebusites
(Central-West). The verses are a gloss
describing the situation of Palestine before
the settlement of the Israelites. Both pas-
sages from Genesis are probably Deutero-
nomistic; they conform with the location of.
the Rephaim as found in the Book of
Deuteronomy.
In spite of the Deuteronomic topography,
most scholars believe that the Transjor-
danian location of the Rephaim is secondary
(e.g. CAQUOT 1985:345-346). Indeed, sev-
eral early texts (Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Sam
5:18-25 [1 Chr 14:8-16]; 2 Sam 23:13 [1
Chr 11:15]) speak about a 'Valley of the
Rephaim’ (‘émeg répa@im) close to Jeru-
salem. Though different identifications have
been proposed, there is agreement that the
valley must have been in the immediate
vicinity of the city (Josephus, Ant.Jud. vii
312; Eusebius, Onomasticon 288, 22; H.
VINCENT, Jérusalem. Recherches de topo-
graphie, d'archéologie et d'histoire, vo]. 1
{Paris 1912] 123; J. Simons, The Geograph-
ical and Topographical Texts of the Old
Testament [Leiden 1959] 79). Other occur-
rences of the Rephaim do not fit the Deuter-
onomistic location, either. Át Isa 17:5 there
is mention of the Valley of the Rephaim in
an oracle addressed against Ephraim, yet
replete with Judaean images. Since the text
seems to conjure up the spectre of infertility,
the Valley of the Rephaim in this passage is
generally taken to have been a fertile area in
the country. The text of 2 Sam 21:15-22 (cf.
1 Chr 20:4-8) does not fit the Deutero.
nomistic location, either. During his battle
against the Philistines, David and his men
defeat four champions presented as “descend-
ants of the -Rapha” (yélidé harapd). The
LXX interprets 15777 as the singular of
rép@im, plus the article (vv 16.18 £v toig
Éxyóvow 100 'PáQa; v 20 éxéx8n «à Pada).
The Lucianic recension of vv 15-16 has
“Dadou, son of Ioas, who was of the
descendants of the giants". Also the Targum
(“of the Giant”) and the Peshitta (“David,
Joab, and Abishai were terrified by a giant”)
Witness to the antiquity of the interpretation
of 157 as RB). The same is true of the
LXX in 2 Sam 21:22, where there is a text-
ual] conflation: “These four descended as
offspring from the Giants in Gath, the house
of Rapha”. This ancient notice sitvating the
Rephaim in Philistia reflects a pre-Deutero-
nomistic tradition. e is
The Rephaim are presented as a con-
glomerate consisting of various pseudo-
ethnic groups, each with its own characteris-
tics (Gen 14:5; Deut 2:10.11.20; Josh 17:
15). Thus, e.g. the Anakim (‘descendants of
Anak’), builders of fortified cities in south-
em Judah (Num 13:22; Josh 11:21; 15:13;
Judg 1:20), are Rephaim bearing a nickname
alluding to their size. The Rephaim were
traditionally associated with giants, as the
description of the yélidé harapé sull shows
(Caquot 1985:346-347).
The ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible
have linked the répd’im designating the
early inhabitants of Palestine and the
rép@im designating the spirits of the dead.
The LXX sometimes offers a mere tran-
scription (e.g. Deut 3:11 Raphain), as does
the Vulgate (Rafaim, Gen 14:5; 15:20; Josh
698
REPHAIM
—— e M
12:4; 13:12; 17:5; 2 Sam 21:18.22; 1 Chr
11:15; 14:9.13), yet usually renders as
gigantes (—Gìants). Also the other versions
generally opt for ‘giants’, except Aquila
(who usually gives a transcription in Greek
characters). The basis for this interpretation
has been elucidated by Caquor (1985:348);
it is the fable reflected in Bereshit Rabbah
26:7; 31:12 and Pirge de R. Eliezer 34 ac-
cording to which répd’im was one of the
names of the —Nephilim, creatures bom
from the union between the sons of El with
the daughters of mankind (Gen 6:1-4). The
elaboration upon this episode in J Enoch 6-
14 relates that their giant offspring had been
cast into the netherworld, which explains
why they could be called répda’im. The
chthonic nature of these creatures, and the
analogy with the —Titans, suggests the
renderings tiranes (LXXL 2 Sam 21:13),
theomachoi (Sym Prov 9:18) and gégeneis
(xx Prov 2:18; 11:18).
The discovery of the rpum in the texts
from Ugarit has put the question of the
biblical répa’im in a new perspective. What
js the etymology? Arguing that rpum/
‘yép@im ate collective designations, H. L.
‘GINSBERG (The Legend of King Keret [New
‘Haven 1946] 41) proposes a connection with
‘Ar rafa‘a, ‘to sew’. J. AISTLEJTNER prefers
‘a. derivation from *RBB/RBH, on the basis of
‘an alleged — ‘correspondence with Akk
yabi/rubi, ‘prince’ (Untersuchungen zur
"Grammatik des Ugaritischen [Leipzig 1954)
‘12, 37). Most scholars, however, choose
‘between the alternative roots RPH, ‘to be-
‘some weak, to relax’, and RP’, ‘to heal’. Are
‘the Rephaim ‘healers’ (or ‘hale ones’, if the
‘form i is Interpreted as intransitive) or “impo-
ient ones’? A number of authors feel that
ithe term répd'ím, due to its very ambiva-
dence, possesses both senses. According to J.
D. Michaelis (as quoted by Ges.!? 1302),
bon giants and deceased inhabit the under-
World. The explanation of Rephaim by the
3 ‘Toot RPH assumes that the weakness of the
Shades of the dead is constitutive for their
same (so b.Ket 111b; Bereshit Rabbah 26, 7
And many modem authors).
Various authors have tried to account for
the co-existence of two opposite meanings
by assuming a development in the signifi-
cance of the term. Thus F. SCHWALLY (Das
Leben nach dem Tode [Giessen 1892] 64 n.
1) suggests that the name Rephaim was
applied first to the powerless but disquieting
spirits of the dead, and secondarily to the
ancient inhabitants of Palestine, the heroes
of many a terrifying legend. A. Caquot
constructs a development going from the
ancient traditions about the Rephaim to the
men whom God cast in the underworld, and
who now haunt the living as revenants
(DBSup X, 1985, 350).
The connection between the Rephaim and
the root RP’, ‘to heal’, is already found in
the LXX of Isa 26:14 and Ps 88:11: “The
healers (iatroi) will not rise up”. The same
exegesis is found for Deut 2:20 and 3:13 in
the Samaritan Targum. Among modem
authors, this ancient interpretation was
adopted by M. J. LAGRANGE (Etudes sur les
religions sémitiques (Paris 19052} 318), who
argued that the Rephaim were, by virtue of
their connections with the netherworld, the
healers par excellence. Today there is a
nearly complete agreement that the Ug rpum
were believed to watch over the dynastic
continuity, granting offspring when needed.
These royal dead were thus in a sense
‘healers’.
: Well before the discovery of the Ug rpum
led to a better understanding of the biblical
Rephaim, the latter were linked with the
—teraphim, 'ancestor statuettes' (VAN DER
TooxzN 1990:220), on the basis of te root RP
(F. ScmwarLv, Das Leben nach dem Tode
nach der Vorstellungen des alten Israel und
des Judentum [Giessen 1892) 36 n. 1). The
noun férapim was analyzed as a nomen
agentis, formed with a preformative ta- and
having lost the aleph (TROPPER 1989:335 n.
64). Such an etymology, however, is invali-
dated by the inexplicable loss of the aleph,
as well as by the absence of West Semitic
parallels for a nominal form with prefixed t-.
According to O. Loretz (Die Teraphim als
" Ahnen-Gótter-Figur(in)nen" im Lichte đer
Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit, UF 24
[1992] 133-178, esp. 149-152), neither the
699
REPHAN — RESHEPH
‘Ugaritic nor the biblical data warrant the
hypothesis that in Hebrew the Canaanite
form rpu(m) could have developed in a form
trp)ym. Though Phoenician and Punic
sources know a form rp’ym, there is no
single attestation of a supposed form
*trp’*(ym). If the ~teraphim are to be under-
stood in connection with the Rephaim, it is
not for philological or etymological reasons.
The theological circles that wished to inter-
pret the Rephaim on the basis of the root
RPH, pejoratively vocalizing the word in
analogy with résá'ífm, ‘wicked’ (Liwak
1990:629; cf. DE Moor 1976:341 n. 107),
are also responsible for deforming the term
Rephaim into teraphim. Inimical against a
cult of ancestors with its attendant apparel
of images and offerings, they invented the
term Teraphim on the basis of the pejorative
Toot TRP, the vocalisation being the same as
for Rephaim (LORETZ 1992:149-152).
According to 2 Chr 16:12, King Asa,
“even in his disease, did not seek Yahweh,
but sought help from physicians (rópé?'tm)".
The observation (absent in 1 Kgs 15:23)
implies the healing powers of Yahweh; yet
Asa preferred to seek help from the ropZtm
The latter are not physicians in the usual
sense of the term, however, but the Rephaim
in their capacity as ‘healers’ (Lrwak 1990:
629). The text is at home in a polemic tradi-
tion criticizing the use of necromancy (cf.
Deut 18:11; Isa 8:19; 19:3; 1 Chr 10:13).
The vocalisation of D'ND in 2 Chr 16:12
betrays the kind of systematic correction
which led to the fifteen occurrrences of the
word teraphim. In a number of places the
teraphim occur in a parallelism with °éldhim,
‘gods’ (Gen 31:30; Judg 18:24), a term also
used for the ancestors or their images (Exod
21:6; 1 Sam 28:13; 2 Sam 12:16; Isa 8:19).
The equivalence between teraphim and
Elohim, then, is based upon the equivalence
between Rephaim and Elohim—which
reflects the Ugaritic correspondences
between rpum, ilnym, ilm and mtm (KTU
1.6:46-48).
IV. Bibliography
A. Caquot, Les Rephaim ougantiques,
Syria 37 (1960) 79-90; Caquor, La tablette
700
RS 24.252 et la question des Rephaim ouga-
ritiques, Syria 53 (1976) 296-304; Cagquor,
Rephaim, DBSup 10 (1985) 344-357; T. J,
Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel
und Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta 1989); C. E,
L’Heureux, The Ugaritic and the Biblical
Rephaim, HTR 67 (1974) 265-274, R.
Lirwak, OSD, TWAT 7/3-5 (1990) 625.
636; O. Loretz, Die Teraphim als “Ahnen-
Géuer-Figur(injen’ im Lichte der Texte aus
Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit, UF 24 (1992) 133-
178; J. C. pE Moor, Rapi’uma - Rephaim,
ZAW 88 (1976) 323-345; G. DEL OLmo
LETE, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan segun la
tradicion de Ugarit (Valencia/Madrid 1981).
DEL OLMO LETE, La religión cananea
segun la litúrgia de Ugarit. Estudio textual
(AuOrSup 3; Barcelona 1992); D. PARDEE,
Les textes para-mythologiques (RSOu 4;
Paris 1988) 75-118, 179-192; S. B. PARKER,
The Feast of Ràpi'u, UF 2 (1970) 243-246,
H. RoumLARD, El Rofé en Nombres 12,13,
Sem 37 (1987) 17-46; H. RoUILLARD & J.
TROPPER, trpym, rituels de guérison et culte
des ancêtres d'aprés 1 Samuel XIX11-17 et
les textes paralleles d'Assur et de Nuzi, VT
37 (1987) 340-361; K. SPRONK, Beatific
Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East (AOAT 219; Kevelaer/Neukir-
chen-Vluyn 1986); K. vAN DER TOORN, The
Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light
of the Cuneiform Evidence, CBQ 32 (1990)
203-222; VAN DER Toorn, Funerary Rituals
and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and
in the Bible, BiOr 48 (1991) 40-66, J.
TROPPER, Nekromantie und Totenbefragung
im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament
(AOAT 223; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn
1989); A. Tsukimoro, Untersuchungen zur
Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopo-
tamien (AOAT 216; Neukirchen- vays
1985).
H. ROUILLARD-
REPHAN 2 KAIWAN
RESHEPH nh i
Y. Reseph occurs as rip in Ugartic#
Phoenician, and Aramaic, as resep m
x
o
AM
Es
RESHEPH
Hebrew (8 times), as ra-sa-ap at Ebla and in
Akkadian, and as r-s-p(-w) in Egyptian. It is
the name of one of the most popular West-
Semitic gods, venerated in Syria, Palestine
and Egypt. The etymology of the name is
stil] very uncertain. It is often assumed that
it is related to a root *RSP (?) with the basic
meaning “to light, to set on fire” or “to
burn” (cf. e.g. Jud.-Aram rigpd’ "flames,
lightning”). Yet also a derivation from roots
such as *SRP, *$RB (metathesis?), or even
*nsP can be considered, as well as a possible
connection to Akk rasaàbu(m) I and
rasbu(m). The name was probably pro-
nounced RaSapu or RaSpu (cf. the Amorite
form RuSpan). Heb resep is a segolate form,
a.fact which confirms the original triliteral
structure of the name. The meaning general-
ly assumed is “He who is burning” (refer-
ring to fire, lightning or even to plague in
a metaphorical sense). Though it fits the per-
‘sonality of the god Resheph, the etymologi-
‘cal foundation of the interpretation is
problematic. In fact, all the proposed ety-
‘mologies are based on what we actually
‘know about the character of this god; there-
fore, there is a serious risk of circular argu-
mem
2 JI. Resheph is attested at Tell Mardikh-
3N in the 3rd Millennium BCE, where he
“seems to have been a very popular deity. He
smay have been related to the royal necro-
‘polis as a chthonic god. Pnests of Resheph
tare also attested to. "The god had a consort
‘named Adamma. His name occurs as theo-
phonic element in personal names from Ur
JH, Mari, Terqa and Hana, but it is especial-
dy. at Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani during the
Late Bronze Age, and later in the Phoen-
ician- Punic world, that we are given infor-
‘mation about the god’s personality. Ident-
sified with —Nergal and attested as a
] Hsgue-god i in the Keret poem (KTU 1.14 i:
38-19; 1.15 ii:6), Resheph is very frequently
Bbénioncd in the Ugaritic ritual texts in the
pna of a chthonic deity, gatekeeper of
: Netherworld. He is the lord of battle and
x fl diseases, which he spreads through his
Ww and arrows. These aspects of Resheph’s
sonality are confirmed by the Amama
letters (see e.g. EA 35). His fierce nature
apparently did not affect his popularity both
in private devotion (as reflected by the
theophoric persona] names) and in the
official cult. In fact, the epithets he receives
show that he is an ambivalent god, danger-
ous as wel] as benevolent; he can hurt but
also heal.
In Egypt from the New Kingdom
onwards the cult of Resheph gained promi-
nence under the influence of immigrated
Asiatic people. The god was officially
adopted at the court of Amenophis II; the
Pharaoh regarded this deity as his special
protector during military enterprises. In the
Ramesside period, Resheph’s veneration
also spread among the common people: tex-
tual and iconographica] data testify both to
his worship at the highest levels of the
society and to the devotion of the general
population. The iconography of Resheph is
relatively well known. It confirms the
double character of Resheph: benevolent, on
the one hand, dangerous, on the other. In
some stelae of the New Kingdom Resheph
is also depicted in the attitude of the
Pharaoh striking his enemies, an element
which suggests that the so-called “Smiting
God” of the Synan iconographical tradition
is a representation of our deity. Traces of
the cult of Re-sheph are also found in Hittite
Anatolia. .At Zenjirli, in the 8th century BCE,
the local king Panamuwa mentions the god
(together with "rgrip) as his dynastic deity
(KAI 214: 2.3.11).
In the Phoenician-Punic world, the
earliest evidence of the god is to be found at
Byblos. If there is no proof in favour of a
relation of Resheph with Herisheph the god
of the “Obelisk Temple”, it is nonetheless
quite probable that our god was identified at
a very early stage with said Egyptian deity,
mentioned in the “Pyramid Texts” (§§ 242,
423, 518) and on the so-called “Cylindre
Montet” (but note the cautionary remarks of
Furco 1976:55). The first direct evidence of
the cult of Resheph in Phoenician texts,
however, ìs found in the Karatepe portal
inscription (KAI 26, 8th century BCE); here
Azitawada mentions Baal and Resheph-
701
RESHEPH
gprm as dynastic deities. The epithet sprm
can mean “(Resheph) of the goats” or
“(Resheph) of the birds”, if it is not a Cilic-
ian place-name. Later, in Sth century Sidon,
the inscriptions of the local king Bodashtart
reveal that there was a whole quarter in the
town named "Land of the Reshephs" (’rs
ripm: KAI 15). Yet the textual occurrences
of this god are chiefly concentrated in
Cyprus. Here we find traces of the ancient
Ugaritic tradition of the Archer-God, which
merged with the figure of an archaic local
-*Apollo (see also the Homeric tradition of
Apollo's arrows, Iliad 1 43-67). Especially
important among the various documents is
the dedication to Resheph written on the
base of a statue (Palaeo-kastro, 7th century
BCE, see A. Caquot & O. Masson, Deux
inscriptions phéniciennes de Chypre, Syria
45 [1968] 295-321, esp. 295-300). This text
is perhaps to be related to a Kition inscrip-
tion of the 4th century BCE mentioning the
dedication of two lion-heads (rwm) to the
same god by a priest of "Resheph of the
arrow" (rip hs, KAI 32; M. G. AMADASI
Guzzo & V. KARAGEORGHIS, Fouilles de
Kition — Ill. Inscriptions phéniciennes
(Nicosia 1977) III A 2). The epigraphic
documentation from Cyprus attests more-
over to some local manifestations of Resh-
eph, always identified with Apollo: Rip-
(b)mkl, "Resheph-Amyklos" at Idalion (KA7
38-40 and Caquot & Masson, Deux
inscriptions phéniciennes de Chypre, Syria
45 [1968] 295-321, esp. 302-313; cf. a-mu-
ko-lo-i, dative, in syllabic Cyprian), Ršp-
*lhyts, “Resheph-Alasiotas” at Tamassos
(RES 1213; cf. a-la-si-o-ta-i, dative, in syl-
labic Cyprian), and RSp-’lyyt, “Resheph-
Eleitas” also in Tamassos (RES 1212; cf. e-
le-ta-i, dative, in syllabic Cyprian). Finally,
it must be added that the god b'/ *z, "The
Lord of the power”, attested in a recently
published Phoenician royal inscription from
Kition (M. Yon & M. Sznycer, Une
inscription phénicienne royale de Kition
(Chypre), CRAIBL 1991, 791-823), was prob-
ably a particular manifestation of Resheph-
mkl, a god especially venerated at Idalion.
From an historical point of view, these
testimonies show that the personality of
Resheph at Cyprus retained the general
features which characterize the god in Syria-
Palestina during the Bronze and the Iron
Ages. Some changes in his cult are never-
theless perceptible. For example, it is note-
worthy that we know very few personal
names of this period which contain the name
of Resheph. This could be explained as an
indication of the god's loss of prominence in
popular devotion, in contradistinction to his
role and importance at a more official level.
This process culminates perhaps at Car-
thage, where we have only one personal
name with Resheph as theophoric element
(‘bdrSp: CIS 1 2628,6). Yet in the Punic
metropolis, too, it is certain that the god
enjoyed a certain popularity, because he had
at least one temple in the very centre of the
town with cultic personnel devoted to him
(CIS I 251). Some classical authors (Va-
lerius Maximus I 1,18; Appian, Lyb. 127)
inform us that there was a golden statue of
the god, as well as an altar of gold. It is
probable that the Phoenician Apollo—whom
Pausanias (VII 23,7-8) identifies as the
father of ->-Eshmun—was none other than
Resheph—a tradition perhaps confirmed by
Cicero (cf. Arsippus in Cicero, Nar. deor. lI
22,57). If the Apollo mentioned in the treaty
between Hannibal and Philip of Macedonia
(Polybius VII 9,2-3) is to be identified with
Resheph, it would confirm the leading role
of the god in the Carthaginian pantheon, as
the text mentions him in the first divine triad
together with -*Zeus and -*Hera. In Phoen-
icia, a late trace of the god is finally found
in the name of the ancient Apollonia, a town
which is called Arsüf in Arabic.
III. The original divine nature of Resh-
eph is detectable in the OT. Like various
other ancient Semitic deities, he is generally
considered as a sort of decayed -*demon at
the service of Yahweh. | Chr 7:25 pre-
sents Resheph as one of the Ephraim’s sons,
but the text is corrupted and a different
reading has been proposed for this passage.
The tradition of Resheph as a god of pesti-
lence is attested in Deut 32:24 and Ps 78:48.
The first text, a passage of the Song of
702
RIDER UPON THE CLOUDS
Moses, deals with those who provoked God
to anger and were unfaithful: they are pun-
ished with hunger and destroyed by Resheph
and -*Qeteb (“I will heap (?) evils upon
them, my arrows I will spend on them;
wasted with hunger, devoured by Resheph
and Qeteb the poisonous one”, Deut 32:23-
24a). There is no doubt that we have to do
here with two ancient Canaanite gods (per-
haps conceived as flying demons), personi-
fications of the scourges that they spread. In
Ps 78:48 we have an allusion to the seventh
plague of Egypt: God has given up the cattle
to -*Barad (Hail) and the herds to the Resh-
ephs (pl: wayyasgēr labbarad bé‘iram
ümiqnéhem lárésápim). Herc too, the poet
deals with decayed deities, Barad//Resh-
eph(s), depicted as malevolent spirits which
accompany God in his destructive action.
In Hab 3:5 we have the description of a
theophany and the attendant natural
phenomena. God is described as a divine
warrior, Lord of light; before Him goes
—Deber (master of epidemics, cf. Exod 9:3
and Jer 21:6), while Resheph (Pestilence)
follows on God's heels (lépánàyw yelek
daber wéyésé reSep léraglayw). Deber and
Resheph must be seen, here too, as two per-
sonalized natural powers, submitted to
Yahweh. Ps 76:4 mentions the r3py qst, an
expression which could be interpreted as
"the Reshephs of the bow" and be related to
the imagery of the god armed with bow and
arrows ("[In Zion, God] shattered the r3py
qst, the shield, the sword, the weapons of
war"). Job 5:7 is a very difficult text, in-
serted in a passage dealing with the need for
man of absolute trust in God. Here 'the sons
of Resheph' (béné re3ep) are mentioned
("and the sons of Resheph fly high"); they
seem to be winged demons, particularly if
we think of Ps 91:5, where the expression
liés yà'üp "the arrow that flies" could be an
allusion to Resheph. The plurals, here and
elsewhere, remind us of the r3pm attested
both in Ugaritic and in Phoenician texts.
This passage is perhaps to be related to Sir
43:17, where Resheph is a bird of prey
flying in the sky (reading krSp with the Ma-
sada scroll, see F. VaTTIONI, Ecclesiastico.
Testo ebraico con apparato critico [Napels
1968] 233). In Cant 8:6 we have another
echo of the "fiery" character of Resheph.
The ‘flames’ (reSep, plural) of love are char-
acterized as a ‘fire of Yahweh’ in a context
dealing with love. death, and the Nether-
world.
To sum up, in the OT Resheph is a
demonized version of an ancient Canaanite
god, now submitted to Yahweh. He appears
as a cosmic force, whose powers are great
and terrible: he is particularly conceived of
as bringing epidemics and death. The
Hebrew Bible shows different levels of
demythologization: sometimes it describes
Resheph as a personalized figure, more or
less faded, sometimes the name is used as a
pure metaphor. At any rate it is possible to
perceive aspects of the personality of an
ancient chthonic god, whichs fits the image
of Resheph found in the other Semitic cul-
tures.
IV. Bibliography.
M. G. Amapast Guzzo & V. Kara-
GEORGHIS, Fouilles de Kition - Ill. In-
scriptions phéniciennes (Nicosia 1977); *A.
CAQUor, Sur quelques démons de l'Ancien
Testament: Reshef, Qeteb, Deber, Sem 6
(1956) 53-68; *W. J. FuLco, The Canaanite
God Rešep (New Haven 1976); G. GARBINI,
rsp sprm, RSF 20 (1992) 93-94; *E.
LirıŃsKı, Resheph Amyklos, Studia Phoeni-
cia 5 (Leuven 1987) 87-99; F. POMPONIO,
Adamma paredra di Rašap, SEL 10 (1993)
3-7; *P. XELLA, Le dieu Rashap à Ugarit,
AAAS 29-30 (1979-80) 145-162; XELLA,
D'Ugarit à la Phénicie: sur les traces de
Rashap, Horon, Eshmun, WO 19 (1988) 45-
64; XELLA, Le dieu B'L 'Z dans une
nouvelle inscription phénicienne de Kition
(Chypre), SEL 10 (1993) 61-70.
P. XELLA
RIDER UPON
maa
Il. In Ps 68:5[4] Yahweh is referred to
as the rékéb ba‘drabét. Though often trans-
lated as ‘rider through the steppe’ (based on
the meaning ‘steppe’ of Hebr ‘arabd), the
THE CLOUDS 22)
703
RIDER UPON THE CLOUDS
expression is thought to reflect the Ugaritic
epithet rkb ‘rpt, ‘Rider upon the clouds’, tra-
ditionally given to Baal.
II. In the mythological texts of Ras
Shamra the god Baal repeatedly gets the
epithet rkb ‘rpt. It is rendered with slight
nuances as ‘Rider of the Clouds’, ‘Rider on
the Clouds’, ‘Who mounts the Clouds’. Epi-
thets based on the root RKB, ‘to ride’, occur
quite frequently in connection with gods.
The name -*Rakib-el is a good example,
demonstrating that the epithet could event-
ually ‘tum into a proper name (cf. KAI, II 34,
commentary at no. 24:16).
The epithet rkb ‘rpt refers to Baal as driv-
ing his chariot of clouds (cf. LonETZ 1979-
80; G. pEL Orwo LzrEs, 'auriga de las
nubes' [Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan
(Barcelona 1981), see Glosario s. v. rkb]).
This explanation agrees with the one ad-
vanced by J. C. pe Moor: Baal rides upon
the clouds as the driver in a chariot; he goes
out to distribute rain (The Seasonal Pattern
in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu [Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1971] 98; cf. DigTRICH-LonETZ, UF
21 [1989] 116). At the same time, it casts
Baal in the role of warrior-god (Miller
1973).
III. Normally, the Hebrew term ‘draba
has the meaning ‘steppe’ or ‘desert’. Conse-
quently the expression in Ps 68:5[4] is
usually understood as ‘the one passing
through the steppes’. Yet because Yahweh is
celebrated in v 34[33] as the ‘Rider in the
heavens, the heavens of old' (rókeb bismé
3émé-qedem), it has been surmised that
‘Grabét in v 5[4] is in fact a word for
‘clouds’ (cf. Akk urpatu, erpetu ‘cloud’,
plural urpátu, urpétu, erpétu: CAD E [1958]
302-304; AHW 243, 1432). If *árabót stands
indeed for clouds, a shift p > b may be
assumed (so S. Moscar ct al., An Intro-
duction to the Comparative Grammar of the
Semitic Languages, {Wiesbaden 19802] 25-
26; but contrast L. L. Grasse, Hebrew
pa‘al / Ugaritic b'l and the supposed b/p
Interchange in Semitic, UF 11 [1979] 307-
314). Alternatively the text might be emen-
dated to read 12223, 'in/upon the clouds’
(see already P. HauPr, ExpTim 22 (1910-
11] 375). The correction finds some support
in other passages where Yahweh is said to
be a 'rider in the heavens' (Deut 33:26), or
even a ‘rider upon a swift cloud' (Isa 19:1;
cf. 2 Sam 22:11 = Ps 18:11). Another ref-
erence still could be made to Isa 5:30, where
the noun *'árípim could possibly signify
‘clouds’.
In order to explain the Hebrew collo-
cation, ULLENDORFF (1956) drew a compar-
ison with the epithet vedednyepétns,
‘Cloudgatherer’, attributed to —>-Zcus, be-
cause the root RKB originally denotes ‘to
compose, put together, collect’; the meaning
‘to ride (on a horse)’ is a late development
based on RKB in the meaning ‘to harness’.
Though Ullendorff was followed by S.
Brock (VT 18 [1968] 395-397), his inter-
pretation is hardly correct. K. J. CATHCART
(TRKB QMH in the Arad Ostracon and
Biblical Hebrew REKEB, “Upper Mill-
stone", VT 19 [1969] 121-123, esp. 121-
122) has shown Ullendorff’s interpretation
of the verb RKB to be incorrect; as a matter
of consequence, the comparison of vedeAn-
yepéms and rkb *rpt is without factual basis
(M. WEINFELD, ‘Rider of the Clouds’ and
‘Gatherer of the Clouds’, JANES 5 [1973]
421-426).
GALLING has convincingly demonstrated
that rékéb denotes ‘rider’ or ‘chariotcer’
(1956:132). A combination of this fact with
the information of Hab 3:8, where Yahweh
is said to drive a horse-drawn chariot (cf. M.
Haran, The Ark and the Cherubim, /EJ 9
{1959} 30-94), an image reminiscent of that
of the storm-god setting out for battle
(MILLER 1973:41), suggests that the clouds
in Ps 68:5[4] are God’s mythological chariot
(MowiNckEL 1962:298-299; cf. W. L.
Moran, Bib 43 [1962] 323-325). The par-
ticle bé (‘in, upon’) shows that God is the
driver of the nubilous vehicle (S. E.
LOEWENSTAMM, Grenzgebiete ugaritischer
Sprach- und Stilvergleichung, UF 3 [1971]
93-100, esp. 99-100).
Yet the rendering in the LXX (Ps 67:5)
does not favour the explication of the
Hebrew phrase in analogy with the Ugaritic
epithet of Baal, since it has understood
704
RIDING HORSEMAN
‘arabét as Svopai, ‘sunset’. The Hebrew
word *drabót was apparently associated with
“ereb, ‘evening, sunset’ (the same interpre-
tation is found in the Peshitta: /édrakib léma
‘arba). The Old Latin translation followed
its own course and translated coelos coel-
orum, presumably on the basis of v 34[33].
Another translation of the Hebrew is pro-
vided by the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos with
its per deserta, which is supported by Sym-
machus £v tij aoixrto (F. FiELD, Origenis
Hexaplorum quae supersunt, II (Oxford,
1875] at Ps 67:5).
In the context of Ps 68, the word *áràbót
makes good sense when translated as
‘steppe, desert’. Verses 8-10[7-9] refer to
the Exodus, using the word yésimdn as a
designation of the wilderness in v 8[7].
Though the fact remains that the Israclites
imagined Yahweh as being capable of
moving about in a nubilous chariot (see in
addition to the texts already mentioned Ps
104:3), this by itself is not enough to main-
tain that *árábót needs to be understood as
‘clouds’. The choice of the word ‘ărābôt
should rather be explained as a deliberate
attempt to differentiate Yahweh from Baal;
the Baal epithet was adopted yet modified in
such a way that it came to signify something
entirely different (cf. H. Gese, RAAM, 122-
123; W. B. Barrick & H. RINGGREN,
TWAT 7/3-5 [1990] 511; A. Cooper & M.
H. Pore, RSP III [Rome 1981] 458-460; cf.
O. Loretz, UF 10 [1978] 480). A similar
modification is evident in v 8 [7] of the
Psalm, where a quotation from Judg 5:4 has
been adapted. “When thou didst go forth
from Seir" (Judg 5:4a) became “When thou
didst go forth before thy people” (Ps 68:8a
[7a]); "When thou didst march from the
Field of Edom" (Judg 5:4b) was changed
into "When thou didst march through the
wilderness" (Ps 68:8b [7b]). The change of
Ug ‘rpt into Heb ‘drabét fits this pattern of
modification.
IV. Bibliography
K. GALLING, Der Ehrenname Elisas und die
Entrückung Elias, ZTK 53 (1956) 129-148;
O. LonETZ, Baal, le Chevaucheur des
Nuées, AAAS 29-30 (1979-80) 185-188;
Loretz, Der ugaritische Topos b‘! rkb und
die “Sprache Kanaans” in Jes 19:1-25, UF
19 (1987) 101-112; P. D. MILLER Jr., The
Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge
Mass. 1973) 41; S. MowiNckzL, Drive
and/or Ride in the Old Testament, V7 12
(1962) 278-299; E. ULLENDORFF, The Con-
tribution of South Semitics to Hebrew Lexi-
cography, VT 6 (1956) 190-198; ULLEN-
DORFF, Ugaritic Studies within their Semitic
and Easter Mediterranean Setting, BJRL 46
(1963-64) 236-249.
W. HERRMANN
RIDING HORSEMAN
I. Common to most Semitic languages,
the root RKB, “to mount (upon)”, is more
often used in connection with chariot-dri-
ving than with riding upon an animal (such
as an equid or a camel (W. B. Barrick,
The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical
Hebrew, JBL 101 [1982] 481-503; id/H.
RINGGREN, TWAT 7, 508-515). Consequent-
ly, both the divine name -*Rakib-Il and
divine epithets such as -*"Rider-upon-the-
clouds" do not relate to the imagery of a
riding horseman, but to that of a chariot-dri-
ving warrior. However, ancient Near Eastern
iconography knows both deities in the cons-
picuous attitude of standing upon an attribu-
te animal or composite being and, less
numerous, deities mounting an animal in the
pose of an actual rider. The first convention
prevailed in Mesopotamian and Levantinc
figurative art from the later IlIrd until thc
middle of the Ist mill. BCE; in Egypt it was
adopted only during the New Kingdom and
with reference to Asiatic deities such as
Qadishtu, -*Resheph and —Baal(-Seth).
While a contemporary verbal transcript
could have used RKB for describing this atti-
tude (cf. 2 Sam 22:11), the second type, i.c.
of actually riding deities (such as -^Amurru
on a mule or -*Anat and/or -*Astarte on
horseback as warrior goddess and huntress
[cf. J. LECLANT, Astarté à cheval d'apres les
représentations égyptiennes, Syria 37 [1960]
1-67; I. CORNELIUs, Anat and Qudshu as
the «Mistress of Animals», SEL 10 [1993]
705
RIDING HORSEMAN
21-45), would probably be designated by
the root PRS (on which see H. NIEHR, TWAT
6, 782-787).
II. Terracotta figurines of a man riding
on an equid first appeared in Palestine in the
late Ird mill. sce (EB III donkey rider
from Yirbet ez-Zeraqón); they continued to
be produced during the following periods
but remained exceptional until Iron Age II.
Ca. 300 items are known from 8th/7th-cent.
Judah, far less than the female so-called
“pillar figurines” to which they are not
directly related, but still clearly second in
number among the figurines of this area and
period (R. Kietrer, The Judean Pillar-Fig-
urines and the Archaeology of Asherah
[BAR Int. Ser. 636; Oxford 1996] 65).
Moreover, horses represent by far the most
numcrous category among Judahite zoo-
morphic figurines. Their relative number
cannot reflect actual proportions in Judahite
animal stock; at least some of the horse fig-
urines may have had a similar function as
the ""horse-and-rider" figurines. The latters’
floruit parallels the rise and development of
cavalry in the standing armies of the Near
East from the 8th cent. BCE. While 6th-cen-
tury items from Meqabelein show Babylo-
nian features, later examples are clearly
characterised as “Persians” by their peaked
cloth cap: it seems obvious that the repre-
sentation of the riders was influenced by
actual perception of imperial cavalry (cf. Ez
23:6.12.23f) and mounted messengers. Since
in the Persian period the "horse-and-rider"
figurines are well attested in coastal Palesti-
ne but no more in Judah, they cannot be an
exclusive expression of pre-exilic Yahwistic
religion but must reflect a more general
symbol system. Since they usually functio-
ned as.singles in domestic as well as funera-
ry contexts and were venerated on the level
of family religion, one may hypothesize that
they depict a divine protector and/or media-
tor (Angel I, Angel of Yahweh), either a
particular deity (Gad?) or a conspicuous
member of the heavenly —host (cf. Josh
5:13-15) such as the later —archangels
(among whome -*Michael is especially
noteworthy in his function as apyiotpatm-
yog). The type continued to be produced in
Palestine as in the whole Near East until the
late Roman period (cf. M. Avi-YONAH, Art
in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies
[Jerusalem 1981] 23-26 [2 QDAP 10 (1942)
127-130]).
III. Depictions of a rider are particularly
prominent in Achaemenid iconography, be it
on seals, coins or other media (A. FARKAS,
The Horse and Rider in Achaemenid An,
Persica 4 [1969] 57-76; J. BoLLwEG, Proto-
achimenidische Siegelbilder, AAf/ 21 [1988]
53-61). To be a good horseman was a neces-
sary virtue of the Persian king (DNb 41 ff)
and nobility (Herodotus I 136; cf. Est 6:8-
11). Whether Darius I put up a statue of
himself as a horseman in Babylon (Herodo-
tus III 88; cf. Zech 1:87) is doubtful (cf. the
Urartian precedent mentioned by Sargon II,
ARAB Il 98 § 173), but sculptures of a
horseman were produccd, c.g., in late fifth-
century Egypt (G. R. Driver, Aramaic
Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. [Oxford
1957], no. 9). Persian cavalry was famous
for its warriors (Hag 2:22; Zech 10:5; 12:4)
and messengers (Herodotus III 126, VIII 98;
Est 8:10.14). That a Persian period text
should produce the first literary reference to
a heavenly rider and coloured horses opera-
ting at the Lord's command all over the
world (Zech 1:8-11) comes as no surprise; it
is noteworthy that these operate as messen-
gers and police rather than warriors. The
notion of one major heavenly rider is taken
up again in 2 Macc's somewhat romanesquc
entertainment historiography: According to a
first version of the Heliodorus incident, the
Seleucid chancellor was prevented from
inspecting the temple treasury by two
angels; a later hand added a riding horseman
and considered the latter as an epiphany of
"the dynast of all spirits and powers" (3:24-
30; cf. -^Michael the ápxiotpátnyog). For
the strongly hellenizing author of 2 Macc
(and probably his main source, Jason of
Cyrene), the celestial army was formed of
cavalry (cf. 5:2-4 where terrestrial warfare is
anticipated in premonitory signs at heaven,
or 10:29-30 where epiphanic horsemen lead
the Jewish army to victory). This view is
706
RIGHTEOUSNESS — RIVER
echoed by 4 Macc 4:10 (and an Arabic ver-
sion of 2 Macc which transforms the
Heliodorus incident into a combat between
two horsemen (p. 112 in B. Walton’s poly-
glot, London 1657), but remained marginal
in Jewish angelology and literature which
usually considers horses and armed horse-
men as part of foreign oppression. Conse-
quently, when heavenly horsemen appear in
Apoc, they betray not so much Jewish, but
rather pagan (probably Indo-European) sym-
bolism: Three among the four riders of 6:2-8
are clearly divine agents of destruction and
death. On the basis of comparison with
19:11-16 a similar meaning has long been
disputed for the first one, who is said to be
riding upon a white horse, armed as a bow-
man and bestowed with a wreath; but the
victor of 6:2 cannot be disconnected from
his angelic companions. The horses’ four
colours do not derive from Zech 1:8-11 or
6:1-8 but either from astral or Mithraic
colour symbolism. The bowman on the
white horse appears as a Jupiter- or rather
—Mithras-like warrior angel (cf. Lactantius,
Institutions VII 19,5); his disguise is that of
a Parthian king and his military triumph pre-
figures the overturn of the Roman empire
which the author of Apoc expected to start
from the east (cf. 16:12). The event is
described in definitely. eschatological terms
and mythological imagery in 19:11-16 and
the victorious warrior riding upon a white
horse now identified with (unnamed)
Christ. That the messiah would once appe-
ar on horseback stands in contrast to how
Jewish and earlier Christian tradition had
imagined his coming (Zech 9:9; cf. Mk
1110 parr).
+ IV. Bibliography
A. L. OPPENHEIM, “The Eyes of the Lord”,
JAOS 88 (1968) 173-180; E. BICKERMAN,
Studies in Jewish and Christian History 1l
(AGJU 9; Leiden 1980), 172-191; U. B.
MOLLER, Die Offenbarung des Johannes
(OTK 19; Giitersloh 1984), 163-170, 321-
331; O. Keer & C. UEHLINGER, Göttinnen,
Götter und Gottessymbole (QD 135; Frei-
‘burg iBr. 31995) $8 198-200; P. & A.
SAUZEAU, Les chevaux colorés de «’ Apo-
calypse», RHR 212 (1995) 259-298
C. UEHLINGER
RIGHTEOUSNESS ^ ZEDEQ
RIVER "i
-J. Rivers, as sources of water, are of
great importance for agricultural life: espe-
cially in regions with large streams and imi-
gation culture. In such areas, rivers provide
the possibility of shipping, but they can
become threatening when there is serious
flooding. They are a means of economical
and cultural exchange. At the same time,
however, rivers demarcate frontiers whose
crossing is dangerous. Water currents in the
desert are especially unpredictable. As a
rule, wadis are dry; but, if there is intense
rain, they soon become dangerous torrents.
Jn Hebrew, a permanently flowing river is
called nāhār: in contrast to the nahal.
II. The cultural significance of the river
is represented in religious symbolism. The
great streams of Mesopotamia and Egypt are
interpreted anthropomorphically. The god of
the >Nile, Hapi (male, but with ful] breasts,
occasionally conceptualized as a dyad of
gods, corresponding to Upper and Lower
Egypt) is called ‘father of the gods’. Sorne-
times he is linked with the primeval ocean,
Nun, and with other deities: e.g. Chnum,
Satis and Anukis. He represents the fertility
of the nver which is active in the annual
inundation. The Nile god is not a subject of
myth or ritual; but he does appear in the
iconography (holding two vases).
In Mesopotamia, rivers in general are
represented by the divinity {D (= ndru?,
Flood) occurring in lists of gods and in
the Theogony of Dunnu (as daughter of
Earth and Gaju, possibly Labar, see W. G.
LAMBERT, Lahar, RLA 6 [1980-83] 413).
The —Euphrates and the Tigris are the
most prominent divine rivers. The earliest
mythological elaboration of the river theme
is preserved in the Sumerian myth Lugal-e:
Subdued by the power of the mountain-
demon Azag, the rivers cannot flow but are
frozen into stone. After the victory of Ninur-
707
RIVER
ta (-*Nimrod), the rivers begin to flow and
fertilize the land; the cultural work of irriga-
tion can start (cf. the Indian tradition of
Indra's victory over Vrtra). According to a
later tradition, the Euphrates and the Tigris
were created immediately after —Marduk's
victory over —Tiamat: The body of the
smitten goddess is covered with —earth, and
the perforation of her eyes brings forth the
springs of the great streams. Finally, Enki,
the god of the subterranean ocean, is con-
nected with the waters of irrigation. The
rivers, though related to different mythologi-
cal contexts, always have their ongin in a
‘marginal’, chaotic area; but they transform
the water into a form which can be used by
human culture. Furthermore, the Euphrates
and the Tigris are important as dcities
responsible for the water ordeal.
The Mesopotamian river deities are
known well beyond their area of origin.
They are worshipped in Anatolia where they
even play a role in mythology (which is not
the case in Mesopotamia). Here, Tigris and
Euphrates are, to a greater degree than in
Mesopotamia, seen anthropomorphically (and
theriomorphically, e.g., the Tigris assumes
the form of an eagle and takes part in a
meal) Not only Mesopotamian, but also
domestic rivers are important. A ritual text
shows that pestilence was explained as a
consequence of the omission to bring offer-
ings to the river Mala.
In the Syro-Palestinian area, rivers are
closely related to the sea. The God Yam
(^*sea) is often called zbl ym tpt nhr, ‘prince
Sea, ruler River’. He seems to be the deity
of every kind of water. According to Strabo
(16, 750-751), Typhon, a Greek parallel to
the chaotical enemy of —Baal, is identified
with the Orontes: one of the prominent
rivers of Syria. Furthermore, Okeanos pos-
sesses the spring of the Tyrian cult. As a
river deity, Yam seems to represent the
destructive power of water: e.g. in flash
floods.
Although there is no precise conception
of the netherworld, there are some ideas
about a river —>Hubur (identified with
Tiamat) in that region. The myth of Enlil
and Ninlil tells of this river: and a ferryman
is charged with the traffic. Similarly,
Gilgamesh has to cross the waters of death
located beyond the cosmic mountain in
order to reach Utnapishtim on the island of
Dilmun (Bahrein!) Sea and river, the
netherworld and the landscape at the end of
this world, are not really differentiated. The
western Semites scem to know such a river
too (KTU 1.5 1 22). In any case, -*Mot's
dwelling place is mud: a mixture of water
and carth.
III. The torrent, as an evil power, is also
attested in the Psalms (Ps 124:4-5). Note the
expression "mighty waters" (mayim rabbim/
?addirim), which is connected with the water
of a torrent as well as with the primeval
water—and the water of the Sea of Reeds
(Ps 29:3; 32:6; 77:20; 93:4).
In biblical symbolism, however, rivers
represent not only evil but also blessing.
Descending from the spring, especially the
sacred temple spring, there is a river fertil-
izing the land. This image is known for
Jerusalem (Ps 65:10-14; 46:5-6), but it
seems to belong to the common temple
ideology. The river (nāhār) is related to the
concept of šālôm. This type of river does
not belong to the sphere of the god Yam,
but rather to -*Shalem. Shalem was prob-
ably worshipped in Jerusalem in pre-Israel-
ite times and possibly later (identification
with —Yahweh?). Hence the metaphorical
use of the river image (Isa 48:18; 66:12).
Likewise, the river of blessing becomes an
eschatological theme: The stream rising
from the temple fertilizes the whole land
(Isa 33:21; Ezek 47; Zech 14:8; cf. Rev
22:1-2).
In the Bible, the experiences of danger
intrinsic to river crossings are a subject of
religious interpretation. Fords are threatened
by —demons and protected by sanctuaries.
The story of Gen 32:22-32 is such an etiolo-
gical narrative with a Yahwistic interpreta-
tion. A similar tradition is known for the
Jordan ford near Gilgal. In this case, the
interpretation is linked to the Exodus tradi-
tion (Josh 3-4; Ps 114).
Rivers also have a cosmological quality.
708
ROCK
They are taken to be ‘primeval deities’,
which, together with elements such as
sources, heaven and >earth, are called
as witnesses when treaties are concluded or
oaths are sworn. This feature is also stressed
in the conception of four cosmic streams
which correspond to the four quarters of the
heavens. In Mesopotamia, this idea is repre-
sented iconographically. The paradise story
says (in a secondary passage) that the spring
in the garden of Eden was divided into four
rivers. Two of them can be located geo-
graphically (Euphrates and Tigris); the other
two (Pishon and Gihon) cannot be thus
identified. However, the temple spring of
Jerusalem is called Gihon too. The temple
of Jerusalem is, according to the cultic
ideology, the centre of the world: so there
could be a relation between the insignificant
spring Gihon and the cosmic river Gihon.
In the Israelite area, only the Jordan
permanently carries water. In the OT, how-
ever there is no evidence for an anthropo-
morphic conception of a Jordan deity.
However, the ark of Titus contains such a
representation: and, in later Christian icono-
graphy, the Jordan river is frequently con-
ceived as an anthropomorphic figure.
;4 IV. Bibliography
H. G. May, Some Cosmic Connotations of
mayim rabbim, ‘Many Waters’, JBL 74
(1955) 9-21; K. H. RENGSTORFF, potamos,
TWNT 6 (1959) 595-607; P. REYMOND,
L'eau sa vie et sa signification dans
l'Ancien Testament (VTSup 6; Leiden
1958); A. SCHWARZENBACH, Die geogra-
phische Terminologie im Hebrüischen des
Alten Testaments (Leiden 1954); E. von
SCHULER, Flu8gottheiten, WbMyth 1/1
(1965) 164; L, A. Supers, Nahar, TWAT
S (1986) 281-291; W. A. Warp, Notes on
Some Semitic Loanwords and Personal
a in Late Egyptian, Or 32 (1963) 413-
‘O. Waser, Flußgötter, PW VI/2
ge) 2774-2815; Waser, Der FluBgott
Jordan und andere Personifikationen, Fest-
gabe für A. Kaegi (Frauenfeld 1919) 191-
F. STOLZ
ROCK x, DYO
J. The name ‘Rock’ (swr) is very com-
mon as a metaphor for God in the Hebrew
Bible (e.g. 2 Sam 22:3 = Ps 18:3; a few
times in Deut 32). Etymologically the orig-
inal form of the word swr will have been
*?r, as may be concluded on the basis of the
cognates in other Semitic languages
(HALAT 953). Like ‘mountain’ (7Moun-
tains-and-Valleys; —Shadday) and —Stone
the term was used in the Semitic world as a
divine epithet, but in contrast to "bn, stone,
it never became obsolete.
II. The Ugaritic texts mention grm, in
god lists, but although the word is etymo-
logically related to Hebrew swr, the Ugaritic
noun denotes a mountain. For etymological
reasons it is difficult to assume a connection
with Ugaritic srrt, a part of —Baal’s holy
mountain —Zaphon. It may well be that the
normal Ugantic word for ‘rock’ was si‘
which is attested in hypocoristic personal
names like sly, sln. (cf. the relevant entries
in F. GRÖNDAHL, Die Personennamen der
Texte aus Ugarit (StP 1; Roma 1965]).
However, swr ‘rock’ does occur in Amor-
ite, Phoenician and Aramaic and possibly
Proto-Sinaitic persona] names. A few times
the Ugaritic Mt. Sapanu is deified and the
name of Sapanu could also be used to mask
the name of Baal. It is said that by the hand
of 'Sapanu' some are victorious and some
are without triumph (KTU 1.19 ii:35). A
personification of a rock as the parent of a
god is known from Hittite Song of Ullikumi
(Olden Gods).
HI. The name ‘Rock’ (swr) is very com-
mon as a metaphor for God in the OT. With
regard to the remarkable use of this meta-
pbor in Deut 32:4.15.30.3] (cf. KNOWLES
1989) scholars differ in opinion: should this
be attributed to old tradition, or is it a late
innovation? In any case Hab 1:12 seems to
allude to Deut 32. The prophet states that
the ‘Rock’ God cannot wish the death of his
people because he uses the enemy only to
punish his people. Deut 32:18 speaks of the
Rock who has begotten his people, the God
who has borne them (cf. Ps 89:27). It cannot
be doubted that figurative language is used
709
ROMA
here, but the imagery comes close to the
theogony of the Ugantic text in which the
Stone was the male deity who begot the first
animated creature (KTU 1.100). The image
of the rock is here tied to the motif of cre-
ation (OLorssoN 1990:38). But there is no
reason to doubt the metaphorical intention
of the author. In Isa 51:1-2 ^ Abraham and
—Sarah seem to be the rocks who gave birth
to the people of Israel. The same imagery
recurs in the New Testament (Matt 3:9; Luk
3:8).
Nowhere else but in Deut 32:31.37 is the
epithet *Rock' applied to other gods, albeit
in such a way that the author evidently took
the view that other gods were called by this
epithet illegitimately. In the Old Testament
five personal names confirm the antiquity of
the epithet swr. Al] names containing the
theophoric element Rock are premonarchical
(FOWLER 1988:54). Unfortunately, this datum
has not been confirmed by epigraphical
findings until now.
In addition to swr the OT uses its syn-
onym sl. The supplicant calls God his si‘
(Pss 42:10; 71:3). 2 Sam 22:3 (= Ps 18:3) is
helpful with regard to the interpretation of
the metaphor. David regards -Yahweh as
his rock, his fortress and his deliverer. In
short, the tenor of the metaphor may be
summarized as ‘protection’. It is therefore a
deliberate deviation from this traditional
imagery when Isaiah (8:14) announces that
Yahweh wil] become a Stone that causes
men to stumble, and a rock (swr) that makes
them fall.
Moses and Aaron are ordered to speak
to the rock, so that it will yield water (Num
20:8). This would seem to imply that the
rock could hear. However, because in this
case a miracle is involved one should not
put too much weight on the fact that it is a
real stone which is addressed as an animate
being. Later on the water-giving rock be-
came a motive of blessing and the New Tes-
tament applies the imagery to. Christ in 1
Cor 10:4. The Greek equivalent nétpa some-
times is used as epithet for Christ (Matt
21:42; Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pet 2:6), and the dis-
ciple Simon receives the epithet as a new
name, Peter (Matt 16:18).
710
IV. Bibliography :
D. Ercunorn, Gott als Fels, Burg, Zufluch
(Bern 1972); J. D. Fow Ler, Theophoric
Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew
(JSOTSup 49; Sheffield 1988) M. pP.
Know es, ‘The Rock, his Work is Perfect’:
Unusual Imagery for God in Deuteronomy
XXXI, VT 39 (1989) 307-322; S. Orors-
SON, God is my Rock: A Study of Transla-
tion Technique and Theological Exegesis in
the Septuagint (Stockholm 1990) esp. 35-50.
M. C. A. KORPEL
ROMA ‘Porn
I. Roma occurs only as toponym and as
the name for the capital of the Roman Re-
public or Empire in Biblical and related lit-
erature. As a personification of the city and
the republic, Roma attained divine status
outside the Bible.
` IL. According to legends the toponym
Roma originated from the foundation of the
city to which Trojans were forced, after one
of their women, Rhome, encouraged the
destruction of their ships. In the Greek
world Roma was considered to be the per-
sonification of the Roman people or state,
analogous to the Demos of Athens. Such
personifications were deified and honoured
with cults and festivals. Their cult can be
considered as a democratic counterpart of
the Hellenistic ~Ruler cult (MELLoR 1981:
956). In connection with Rome’s manifesta-
tion in the eastern part of the Mediterranean
| world, cults of Roma appeared from the
beginning of . the second century BCE
onwards, with temples, altars, priests and
Romaia-festivals (Smyrna 195 BcE; Chalcis
194; Delphi and Lycia 189; Alabanda 170).
After the Roman victory at Pydna (168 BCE)
the cults increased and most of the Greek
cities created an altar or temple for Roma.
These cults were inspired by similar motives
to those which led to the foundation of local
and provincial ruler cults (-*Ruler cult). ‘The
cult at Smyrna, for instance, was a rewal
for the Roman help against Antiochus HI.
Roma's most common epitheta also remme
one of the niler cult (euergetés, sotér, uae
phanés and theos). i
RULER CULT
—Zeus or Jupiter usually joined Roma,
not so much as patron deity of Rome but as
protector of oaths and treaties. After the
emperor joined in cults with Roma he was
often associated with Zeus/Jupiter, whose
characteristics were transferred to the em-
peror. Shortly after the coming to power of
Octavian, temples for Roma and Augustus
were founded in several provinces of Asia
Minor (Pergamum in Asia, Nicomedia in
Bithynia and Ancyra in Galatia). The high
priest of these cults was called Archiereus
Theas Rómés kai Autokratoros Kaisaros
(Theou Hyiou Sebastou). Tacitus refers to
the Asian cult as one for Augustus and the
city of Rome (Ann. 4.37.3), but Greek
inscriptions point out that the goddess Roma
was worshipped. A coin depicts Augustus
(Claudius) and a personified Roma in their
temple of the provincial cult at Pergamum.
Somewhat later similar cults were estab-
lished in the western part of the empire. The
cults with their annual festivals (Romaia
Sebasta) were a central activity of the pro-
vincia] conventions. Also loca] cults for
Roma and the divine emperor came into
being. Roma appears as goddess on coins a
few times in the Republican period, but
more often since the first century cE. Her
portrayal changes from a symbol of military
hegemony to a stately representation of the
empire. She is depicted with a mural crown
(cf. >Tyche), a crested helmet, or a modius,
and sometimes bareheaded.
_ JIT. R6mé occurs in 1 Macc as a toponym
a: 10; 7:1; 8:19) and also as the name for
the Roman Republic in the context of
treaties of alliance between the Jews and
‘Rome (8:17-32; 12:1-4; 14:24; 15:15-24; cf.
i2 Mace 11:34-38; GRUEN [1984]). It is re-
ferred to eight times in the NT, twice as the
‘place of residence of a Christian community
(Rom 1:7, 15). Acts 18:2 refers to Clau-
idius's decision that all Jews had to leave
Rome. The other occurrences concern Paul's
‘missionary activity at Rome and his staying
‘there. Rome is hinted at in 1 Pet 5:13 and
Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5 and 18:2, 10, 21
trough the symbolic name Babylon (also
Sib, Or. 5:143). Rome occurs frequently in
athe often anti-Roman Sibylline Oracles, e.g.
RR ee
in oracles which predict its downfall (3:350-
380), or in connection with a return of Nero
from the East (e.g. 5:137-154). It is not cer-
tain, whether there is any reference to the
goddess Roma in Sib. Or. (MELLOR 1981:
971) or Revelation “... it is difficult to say
whether her [ie. Roma's] cult (as distinct
from the general] imperia] cult) is actually
alluded to in this book” (MELLOR 1975:
128). Herod the Great founded a temple for
Augustus and Roma in Caesarea to prove
his loyalty to Augustus (Josephus, Bell.
1.414; Ant. 15.339).
IV. Bibliography
H. BALz, Póyn, EWNT 3. d 1983)
519-520; E. S. GRUEN, The Hellenistic
World and the Coming of Rome I-III (Berke-
ley 1984) 42-46, 745-751; R. MELLOR, OEA
POMH. The Worship of the Goddess Roma
in the Greek World (Hypomnemata 42; Gót-
tingen 1975); MELLOR, The Goddess Roma,
ANRW II 17/2 (Berlin/New York 1981) 950-
1030 [& lit]; F. RICHTER, Roma, ALGRM 4
(Leipzig 1909-1915) 130-164.
J. W. vAN HENTEN
RULER CULT
I. A technical phrase for the phenom-
enon of the ruler cult does not appear in
biblical literature. Nevertheless, ruler cult
understood as specific institutions devoted to
sacrificial or related activities for the wor-
ship of a ruler (Hellenistic rulers as well as
Roman emperors) may form part of the
background of some passages in the Bible
and related literature (Dan 3 Gk, Rev and
Martyria). Several terms which have been
associated with the ruler cult appear in the
NT (e.g. euergetes, soter, kyrios, Asiarches).
II. Although the Egyptians considered
the pharaoh a divine being (~Horus), they
only worshipped him as a god during
limited periods. Ruler cult seems to be
chiefly a Greek innovation, which is closely
related to the religious ideas of the Greeks.
Augustus took this over from them, but
adapted the concept in line with the new
Situation in the Mediterranean world after
the battle of Actium (FisHwick 1987). The
divine status of the figure who was wor-
711
RULER CULT
shipped by a community depended on his or
her ability to confer special benefactions to
it. So the cultic veneration by an individual,
a city or a province of a ruler reciprocated
his benefactions, which means that the ruler
cult was part of a mutually advantageous
relationship. This appears already from
decrees concerning the establishment of a
cult for the successors of Alexander the
Great and remains valid for the imperial
period. The dynastic cults, set up by the
rulers themselves, legitimized their power as
rulers. Both type of cults intensified the rela-
tionship between the ruler and the subjects
of the state. The ruler cult was connected to
politics and diplomacy, “the (imperial) cult
was a major part of the web of power that
formed the fabric of society ... The imperial
cult, along with politics and diplomacy, con-
structed the reality of the Roman empire”
(PRICE 1984:248).
A forerunner of the ruler cult was the cult
of heroes (Heros). A similar veneration as
a lesser god could also be received by spe-
cial human persons, who were the founders
of a city or died on the battlefield or had
accomplished another feat of importance.
The hero cult, however, differs from the
ruler cult because of its local character and
the limited power of the hero, whose divine
help could only be called in at a certain
place and under certain circumstances.
Founders or liberators of cities and other
heroes were often only venerated after their
death (see e.g. Plutarch, Arat. 53.3f. con-
cerning Aratus of Sicyon), while rulers of
states in the Hellenistic period and emperors
were also worshipped during their lifetime.
Only rarely were cults for emperors estab-
lished after their death. The Spartan general
Lysander (died 395 BCE) can be considered
as an early example of a human person who
was worshipped as a god during his life
(according to Duris of Samos, FGH 76 F
7]; FEARS 1988:1051-1052). Probably el-
ements were incorporated into the ruler cult
from divine as well as from hero cult (cf.
PRICE 1984:32-36, 233, who argues that
ruler cult was modelled on divine cult).
Shortly after Alexander the Great ruler
cult became an important factor in the Hel-
lenistic world. Alexander’s successors estab-
lished a posthumous cult for him. Out of the
veneration of the deceased ruler, which was
organized in Egypt from Ptolemy II onwards
until the end of the reign of that dynasty,
there arose cults for living rulers and their
families. Besides, cities took the initiative in
worshipping rulers. Antigonus and his son
Demetrius Poliorcetes were venerated as
theoi sótéres at Athens and other Diadochi
received the same honours from other cities
(HaBicHT 1956). The koinon of Asia
decreed between 268 and 262 sce a cult for
Antiochus I with sacrifices to all the gods
and goddesses, to Antiochus and his wife
Stratonice and their son Antiochus II. An
altar of the kings was part of the temenos
(OGIS no. 222 lines 42-43; HABICHT 1956:
91-93). That the divine ruler was expected
to bring benefactions to the cities can be
seen from the direct connection in this
inscription between the cult for the ruler and
his protection of the rights of the cities
(lines 14-18). In return for benefactions like
the restoration of freedom Greek cities
bestowed the same honours upon Roman
individuals like governors and charismatic
generals or venerated the Roman Demos or
goddess Roma in the second and first cen-
turies BCE (FEARS 1988:1057).
In 42 BCE Caesar was declared Divus
Julius which implied for Octavian a status as
Divi filius. It is important to distinguish
between the ruler cult from the perspective
of the Roman state religion and that of the
indigenous worshippers in the provinces. In
the context of state religion the deification
of the emperor after his death and his post-
humous veneration were the standard. Only
the genius or —Tyche and numen of the
emperor were venerated during his lifetime.
From the Flavian emperors onward it was
usual to swear to the genius or tyché of the
living emperor. The first provincial imperial
cults were established for Octavian shortly
after his triumph at Actium, in Asia at Per-
gamum (29 BCE) and in Bithynia at Nico-
media. From Dio Cassius 51.20.7 and Taci-
tus, Ann. 4.37, it appears that the initiative
712
RULER CULT
was taken by the provinces. The cult was
dedicated to the ruler (Augustus) and to
Roma. At the same time Octavian decreed
that a cult for Roma and Divus Julius had to
be set up in the provinces of Asta (Ephesus)
and Bithynia (Nicaea). The cults requested
by the provinces were for the indigenous
worshippers and the ones for Rome and
Divus Julius for the Romans present. The
provincial cult at Pergamum still flourished
in the time of Hadrian. Shortly after the
incorporation of Galatia in the Roman
Empire a temple for Roma and Augustus
was built at Ancyra for the provincial cult of
Galatia (probably around 25-20 sce). In the
Western part of the empire an emperor cult
was established in 12 BCE, when the Gallic
provinces dedicated an altar to Roma and
Augustus at Lugdunum (Fisuwick 1987-
1992; for early foundations of provincial
imperial cults see DEININGER 1965:16-35).
, None of Augustus's successors exceeded
in principle the bounds set by him, although
some emperors bore marks of divinity
(Nero, Domitian, Trajan). After the success-
ful prosecution of two Roman officials
charged with maladministration, the cities of
‘Asia decreed a temple for Tiberius, Livia
‘and the Senate at Smyma, which was
‘ratified by the Senate in 26 cE. A third pro-
‘vincial cult of Asia at Miletus was dedicated
to the emperor Gaius only and may have
‘been instigated by Gaius himself. In an
inscription concerning this cult the word
dheos is used in the name of Gaius (ROBERT
41949:206 line 2; —God ID. In order to
‘maintain good relations with Rome Miletus
chad to terminate the cult after Gaius’s death.
After Augustus the imperial cults tended to
be directed to imperial authority in general
pal father than to the reverence for an individual
Emperor (PRICE 1984:57-59). The emperors
‘Became the only object of reverence and in
jlhis Iespect the cult for the Sebastoi at
‘Ephesus (see below) was the trend setter.
EDT the motives of the cities of Asia to
establish these cults and the conditions that
Pad to be fulfilled for a successful initiative
Thirteen inscriptions from Ephesus with
(originally) dedications from various cities
in Asia are witness to another provincial cult
of Asia for the Flavian imperial family and
its temple at Ephesus. The inscriptions are
connected with the inauguration of the
temple in 89-90 cE. This temple in Ephesus
is called common to Asia, and the city of
Ephesus is described as nedkoros, i.e. care-
taker, of the cult (cf. Acts 19:35). The cult
was for the Emperors. Domitian was prob-
ably its central figure at first, but after his
death his name was erased and changed into
God Vespasian on all inscriptions but one.
The motives for the dedications of the cities
are usually their reverence (eusebeia) for the
Sebastoi and their goodwill (eunoia) toward
Ephesus (FRIESEN 1993: esp. 29-49). Con-
nected with the provincial imperial cult at
Ephesus were Olympic games, held at the
complex of gymnasium, palaestra and baths
of the Sebastoi (to a certain extent modelled
on the gymnasium and palaestra buildings at
Olympia), which was built during Domit-
ian's rule. After the death of Domitian the
games stopped, but they were reorganized
from the emperorship of Hadrian onwards
(FRIESEN 1993:117-141).
In the ruler cult the religious and the pol-
itical world went hand in hand, which does
not mean that the divinity of the ruler was
not taken seriously. The emperor was wor-
shipped as a god on public and private oc-
casions (games, mysteries, processions,
lamps, incense and libations, sacrifices with
the consummation of the victim, hymns in
honour of the emperor and banquets; Fisn-
wick 1991:475-590). Statues and other
representations of the divine emperor were
present everywhere in the Greek cities.
Price (1984:146-156 and 210-233) dwells
on the divine nature of the emperor and
claims that he did not match the status of
the traditional gods. He points among other
things to the statues of emperors in the sanc-
tuaries of other gods and to sacrificial prac-
tice. Sacrifices were often made to a deity
on behalf of the emperor. This view is criti-
cized by FRIESEN (1993:74-75, 119, 150-
151 and 166; cf. also VERSNEL 1988:234-
237): the temple of the Sebastoi at Ephesus
713
RULER CULT
towered above the other temples and the
statues of emperors were depicted much
larger than those of the gods; the emperor
exercized godlike authority in the context of
a specific hierarchical relationship and he
deserved a divine status, because he accom-
plished the works of the gods in an unparal-
leled manner. One should not assume that
there existed rivalry between the imperial
cult and the worship of the other deities, the
imperial cult united the other cultic systems
and the peoples of the empire. The em-
peror's role was similar to that of Zeus in
the Olympian pantheon.
The imperial cult seems to have declined
well before Constantine and disappeared in
the fourth century. Cultic activities in the
provinces and cities dropped to a minimum
by the second half of the third century.
II. Several phrases in biblical and re-
Jated literature can be connected to ruler
cult, although there usually is not a close
connection to a specific cult. References to
the veneration of a ruler also have a general
character.
Dan 3 LXX and Theod., Jdt, 2 Macc 6-7;
4 Macc contradict what we know about the
general policy of religious tolerance of Hel-
lenisuc rulers towards the Jews, which raises
"the quesBon: of: io what -extent these texts
reflect historical events. In all these texts
Jews are forced to renounce their religion
and participate in a pagan sacrificial ritual or
the veneration of the ruler. According to Jdt
3:8 Nebuchadnezzar had decreed that all
other gods be destroyed in order that he
alone should be worshipped by every nation
and invoked as a god (epikalesontai auton
eis theon) by men of every tribe and tongue.
There is no evidence that Antiochus IV
forced the Jews to venerate him personally
as Zeus Olympios or another god. The sur-
name Epiphanés of Antiochus IV and other
rulers from the Hellenistic period points to
the appearance of a redeeming god (cf. 2
Macc 14:33) or the cultic acting of a divine
ruler. The name occurs e.g. in 1 Macc 1:10;
10:1; 2 Macc 2:20; 4:7; 10:9, 13; 4 Macc
4:15 (cf. also Philo, Leg. 346: Caligula
wanted to change the name of the Jerusalem
714
temple into ‘temple of Gaius, the new Zeus
Epiphanes’). The fact that related ex.
pressions appear relatively frequently as
attributes of the Lord in Jewish literature of
ihe Maccabean period (e.g. 2 Macc 3:30;
15:34) may be understood as part of the
refutation of a divine status for the Greek
rulers. Also other phrases like euergetés,
sotér and kyrios may reflect the pagan use
of these words (cf. Luke 22:25-26), which
gradually took on a divine meaning and
could be connected to ruler cult (see further
DEISSMANN 1923:287-324; Cuss 1974:50-
88), but also indicated the Lord respectively
—Jesus Christ as the sole benefactor,
~saviour or Lord of the Jews or Christians
(cf. Jude 4; ^Kyrios). This usage implied at
least a repudiation of the divinity of the
ruler, which becomes explicit in some Early
Christian martyr texts.
As in Jewish texts which hint at the
veneration of a ruler, the possible references
to the imperial cult in Rev 13 go hand in
hand with a self-image which contrasts
strongly with the picture of the world of the
Roman ruler. Rev 13 contains several allu-
sions to Dan 3, especially in connection
with the worship of the first beast and its
image. The second beast of Rev 13, also
characterized as the false prophet (16:12;
19:20 and 20:10), is probably a symbol
which can be connected with the high priest-
hood of the imperial cult (e.g. Cuss 1974:
20, 96-112). Maybe the blasphemous titles
of the first beast hint also at the cults for
the emperor. John presents the Roman
government with the imagery of Rev 12-13
(Dragon) and 17-18 in a completely un-
favourable light. According to several
scholars the imperial cult of Domitian at
Ephesus was the immediate cause for the
putting into writing of Revelation (STAUF-
FER 1955:147-191; Price 1984:197-198;
ScHÜssLER FIORENZA 1985:192-199; cf.
PRIGENT 1974-1975). In any case the imr
perial cult was a source of conflict between
Christian and Roman ideologies. The saen:
fices, statues (cf. Rev 13:14-15; 14:9, H;
16:2; 19:20; 20:4), prayers, games and other.
forms of worship connected with the mo
PAN PA
RIS
RULER CULT
perial cult rendered the emperor divine
honours and titles which belonged only to
God and Jesus Christ (see e.g. ] Cor 8:5-6).
Even if Christians tried to be loyal to the
Roman government as much as their belief
allowed them to, when they were forced to
acknowledge the emperor as Kyrios they
had to refuse, because they could not bestow
divine honours upon him. Martyr texts focus
on this dilemma of loyalty (e.g. Mart. Pol.
8-11: Polycarp had to call the emperor Lord,
to offer him incense, to swear to the genius
of the emperor and to blaspheme Christ; in
Mart. Scil. 3; 5; 14 the proconsu] Saturninus
offers the martyrs the opportunity to return
to the way of life of the Romans [ad
Romanorum morem redeundi] by sweanng
to the genius of the emperor). The ideologi-
cal conflict comes to light in a most painful
fashion in the execution of the martyrs,
which often took place in the context of
games linked with imperial festivals or
organized by imperial priests (cf. FISHWICK
1991:577-579).
However, 3t was not especially the refusal
to venerate the emperor that led to the per-
secutions of Christians, as appears from
Pliny’s famous letter to Trajan and the
Rescript (Ep. 10.96-97) and Christian martyr
texts. Until the reign of Decius the emperor
did not take steps against the Chrisuans on
his own initiative, and only responded to
questions from the provinces. Usually the
refusal by arrested Christians to worship the
gods in general (including the emperor) led
to their execution (for a collection of the
evidence see MILLAR 1973; cf. KERESZTES
1979; PRicE 1984:123-126, 220-222), al-
though Pliny (Ep. 10.96) and some martyr
texts refer to the obligation to venerate the
emperor or to perform acts which belonged
to the imperial cult (Mart. Pol. 8-9; Marr.
Pion. 8; 18; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.15.2;
MiLLAR 1973:150, 154-155; Fisuwick 1991:
527, 534, 577-579). Before the first state
-persecution by Decius (249-251 cE), how-
ever, persecutions of Christians were usually
‘the result of successful pressure by city
mobs (cf. Acts 17:6-7) and especially local
actions, inspired by fear of unrest and
triggered by epidemics, famine and other
disasters (VERSNEL 1988:250-253).
The second beast of Revelation is often
connected with the high priesthood of the
emperor cult. According to DEININGER
(1965:41-50) and many other scholars the
offices of Asiarch (Asiarchés) and provincial
high priest were identical. FRIESEN (1993:
92-113), however, rejects a direct connec-
tion between the Asiarch and the imperial
cults on good grounds and assumes that the
Asiarchate was an office of the city im-
plying various duties. This means that the
Asiarchs who are together at the same time
at Ephesus according to Acts 19:31 do not
have to be understood as high priests or
delegates of the provincial council which
met at Ephesus. Mart. Pol. 21 mentions
Philip of Tralles as the high priest at the
date of Polycarp’s Martyrdom. Several
scholars consider chap. 21 a later interpota-
tion, but a Gaius Julius Philippus is men-
tioned as Asiarch and also as the high priest
of Asia in inscriptions (dates of attestation
between 161-169 and 150-170 cE respec-
tively; FRIESEN 1993:101; 179; 195), so that
the Philip of the Martyrdom may very well
be the Gaius Julius Philippus mentioned.
JV. Bibliography
D. Cuss, Imperial Cult and Honorary
Terms in the New Testament (Paradosis 23;
Fribourg 1974); J. DEININGER, Die Provin-
ziallandtage der rómischen Kaiserzeit von
Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhun-
derts n. Chr. (Vestigia 6; München 1965);
A. DEISSMANN, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue
Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der
hellenistisch-rómischen Welt (Tübingen
1923); J. R. Fears, Herscherkult, RAC 14
(Stuttgart 1988) 1047-1093 [& lit]; D. FISH-
WICK, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West.
Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western
Provinces of the Roman Empire 1:3; 1:2;
II:1; I:2 (EPRO 108; Leiden 1987-1992); S.
FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia
and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family
(Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 116;
Leiden 1993); C. HaBiICHT, Gottmenschen-
tum und griechische Stüdte (Zeiemata 14;
München 1956); D. L. Jones, Christianity
715
RULER CULT
and the Roman Imperial Cult, ANRW II 23,2
(Berlin/New York 1980) 1023-1054; P.
KERESZTES, The Imperial Roman Govem-
ment and the Christian Church, ANRW II
23,1 (Berlin/New York 1979) 247-315, 375-
386; F. MILLAR, The Imperial Cult and the
Persecutions, Le culte des souverains dans
l'Empire romain (ed. W. den Boer; Entre-
tiens Fondation Hardt 19; Vandoeuvres-
Genéve 1973) 143-165; S. R. F. PRICE,
Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial
Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984); P.
PRIGENT, Au temps de l'Apocalypse, RHPR
54 (1974) 455-483; 55 (1975) 215-235; 341-
363; L. RoBERT, Le culte de Caligula à
Milet et la province d'Asie, Hellenica 7
(1949) 206-238; S. ScHERRER, Signs and
Wonders in the Imperial Cult, JBL 103
(1984) 594-610; E. SCHUSSLER FIORENZA,
The Book of Revelation. Justice and Judg-
ment (Philadelphia 1985); E. STAUFFER,
Christ and the Caesars. Historical Sketches
(London 1955), H. S. VERSNEL, Geef de
keizer wat des keizers is en Gode wat Gods
is. Een essay over een utopisch conflict,
Lampas 21 (1988) 233-256.
J. W. VAN HENTEN
716
SABBATH Xáfpatov Sabbatum
I. A deity called Sabbath does not
occur in the Bible. For the first time it
seems to be found in Valentinian ‘mythol-
ogy’. It is quite probable that the creation of
a deity with this name was based on the
interpretation of a NT passage (Luke 6:5).
II. Tertullian (Adv. Val. 20:1-2) describes
the Valentinian view of creation: the Demi-
urge made this world and its hemisphere,
then “completed the sevenfold stage of
-*heavens, with his -*throne above it. That
is why he is called Sabbatum, because of the
hebdomad of his residence”. In other
descriptions (Irenaeus, Hippolytus) the deity
himself is called Hebdomas or Topos,
whereas his residence has the same names.
In his commentary on Tertullian's treatise, J.
C. FRÉDOUILLE, Tertullianus, Quintus Septi-
mius Florens: Contre les Valentiniens [Paris
1980] ad locum) was puzzled by the name
Sabbatum: *ce nom du Démiurge n'apparait
ni dans nos sources patristiques..., ni,
semble-t-il, dans les traités de Nag Ham-
madi'. This is not a correct observation. In
the Gnostic *Heavenly Dialogue' quoted by
Celsus (Origen, C.C. VIII:15-16) the fol-
lowing passage is found: "If the Son is
stronger than God, and (if) the ~Son of
Man is his Lord, and (if) some Other reigns
over the mighty God, how does it come that
many are around the well, and nobody in the
well?” The text contrasts ‘the Son’, ‘Son of
Man’, or ‘some Other’, that is, the Son of
the true. -^God with another ‘God’, ‘the
mighty God’, who is the Demiurge. Where-
as the apodosis agrees with Logion 74 of the
Gospel of Thomas, the hypothetical sentence
is playing with motives from the Gospels.
The phrase “(if} the Son of Man is his (i.e.
God’s) Lord” is hinting at Luke 6:5, “Lord
of the Sabbath is the Son of Man”. This
implies that sabbaton is interpreted as a
name of the Demiurge, which is in con-
formity with Tertullian’s description. The
Gnostic Apocryphon of John (NHC 11.1, 11:
34-35; III:1, 18:7-8) describes the Creation
of the Demiurge Jaldabaoth, i.e. the seven-
fold cosmic reality with the respective
-*Archons, in the following way: “This is
the Hebdomas of the Sabbath”. This phrase
is usually interpreted as ‘This is the seven-
ness of the week’, but in view of the Demi-
urge’s name Sabbatum-Yáfatov one
should interpret it as ‘the seven stages of the
Cosmos and their Archons created and ruled
by Jaldabaoth'. Sabbaton is another name
for the Demiurge Jaldabaoth. When in the
same treatise the Demiurge is contrasted
with the true God—denoted as ‘Man’ or
'Son of Man' (NHC IE1, 14:4-5; III:1,
21:17-18; cf. IV:1, 22:17-18)—who appears
to be the supreme deity which reigns both
over the visible and invisible realities, it is
clear that here again the source of the name
may be a Gnostic interpretation of Luke 6:5.
Logion 27 of the Gospel of Thomas pre-
sents us with this word of -*Jesus: "If you
do not fast with respect to the world, you
will not find the Kingdom of God, if you do
not sabbatize the Sabbath, you will not sec
the Father". Whatever the source and orig-
inal meaning of this logion may be, in the
context of the Gospel of Thomas it must be
interpreted in a gnostic way: the world, the
created Cosmos, is contrasted with the realm
of the true God; the true God, the -*Father,
is contrasted with the Sabbath. The latter
may be taken to be the name of the Demi-
urge. The true Gnostic abstains from this
world and its Creator, in order to find the
true Kingdom and to see the true God, the
Father. This Gnostic identification of sab-
baton and the Demiurge found its point of
departure in a specific interpretation of Luke
6:5. However, its origin may be a pagan
717
SAINTS
identification of the Jewish God as Saturn
(Heb Sbty). ‘The day of the Sabbath’, the
seventh day, was linked with the planet
Saturn and called ‘the day of Saturn’ or ‘the
day of Kronos’. One might seriously con-
sider the possibility that Juvenal’s reference
to people who had a father who revered the
Sabbath (metuentem sabbata, 14:96), and
consequently worshipped nothing but the
clouds and the —God of heaven, implies
that he thought of the worship of the God
Sabbata (Aram šbť).
Ul. Bibliography
T. BAARDA, 'If you do not sabbatize the
Sabbath...’, The Sabbath as God or World
in Gnostic Understanding (Ev.Thom., Log.
27), Knowledge of God in the Graeco-
Roman World (ed. R. van den Broek, T.
Baarda & J. Mansfeld; EPRO 112; Leiden
1988) 178-201; R. GoLpENBERG, The
Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World, ANRW
IH 19, 1 (Berlin 1979) 414-447; A. PEL-
LETIER, Sabbata, Transcnption gréque de
lI Araméen, VT 22 (1972) 436-447; M.
STERN, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews
and Judaism ll (Jerusalem 1980) esp. §§
301, 406, 414.
T. BAARDA
SAINTS DWP”
I. ‘Saints’ or ‘holy ones’ translates the
Hebrew gédésim: the masculine plural of the
adjective qad6s ‘holy’. Qédóstm occurs thir-
teen times in the Bible. It is used variously
of people, of divine beings, and of
—>Yahweb. The Aramaic cognate, qaddísín,
is used in Daniel of divine beings. The root
does not appear in any Israelite personal
name inside or outside the Bible.
QD% is a common Semitic root referring
to the quality or property of holiness,
sacredness, aS opposed to what is profane.
In adjectival form, it 1s sometimes found as
an attribute of deities and occasionally as a
title of a deity.
II. Qédósim refers to the gods as a col-
lectivity that is widely attested throughout
the ancient Near East under other names
(>Sons of the gods, >council, etc.). As a
title, however, 'the Holy Ones' is rarely
used outside the Bible. A group of ‘the holy
gods' (ilà gasdütum) is invoked in an Old
Babylonian incantation (W. VON SODEN,
review of H. H. Figulla, CT 42, BiOr 18
[1961] 71-73, esp 71:13). At Ugarit, the
gods are referred to as bn qds 'holy ones' or
‘children of Qds’ (always parallel to ilm
‘gods’; KTU? 1.2 3:21, 38; 17 i:3, 8, 13, 22).
Qds ‘the holy one’ refers either to
—Asherah or to —El in the epithet of King
Kirta, Sph Itpn w qds ‘Offspring of the Gra-
cious One and the Holy One’ (parallel to
‘Kirta is son of El’). The word qds also
appears in Qds (w) Amrr ‘Holy (and)
Powerful’, the name of Asherah’s personal
assistant(s) in the story of the building of
-*Baal's palace (KTU? 1.3 vi:10-11; 4.iv:1-
17). This binomial recurs in a list of paired
divine names in KTU? 1.123:26. Outside the
literary texts, Ugarit also knows a goddess,
Qdst (but in the damage before the Q there
is room for three letters belonging to the
DN; KTU? 1.81:17; cf. the personal name
bn qdst KTU? 4.69 v:13; 4.412 i:11; (bin-)
gadisti (J. NoucAvyROr, Textes suméro-
accadiens des archives et bibliothèques
privées d’Ugarit, Ug 5 (1968] no. 7:14). The
plural form gdim is used only as the title of
a class of temple officials. l
' However, gd$m is uscd attributively of
the gods of tenth century Byblos: "| Gbi
qdim ‘the holy gods of Byblos’ (KA/ 4
[=TSS1 6}:4-5, 7), and of the gods in general
at fifth-century Sidon: (h)’Inm hqdim ‘the
holy gods’ (KAJ 14 [=TSSJ 28)}:9, 22) in
both cases alongside the named chief gods.
The thirteenth of the sayings of Ahiqar (ll.
94-95) ends bi{myj]n šymh hy ky bíl qdin
n#{h] “She [Wisdom] has been placed in
heaven, for the Lord of Holy Ones has ele-
vated her” (i.e. to their company; cf. the
parallelism of [mn] 3myn and [mn] "lhy
"[from] heaven ...[írom] the gods" at the
beginning of the saying). I
INI. The relative frequency of the term In
the Bible (specifically in post-exilic lit
erature) may be related to the even more
frequent designation of Yahweh as "the
Holy One’: especially in the epithet Qëdôš
718
SAINTS
Yi§ra’él “Holy One of Israel’. It is not
always easy to distinguish when ‘holy ones’
refers to divine beings and when it refers to
Yahweh himself (as a ‘plural of majesty’) or
to human ‘saints’.
Qéhal qédósim, ‘the assembly of the Holy
Ones’, and séd gédésim, ‘the council of the
Holy Ones’, (>Council) are two of the
several terms for the collectivity of divine
beings which is contrasted with Yahweh’s
uniqueness in Ps 89:6-8 (5-7). A similar
contrast appears in Exod 15:11, where, al-
though MT reads the singular góde3 'holi-
ness” (or ‘sanctuary’), the LXX reads the
plural: ‘the holy ones’ which parallels ?elim
‘gods’ in v lla. The moral inferiority of
these ‘saints’ is stated sharply by Eliphaz in
Job 15:15 (Kethib): God treats them (paral-
lel: ‘the heavens’) as untrustworthy (cf. Sir
42:17, 21).
In Job 5:1, Eliphaz refers to the divine
holy ones as the object of human appeals,
hence, presumably, as intercessors with
God. In Dan 4:14 (17), they appear in the
ancient role of the divine council that issues
decrees. The singular (parallel: “fr ‘watcher’)
refers to a messenger from the divine court
in Dan 4:10, 20 (13.23; ~ Watchers; — Saints
of the Most High) and to two individual
members of the court whom Daniel hears in
conversation during his vision (Damn 8:13).
In the vision of Daniel 7 the ‘holy ones’ at
war in vv 2], 22 are best construed as
host of heaven (Collins). ‘The people of
the holy ones’ in Dan 8:24 are then faithful
Jews. Yahweh’s faithful are again clearly
the referent in Num 16:3; Ps 34:10 (9)...
‘All the holy ones’ accompany Yahweh
when he comes to establish a new order in
Zech 14:5. The text of Deut 33:2-3 is cor-
rupt; but the same group may appear as
‘myriads of holy ones’ (cf. Syr) accom-
‘panying Yahweh in this theophany (v 2b).
‘The identity of ‘all the holy ones’ of v 3a is
still disputed. In Ps 16:3 ‘the holy ones who
are in the land’ is parallel to ‘the ->noble
-ones’: both may refer to gods - or to the
-Powerful dead (Pope, RSP III 457); but the
text is difficult.
v In some passages, the divine court is so
absorbed into and identified with Yahweh
that the holy ones virtuaily become the Holy
One, the grammatical form of the word
remaining plural (cf. the use of the plural
'élóhim 'gods' for ‘God’.) Thus Yahweh is
"élohim qgéddsim ‘a holy god’ (Josh 24:19).
Again, it may be difficult to determine
whether the one deity or a plurality of
heavenly beings is intended. In Prov 9:10
‘knowledge of the Holy One/the holy ones’
is parallel to ‘the fear of Yahweh’. The
same ambiguous expression appears parallel
to ‘the kingdom of God’ in Wis 10:10. In
Hos 12:1 (Eng 11:12), Judah is said to be
faithful to. gédósím (parallel to ’él). While
the old divine name El suggests a reference
to the ‘holy ones’ of the deity's court, both
words may be titles of Yahweh: ‘God ... the
Holy One’. In the Sayings of Agur, wisdom
is parallel] to da‘at gédosim (Prov 30:3)
‘knowledge of the holy ones/the Holy One’.
The word is used attributively of the gods
(as in Phoenician) in Dan 4:5.6.15 (Eng 8.
9.18); 5:11 in the phrase ‘spirit of the holy
gods,” by which the Babylonian court here
refers to a source of supernatural enlighten-
ment.
Though members of God’s court, the holy
ones are unable to give a full account of the
wonders of creation in Sir 42:17. According
to Sir.45:2 LXX, God made Moses equal
in glory to the holy ones. The nghteous are
counted among the same body in Wis 5:5
(parallel: the children of God). In the NT,
God's heavenly retinue may be envisaged in
] Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 1:10; Col 1:12,
though particularly in the last two cases
good arguments have been made for a refe-
rence to human saints.
IV. Bibliography
C. H. W. BREKELMANS, The Saints of the
Most High and their Kingdom, OTS 14
(Leiden 1965) 305-329; J. J. COLLINS,
Daniel, (Hexmeneia; Minneapolis 1993)
313-318; L. DEQUEXKER, Les q&dósim du Ps.
LXXIX à la lumiére des croyances sémiti-
ques, ETL 39 (1963) 469-484; P. XELLA,
QDŠ. Semantica del ‘sacro’ ad Ugarit,
Materiali Lessicali ed Epigrafici | (1982) 9-
17; C.-B. COSTECALDE, La racine gdš et ses
719
SAINTS OF THE MOST HIGH
dérivés en milieu ouest-sémitique et dans les
cunéiformes, DBSup 10 (1985) 1346-1393,
esp. 1380-1381.
S. B. PARKER
ee OF THE MOST HIGH "Jp
PIV ay
: I. The ‘Saints of the Most High’ are
introduced in chap. 7 of the Book of Daniel,
in the -angel's explanation of -*Daniel's
dream. Daniel had seen four beasts come up
out of the —sea, which were then condemned
in à judgment scene, after which "one like a
son of man" approached the divine
—throne and was given -*dominion and
-glory and kingdom. The angel explains
that the four beasts were four kings who
will arise on earth, but “the Saints of the
Most High” will receive the kingdom (7:18).
Later, in a more extended explanation, he
adds that “the people of the Saints of the
Most High” will receive the kingdom (7:27).
The traditional translation (Saints of the
Most High) assumes that 7° TOD is used sub-
stantivally, presumably to refer to God, who
is called XYY in 7:25 and elsewhere in
Daniel. The plural varo» is then explained
as a plural of majesty, on the analogy of
Hebrew DON. The construct chain is
definite because |'Y72 is considered a
proper name. The Hebrew jY ‘Hmp
(saints or holy ones of the Most High) in
CD 20:8 may be cited as a parallel although
it renders *the Most High' by the singular.
An alternative translation ‘most high holy
ones’ or ‘holy ones on high’, has recently
been defended by GotpiINGAy 1988, who
explains the second term of the construct
chain quo») as epexegetical or adjectival.
The plural of the second term, then, would
correspond with the number of the first. The
phrase would be indefinite and equivalent to
Tiros qup. The Aramaic for highest,
however, is 8"7D (plural). ToD is an epithet
for the deity. The plural, then, should be
taken as a plural of manifestations, and the
traditional translation maintained.
II. Traditionally, the holy ones have
been identified as human beings, the ‘saints’
by Christians, and the Jewish people by
Jews. In recent times, however, the phrase
has given rise to extensive debate. The
stimulus to this discussion lies in the obser-
vation that *holy ones' (C'OY 17) are usually
heavenly beings in the Hebrew Bible and
other West Semitic texts, and the realization
that this understanding of the word is con-
genial to the world-view of Daniel.
While the adjective ‘holy’ is often
applied to Israel and other human entities in
the Hebrew Bible, the substantival use of
the word is usually reserved for heavenly
beings. There is only one clear exception in
the Hebrew Bible, Ps 34:10, where “his holy
ones”, who are exhorted to fear the Lorn,
are evidently human. There arc a few dis-
puted cases, but the great majority of the
references are clearly to celestial beings
(c.g. Ps 89:6.8; Job 5:1; 15:15; Zech 14:5).
This usage can be traced back to the divine
bn qd§ in the Ugaritic texts, who are "sons
of the Holy One", probably -Asherah.
The Dead Sea Scrolls now provide
numerous instances of the use of C'OY3p for
heavenly beings. There are a number of dis-
puted cases in the Scrolls and the issue is
complicated by the idea that members of the
Qumran community could mingle with the
heavenly host in this life. So we read in
IQH 3:21-22: "and I know that there is
hope for him whom you have created from
the dust for the eternal assembly, and the
perverse spirit you have cleansed from great
transgression to be stationed with the host of
the holy ones and to enter into fellowship
with the congregation of the children of
heaven". Again in 1QM 12:6: “the congre-
gation of thy holy ones is among us for
eternal alliance”.
There is, then, a fluid boundary between
the heavenly holy ones and the earthly com-
munity, at least in some of the Scrolls.
Nonetheless, the predominant sense of
COP in the Scrolls refers to heavenly
beings.
The angelic sense also prevails in Pseud-
epigrapha originally composed in a Semitic
language (see e.g. / Enoch 1:9, where God
comes with ten thousand holy ones, or
720
SAINTS OF THE MOST HIGH
14:23, which speaks of Holy Ones in attend-
ance on the divine throne). There is, how-
ever, a new development in the Similitudes
of Enoch, which distinguish between the
holy ones in heaven (/ Enoch 47:2, 4) and
those on earth (48:4, 7 etc.). The idea here
is that there is an affinity between the right-
eous and holy on earth and the angels in
heaven, and this will be perfected at the
resurrection, when “the chosen begin to live
with the chosen”. The use of “saints” for the
early Christians (1 Cor 14:33; Phil 1:1, etc.)
may have arisen in the same way, in antici-
pation of eschatological communion. In the
writings of the Hellenistic Diaspora, com-
posed in Greek, ‘holy ones’ is used both in
the sense of angels (Wis 5:5; 10:10) and
with reference to human beings (Wis 18:9
and 3 Macc 6:9).
The meaning of the phrase ‘saints of the
Most High’ in Daniel 7 cannot be settled
conclusively from the usage of ‘holy ones’
elsewhere. There was a precedent for using
the term to refer to a human group in Psalm
34, and, since the adjective was commonly
applied to people, it was not a great step to
extend the substantival use. This step was
certainly taken in the Similitudes of Enoch
and in the New Testament. Nonetheless, the
predominant usage of the Hebrew Bible and
of Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish writings
down to the second century BCE must in-
fluence the reader's expectations.
HI. The reader's expectation is more
immediately influenced by the usage in the
Book of Daniel itself. The Aramaic pop
is used of heavenly beings, parallel to
- Watchers, in 4:14, and the singular is
found in 4:10,20. In the Hebrew part of the
book, Daniel hears one Wp speaking to
another in 8:13, and these are evidently
members of the heavenly court. These are
the only undisputed instances of holy ones
in Daniel. The reference to Z^ CP, the
holy people, at 12:7, is relevant to the inter-
pretation of the ‘people of the saints’ but it
cannot determine the meaning of pop
used substantivally.
In view of the clear use of ‘holy ones’ to
refer to angels in the Book of Daniel itself,
we must expect that it carries that reference
in chap. 7 also. The ‘people of the saints’ in
Dan 7:27 probably refers to the Jewish
people (compare Dan 12:7 and the ex-
pression 7°72 “Oiap CY, the people of the
holy ones of the covenant, in 1QM 10:10),
but this is compatible with the interpretation
of holy ones as angels, if the genitive is
understood as possessive (the people that
belongs or pertains to the angels). Indeed
the relation between the Jewish people and
the angels is fundamental to the understand-
ing of Daniel's vision.
The most basic objection to the angelic
interpretation. of the 'Saints' in Daniel 7
arises from the conviction of some modem
scholars, expressed most straightforwardly
by DiLEtLLa, that “Daniel 7 would then have
virtually no meaning or relevance for the
addressees of the book, viz. the disen-
franchised Jews...” (HARTMAN-DILELLA
1978:91). The inadequacy of this objection
should be apparent from the parallel treat-
ment of the Antiochan persecution in Daniel
10-12. There the author speaks unmistakably
of angelic ->*princes’ who are engaged in
warfare against the ‘princes’ of Persia and
Greece. At the end of the conflict “-Mi-
chael will arise”, the prince of Israel. His
victory in the heavenly battle entails the vic-
tory of the persecuted Jews on earth. In the
resurrection that follows, the wise will shine
like the stars, which is an apocalyptic idiom
for fellowship with the angels. There is,
then, a synergism, or dynamic correspond-
ence, between the faithful Israelites on earth
and their angelic counterparts in heaven.
When the Jews are in distress, the heavenly
host is cast down (Dan 8:10). When Michael
prevails, so do the Jews on earth. To the
pious Jews of the Maccabean era who had a
lively belief in supernatural beings, nothing
could be more relevant than that their angel-
ic patrons should "receive the kingdom".
One other correlation is crucial to the
understanding of the ‘Saints’. The ‘Saints of
the Most High’ are said to receive the king-
dom, which was given in the vision to the
‘one like a son of man’. The interpretation
of this figure too is disputed. Traditionally,
721
SAKKUTH
he was identified as the Messiah (>Christ).
In modern times, he has often been taken as
a collective symbol for the Jewish people. In
recent years, a strong case has been made
that he should be identified as Michael, the
‘prince’ of Israel.
There is no doubt that both the “one like
a son of man” and the "Saints of the Most
High" represent the Jewish people in some
way. It is unlikely, however, that they are
‘mere’ symbols. It is clear from Danie] 10-
12 that the authors envisaged a world where
the fate of human communities was depend-
ent on the conflict between heavenly forces.
The angelic interpretation of the "one like a
son of man" and the "Saints of the Most
High" does justice to the imaginative full-
ness of Daniel's symbolic world.
IV. The angelic interpretation of the holy
ones also throws light on a peculiarity of
some NT ‘Son of Man’ sayings. In Mark
8:38 the Son of Man is said to come “in the
glory of his Father with the holy angels”
(compare Matt 16:27; Luke 9:26). Also in
Matt 25:31, “he comes in his glory, and all
the angels with him". Jt would seem that the
coming of the Son of Man in these passages
is assimilated to traditional theophanies such
as Deut 33:2 (OG) or 1 Enoch 1:9: “he
-comes with ten.thousand holy ones...". The.
assimilation is most easily explained if the
holy ones in Daniel 7 were understood as
angels, as in / Enoch, and thought to
accompany the "one like a human being".
The terminology of Daniel 7 is reflected
some centuries later in 3 Enoch 28:],?,
where the watchers and holy ones are said
to be exalted D'229 D YDA, above all the
sons of the Most High, all of whom sit be-
fore the Holy One when he judges the
world. They are also caled DYST MÙ
princes of the Most High. D'3T29 here
seems roughly equivalent to DIS and to
refer to the Deity. The WWD M are
clearly heavenly beings.
V. Bibliography
C. W. BREKELMANS, The Saints of the Most
High and their Kingdom, OTS 14 (Leiden
1965) 305-329; J. J. Corus, Daniel (Her-
meneia; Minneapolis 1993) 313-317; L.
DEQUEKER, The ‘Saints of the Most High’
in Qumran and Daniel, OTS 18 (Leiden
1973) 133-62; J. GoLDINGAY, ‘Holy Ones
on High’ in Daniel 7:18, JBL 107(1988)
497-99; L. F. HARTMAN & A. A. DILELLa,
The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City
1978); M. NorH, The Holy Ones of the
Most High, The Laws in the Pentateuch and
Other Essays (Philadelphia 1967) 194-214.
J. J. COLLINS
SAKKUTH Im2o :
I. Sakkuth occurs under the form Sikkét
in Amos 5:26, and is followed by Kiyyün.
The Masoretic vocalisation of both names is
that for idols (^ Abominations, —gillulim).
The real pronunciation must have been Sak-
kut, if we may identify this name with the
obscure Babylonian god Sakkud (or Sakkut).
Already LXX and CD took the name to be a
word with the basic meaning “hut” (sukkat):
not “Sakkuth, your king”, but “tent of the
Moloch” (LXX; also Acts 7:43), or “taber-
nacle of your king" (CD VII 14). Some
modem scholars are also of this opinion
(BORGER 1988:77-80; W. W. Haro,
HUCA 48 [1977] 15).
II. The parallelism between Sakkuth and
—Kaiwan (Kiyyiin) suggests that Sakkuth is
a divine name since Kaiwan goes back to
Babylonian Kajjamdnu, the planet Saturn,
which was worshipped as a deity. The only
god known to us having a similar sounding
name is Babylonian Sakkut (Sag-kud). The
alleged association of this god with Saturn
in Surpu Il 180 (“Sakkut and Satum”) has
been invalidated by Borcer (1988:74-76):
the originals do not offer sAG.US ("Saturn")
but vs (= Nita). Both Sakkut and Nita were
identified with Ninurta. Sakkut was a “cup-
bearer” of the gods and was. associated with
the city Dér, bordering on Elam. The name
could be Elamite rather than Sumerian (thus
BorGer 1988:73); cf. the Elamite god
Simut. This fits the final -t in the Hebrew
text. Surpu Tl 180-181 now has the sequence
AN.TI.BAL — Sakkut — Nita —Immerija (Wér).
The first (also named ""Tibal") seems to be
an astral god as it is elsewhere identified
with “the position of Venus, the star
(MSL 17 {1985} 86 Erimhuš VI, 178; cf. W.
122
SAMSON ~ SANCTUARY
G. LAMBERT, Studies F. R. Kraus [Leiden
1982] 215, to IV 3). Sakkut might ‘have
been a planet, or a star.
I}. The problem of why the Israelites
adopted an obscure god like Sakkut remains
unsolved. The Israelites may have borrowed
the worship of this planet from the Assyr-
ians. In this case there are two options. (1)
The Israelites took over the worship before
the fall of Samaria. Then Amos 5:26 can be
interpreted as a prophetic accusation for not
having served —Yahweh (e.g. BARSTAD
1984). (2) Amos 5:26 refers to one of the
deities mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:28-30 who
were brought to the Samaritan area by
Assyrian settlers. This view implies that the
text is a later insertion by a (deutero-
nomistic) redactor who confused situations
before and after the conquest of the capital
(H. W. Worrr, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel
und Amos [BKAT XIV/2; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1969} 310-311). Recently, DE Moor
(1995:10-11) has argued that the word sikkut
in Amos 5:26 should be construed as a deri-
vation from a feminine form *sikkantu,
‘stele’. This elegant proposal implies that
the expression *‘the stele of your king’ in
Amos 5:26 does not refer to a particular
deity.
. IV. Bibliography
H. M. Barstan, The Religious Polemics of
Amos (VTSup 34; Leiden 1984) 118-126;
P.-R. BERGER, Imaginare Astrologie in spát-
babylonischer Propaganda, Die Rolle der
Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens
(ed. H. D. Galter; Graz 1993) 275-289; esp.
277 n. 2.; *R. BORGER, Amos 5,26, Apos-
telgeschichte 7,43 und Surpu II, 180, ZAW
100 (1988) 70-81; O. Loretz, Die babylo-
nischen Gottesnamen Sukkut und Kajjamanu
in Amos 5, 26, ZAW 101 (1989) 286-289; J.
C. pe Moor, Standing Stones and Ancestor
Worship, UF 27 (1995) 1-20.
M. STOL
SAMSON ~> HERACLES
SANCTUARY 5271
S.l The Heb word hékal occurs 78 times
an the Old Testament and designates a
BERETS LR OSTEO
palace or temple. The word is common in
West-Semitic languages (HALAT 234-35 s.v.
DD, Horryzer-JONGELING, DNWSI 278
s.v. hykl) and derives from Sum é-gal, lite-
rally ‘big house’, the residence of a divine
or worldly ruler. Jt is well known from
Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources that
temples were ascribed numinous qualities.
JALABERT & MOUTERDE 1939 suggested that
in Syria during the Roman period the deified
temple was known. A single reference from
the New Testament testifies to the numinous
character attaching to the Jerusalem temple.
HJ. “The ancient Mesopotamian temple
was profoundly awesome, sharing in the tre-
menum of the Numinous" (T. JACOBSEN,
The Treasures of Darkness [New Haven
1976] 16). In early Mesopotamia temples
were clearly considered as divine objects,
appearing as theophoric element in personal
names (EDZARD 1997:164) and addressed in
a collection of hymns (SJÖBERG & BERGMAN
1969). Ancient Egyptian temples were
equally considered to participate in the
nature of the divine (J. ASSMANN, Ägypten:
Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen
Hochkultur [Stuttgart 1984] 48). Members
of the Jewish settlement at Elephantine in
Upper Egypt took the oath by the Arm byr7l,
‘the sacred enclosure of (the god) Bethel’
(> Bethel; see VAN DER Toorn 1986).
A Greek inscription from modern Dou-
meir, 40 km NE of Damascus, dated in 245
CE, mentions a vadc ‘Aevyaiac (P. LE Bas
& W. H. WADDINGTON, Voyage Archéolo-
gique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, Sixième
partie, Inscriptions grecqes et latines de
Syrie [nos. 1826-2724] [Paris, 1870] 586-87
no. 2562 g). The editors of the inscription
considered 'AevyoA.ac the name of the deity
of the sanctuary. M. de Vogüé identified this
name as the Greek transcription of Aramaic
NDD, but in order to identify a possible
divine name he connected 'AewoAac with
the Arabic root haikala, which he translates
as 'étre grand, élevé', resulting in the divine
name 'le Grand' (idem, p. 586).The origin
of the Arabic word haikal is the same as
Heb hékal and his argument is therefore
invalid. In the absence of a determinating
6coc or Zevc, C. CLERMONT-GANNEAU
723
SAR — SARAH
refrains from identifying "Aevyodac as a
deity, arguing the possibility that it was the
building itself (Recueil d’Archéologie Orien-
tale VI] [Paris 1906] 82-83). JALABERT &
MOUTERDE 1939 return to the opinion of
LE Bas & WADDINGTON and consider
"AevxoXac as the deified temple, comparable
to *Zeuc MoaóBayxoc and Zevuc Bojnoc, the
deified -*altar.
It seems far-fetched to adduce the inscrip-
tion of Doumeir as proof of the deification
of the temple in Roman Syria. The expres-
Ssjon vaóc 'A£vyaAac is best to be conside-
red as an Aramaic gloss in a Greek text. In a
bilingual inscription from Palmyra NYD is
the equivalent of vaòç (Ch. Dunant, Le
sanctuaire de Baalshamin à Palmyre, Vol
Il] Les inscriptions [Rome 1971) no. 44).
The deity to which the mentioned sanctuary
was dedicated remains unnamed.
IIL The temple, being the house of the
antropomorphic god, easily obtained a numi-
nous character. All divine beings or objects
possess powers which can pose a threat to
those who commit perjury: oaths are there-
fore taken by the god or a divine element.
According to Matt 23:16-22, the Jews in
Palestine took the oath by the sanctuary
(vaoc), the gold of the sanctuary, the altar,
the victim and heaven (VAN DER TOORN
1986:285). The inclusion of the sanctuary in
this enumeration is an indication to the
effect that the Jews of the period still
viewed the temple as being endowed with
numinous qualities. It was closely associated
with its divine inhabitant, but never became
itself an object of worship.
IV. Bibliography
D. O. EDZARD, The names of the Sumerian
temples, Sumerian Gods and their Represen-
tations (CM 7; ed. I. L. Finkel & M. J. Gel-
ler; Groningen 1997) 159-165; L. JALABERT
& R. MOUTERDE, IGLS 2 (Paris 1939) 259;
A. W. SJÖBERG & E. BERGMAN, The Col-
lection of Sumerian Temple Hymns (TCS 1;
Locust Valley, New York 1969); K. vAN
DER Toorn, Herem-Bethel and Elephantine
Oath Procedure, ZAW 98 (1986) 282-285.
F. VAN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
SAR ^ PRINCE
SARAH m/mi
I. The name of the matriarch Sarah
śārâ (Gen 12-15; 49:31; Isa 51:2), alterna-
tively spelled $arzy (Gen 11-17), is derived
from a noun *farr- ‘sovereign; prince’, the
name meaning ‘princess’ or the like (ZADOK
1988:148; pace HALAT 1262). The Book of
Tobit relates about another Sarah, daughter
of Raguel destined to become the wife of
Tobias (Tob 2:8-9). Several proposals have
been made to connect Sarah with a goddess.
IL Sarah has been interpreted as the
goddess of Machpelah (Cybele; MEYER
1906:270; GRESSMANN 1910:5) GUNKEL
connected the names of the wives of
— Abram and Nahor, Saraj and Milka, with
Babylonian arratu and Malkatu, designa-
tions for the wife of the moon-god Sin
and -Ishtar respectively (1910:163; Wes-
TERMANN 1981:158). Connections with the
moon-god would underscore a provenance
of the Abraham-group from the Harran-area.
According to MEYER (1906:268-269), Sazah
should be related to an element in the name
of the ancient Arabian and Nabataean deity
Dushara: “He-of-Shara”. This name being a
construction parallel to —''He-of-the-Sinai",
the element Shará in it refers to a locality or
to à numen revered at that locality.
In the OT Sarah is presented as the wile
of Abraham. She is the matriarch of Israel.
The historicity of this character can neither
be proven nor falsified. It is not impossible
to suppose that Sarah originally was an
ancestral goddess who was historized during
the process of Judaean selí-identification
after the catastrophe of 587 Bce and from
then onward was honoured as a mother of
the people (LonETZ 1978).
In the NT Sarah is mentioned a few
times. In Heb 11:11 she is honoured for her
faith (for the interpretation of this verse see
VAN DER Honsr 1990).
IN. Bibliography :
H. GRESSMANN, Sage und Geschichte 1
den Patriarchenerzühlungen, ZAW 30 (1910)
1-34; H. GuwxzL, Genesis übersetzt und
erklärt (Göttingen 1910); P. W. VAN DER
724
SASAM
Horst, Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrew
11:11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology,
Greeks, Romans and Christians (FS A. J.
Malherbe; D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson, W. A.
Mecks eds.; Minneapolis 1990) 287-302; O.
Loretz, Vom kanaaniischen Totenkult zur
jüdischen Patriarchen- und Elternehrung.
Jahrbuch für Anthropologie und Religions-
geschichte 3 (1978) 149-203; E. MEYER,
Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme
(Halle 1906); C. WESTERMANN, Genesis. 2.
Teilband: Genesis 12-26 (BKAT 1/2; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1981); R. ZADOK, The pre-
hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and
Prosopography (OLA 28; Leuven 1988).
B. BECKING
SASAM [oo
|. Sasam is interpreted as a theophoric
element in the personal name sismay (1 Chr
2:40; HALAT 719; FowLER 1988: 64). The
deity is attested in Canaanite theophoric per-
sonal names and as a -demon in a Phoen-
ician incantation.
IJ. Sasam appears in West semitic theo-
phoric personal names (FAUTH 1970:229-
233). West Semitic: Sa-as-ma-a (ADD 151:
BE:1); Ugaritic: ‘bdssm (UM 73 Rev 6), bn
ssm (PRU II 47:18); Phoenician: ‘bdssm
(KAI 35:1; 40:3; 49:11.46.47; mainly from
Cyprus); [s]smy // Yeopaog (KA! 42:3;
Cyprus) ‘bdssm // A.pa.sa.so.mo.se (=
Avacouog; RES 1213; Cyprus); Aramaic:
in the grafitto /ssm br pth (Moorey 1965:
33-41). An amulet from Syria is inscribed
with the name of what is most probably a
tutelary deity: ssm (RES 1505; FAuTH 1970:
229).
A demon Sasam is mentioned three times
in a seventh century BCE Phoenician incan-
tation on an amulet from Arslan Tash
(Cross & SALEY 1970: DE Moor 1981-82:
108-110; pace KA/ II No. 27; the arguments
of J. Terxipor & P. Amiet, Au/Or 1 [1983]
105-109, against the authenticity of the
amulct are not convincing). (1) In the open-
ing lines, it is stated that the incantation is
directed against ‘the Flying One, the god-
dess; (against) Sasam the son of Padar (ssm
bn pdr)’; and against 'She-who-strangles-
the-sheep’’ (KAI 27:1-5). Traditionally, the
name of the demon is rendered ‘Sasam, the
son of Padrashasha (bn pdr$3’)’ (e.g. FAUTH
1970). CaQuorT has shown that the first /š/
in pdršš is no more than a stroke and that
the last two signs of the divine name should
be construed as £, an imperative of the verb
NS’, ‘to raise (one's voice)’ being the begin-
ning of a new sentence: "Pronounce the con-
juration ...” (1973:47). This implies that
Sasam should be seen as the son of pdr.
This deity probably can be related to
Pidrayu, one of the three daughters of
Baal known from the Ugaritic texts (sce
e.g. FAUTH 1970:242-249; S. RIBICHINI &
P. XELLA, UF 16 [1984] 271-272; this deity
can be equated with Hebat). (2-3) The
legend relating to the axe-wielding deity on
the amulet should be read: ssm 7! ypth ly /
wl yrd Imzzt / ys’ Sms Issm / tlp wird *p
‘Sasam, let (the door) not be opened for
him. Let him not come down to the door-
posts. The sun rises, O Sasam: disappear
and fly away to descend!’ (KAI 27:22-27).
On the basis of this inscription, it becomes
clear that Sasam is a threatening night-
demon. The picture of the axe-wielding
deity suggests that he was represented as
more or less anthropomorphic. The back-
ground of Sasam is probably not Semitic
(FAurH 1970). It has been suggested that
Sasam might have had a Hurrian origin (KA/
II, 44; Moorey 1965:40). In view of the
evidence available this can neither be
proved (GRONDAHL 1965:187; BENZ 1972:
368) nor disproved (FAUTH 1970), although
the interpretation that Sasam was a son of
Pidrayu who can be equated with Hurrian
Hebat might support an Anatolian back-
ground.
Although a distinction between a deity
and a demon is not always clear, it is remark-
able that Sasam appears both as a deity—i.c.
as a theophoric clement—and as a demon.
Most probably the numen was revered differ-
ently in different locations.
III. The personal name Sismáy is a hapax
legomenon in the Old Testament (1 Chr 2:
40). It appears but once in a genealogical
725
SATAN
list of people of Israelite lineage. The wor-
ship of a Phoenician deity in Judah during
the Persian period cannot be proved from
the personal name Sismay alone. Most prob-
ably the name was not understood as con-
taining the name of a non-Israelite deity in
the Persian period.
IV. Bibliography
F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the Phoen-
ician and Punic Inscriptions (StP 8; Roma
1972); *C. BUTTERWECK, Eine phönizische
Beschwórung, TUAT IV3, 435-437; A.
Caquot, Observations sur la premiere
tablette magique d'Arslan Tash, JANES 5
(1974) 45-51; F. M. Cross & R. J. SALEY,
Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the
Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in
Upper Syria, BASOR 197 (1970) 42-49; *W.
FauTH, SSM BN PDRSS‘, ZDMG 120
(1970) 229-256; J. D. FowLER, Theophoric
Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew
QSOTSup 49; Sheffield 1988); F. GRÓN-
DAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte aus
Ugarit (StP 1; Roma 1965); J. C. pz Moon,
Demons in Canaan, JEOL 27 (1981-82)
106-119; P. R. S. Moonzv, A Bronze 'Pazu-
2u' Statuette from Egypt, /raq 27 (1965) 33-
34.
B. BECKING
SATAN ]OD Xaotáv, Latavac
I. The proper name ‘Satan’ is an Angli-
cization of the Hebrew common noun satan.
The noun Satan has been related etymologi-
cally to a variety of geminate, third weak
and hollow verbs in Hebrew and in the cog-
nate languages. These proposals include
verbs meaning ‘to stray’ (Ar Str, Heb Stu,
Eth Sty, Akk Satu 1 and Syr st’), ‘to
revolt/fall away’ (Aram swt, Mandaean swt
and Heb swr), ‘to be unjust’ (Ar 8TT), ‘to
bum’ (Syr swr and Ar SyT) and ‘to seduce’
(Eth STv and Heb STH). These proposals
require discounting the niin of the noun
Satan as part of the root, and attributing it to
an *-Gn suffix which has been appended to a
nomina] base. There are two reasons why it
is unlikely that the nun should be attributed
to an *-an suffix. Firstly, the *-an suffix
when appended to a nominal base normally
results in an abstract noun, an adjective or a
diminutive. The noun Satan fits none of
these categories. Secondly, in Hebrew *-dn
is typically realized as -ón. There are ex-
ceptions, but among the standard conditions
proposed to explain the atypical retention of
*-án, none apply to the noun Satan. There-
fore it is preferable to regard the min as part
of the root and analyze fdfdn as a noun of
the common qdfdi pattern. The fact that the
geminate, third weak and hollow verbs
listed above have meanings that are argu-
ably appropriate to Satan should be viewed
as resulting from interaction between popu-
lar etymological speculation and developing
traditions about Satan. i
The root *$TN is not evidenced in any of
the cognate languages in texts that are prior
to or contemporary with its occurrences in
the Hebrew Bible KB (918) incorrectly
cites an alleged Akk Satanu, but the forms
to which KB refers are Si lexical participles
of etému/eténu (AHW, 260). Thus the mean-
ing of the noun satan must be determined
solely on the basis of its occurrences in the
Hebrew Bible, where it occurs in nine con-
texts. In five it refers to human beings and
in four it refers to celestial beings. When it
is used of human beings it is not a proper
name, but rather a common noun meaning
‘adversary’ in either a political or military
sense, or ‘accuser’ when it is used in a legal
context. In the celestial realm there is only
one context in which §datdn might be a
proper name. In the other three contexts it is
à common noun, meaning ‘adversary’ or
‘accuser’. [P.L.D.]
Latav and Latavas are transliterations of
the Heb Satan (cf. 3 Kgdms 11:14.23; Sir
21:27) or Aram sdtand’ and mean 'adver-
sary’. In such instances 8HevXIIgr and the.
LXX translate the Hebrew expression with
Diabolos Devil, meaning ‘the Slanderer’.
Ho Satanas (rarely used without article) thus
designates the opponent of ~God. In the NT.
Satanás and Diabolos can refer to the same
supernatural being (cf. Rev 20:2) and can
thus be interchanged (cf. Mark 1:13 and
Luke 4:2). This highest evil being can also
726
SATAN
be referred to as ho ponéros (‘the evil one’,
cf. Matt 13:19) and ho peirazén (‘the
tempter’ — cf. Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5). [C.B.]
IIl. Although the noun afán has no cog-
nates in texts that are prior to or contempor-
ary with the biblical texts in which it occurs,
there are in Akkadian three legal terms
meaning ‘accuser’ that can have both terres-
trial and celestial referents. These terms are
bél dababi, bél dini and akil karsi. Each can
refer either to a human legal opponent or to
a deity acting as an accuser in a legal con-
text, and thus each term functionally paral-
lels the noun fdfdn even though there is no
etymological relationship. For example, the
deities Nanay and Mar-Biti are charged to
guarantee an agreement swom in their
names. Should anyone attempt to alter the
agreement, these deities were to assume the
role of legal adversarics (EN.MES di-ni-Su
[VAS 1 36 iii4]) Standing behind this
notion of deities playing legal roles with
respect to earthly happenings is the well-
known idea of the divine -*council, acting
as a judiciary body.
III. The noun fájfàn is used of a divine
being in four contexts in the Hebrew Bible.
In Numbers 22:22-35 Balaam, a non-Israel-
ite secr, sets out on a journey, an act that
incurs God's wrath. God responds by dis-
patching his celestial messenger, the mal’ak
yhwh, described as a fafan, who stations
himself on the road upon which Balaam is
travelling. Balaam is ignorant of the sword-
wielding messenger but his donkey sees the
danger and twice avoids the messenger, for
which Balaam beats the animal. The mess-
enger then moves to a place in the road
where circumvention is impossible. The
donkey lays down, and is again beaten. At
this point Yahweh gives the donkey the abil-
ity to speak, and she asks why Balaam has
beaten her. A conversation ensues and then
Yahweh uncovers Balaam’s cyes so that he
can see the sword-wielding messenger, and
Balaam falls down to the ground. The mess-
enger asks why Balaam struck his donkey
and then asserts that he has come forth as a
$dtan because Balaam undertook his journey
hastily. The messenger states that, had the
donkey not seen him and avoided him, he
would have killed Balaam. Balaam then
admits his guilt, saying that he did not know
that the messenger was standing on the road,
and offers to turn back if the messenger
judges the journey to be wrong. The mess-
enger gives Balaam permission to continue,
but adjures him to speak only as instructed.
Prior to the work of Gross (1974) most
scholars attributed the above passage to the
J source. which would have made it the
earliest context in which the noun §dfdn is
applied to a celestial being. However, since
Gross’ study the tendency has been to date
the passage to the sixth century BCE or later.
With the exception of the above story.
which obviously ridicules Balaam, he is
characterized in an extremely positive way
in Num 22-24. Outside those chapters, the
first clear indications that he is being viewed
negatively are attributable to P (Num 31:16)
and Dtr2 (Josh 13:22). both of which are
typically dated to the sixth century. Thus the
available evidence suggests that Balaam was
viewed positively in earlier, epic tradition,
but negatively in later sources. Given that
the story under discussion views Balaam
negatively, the story most likely stems from
a later source.
As can be readily seen, the heavenly
being who acts as a Satan in Numbers 22
has very little in common with later concep-
tualizations of Satan. He is Yahweh’s mess-
enger, not his archenemy, and he acts in
accordance with Yahweh's will rather than
opposing it. Indeed, Yahweh's messenger
here, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, is
basically an hypostatization of the deity.
Hence, as KLUGER (1967:75) has remarked,
the ‘real’ Satdn/adversary in Numbers 22 is
none other than Yahweh himself.
The opening chapter of the book of Job
describes a gathering of the ‘sons of God’,
ie. a meeting of the divine council.
Present at this gathering is a being called
haííütàn: this is the common noun Sdjdn
preceded by the definite article. The definite
article makes it virtually certain that Satan is
not a proper name (contra B. WALTKE & M.
O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical
727
SATAN
Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake 1990] 249).
Most scholars translate haffdfün as ‘the
Accuser’, which they understand to be a title
that describes a specific role or office.
However, it should be noted that no anal-
ogous office has been convincingly
identified in the legal system of ancient
Israel, nor do the divine councils of the sur-
rounding cultures include a deity whose
specific assignment is to be an accuser.
Some scholars have argued that professional
informers/accusers existed in the early Per-
sian period, and that the §afdn in Job 1 and
2 is modelled on these informers. The evi-
dence for this is inconclusive. Given the
uncertainty of the existence of adducible
legal. parallels, another possibility would be
to understand the force of the definite article
differently. For example, in Gen 14:13 a
certain person who has escaped from a
battle is referred to as happalit. The precise
identity of the character is not important to
the story. What is important for the narrative
is the character’s current and temporary
status of escapee. The force of the definite
article is to deemphasize precise identity and
focus on the status of the character as it is
relevant to the narrative plot (cf. Ezek
24:26; 33:21 and P. JoUoN, Grammaire de
l'Hébreu biblique [Rome 1923] 137n). Attri-
buting this force to the definite article of
ha§§dtan in Job 1:6 would lead us to under-
stand that a certain divine being whose pre-
cise identity is unimportant and who has the
current and temporary status of accuser is
being introduced into the narrative. The
advantage of this interpretation is that it is
consistent with known Israelite (and Mes-
opotamian) legal practice in that ‘accuser’
was a legal status that various people tem-
porarily acquired in the appropriate circum-
stances, and not a post or office.
When Yahweh asks the $átán whether he
has given any thought to the exemplary and
indeed perfect piety of Job, the Sajdn links
Job’s piety with the prosperity he enjoys as
a result. If the pious inevitably prosper, how
do we know that their piety is not motivated
by sheer greed? Given that God is respon-
sible for the creation and maintainance of a
world order in which the righteous recap
reward, what the Sdafdn is in fact challenging
is God's blueprint for divine-human re-
lations. In other words, the $áràn is ques-
tioning the validity of a moral order in
which the pious unfailingly prosper. The test
of true righteousness would be worship
without the promise of reward. Yahweh
accepts the $átàn's challenge: he permits the
§dtan to sever the link between righteous-
ness and reward. Although Job is blameless,
he is made to suffer, losing first his wealth
and his children, and eventually his own
good health. In the end, a suffering and
impoverished Job nevertheless bends his
knee to a god whose world order is devoid
of retributive justice, thus proving the §afdn
wrong.
In Job, the f§atdn scems clearly to be a
divine being, although most scholars would
agree that Sdfdn is not a proper name.
Though he challenges God at a very pro-
found level, he is nonetheless subject to
God’s power and, like Yahweh’s messenger
in Num 22, acts on Yahweh’s instructions.
He is certainly not an independent, inimical
force.
The book of Job does not contain refer-
ences to historical events, and hence dating
it is problematic. Most modern scholars read
it as a response to theological problems
raised by the Babylonian exile and conse-
quently date it to the latter half of the sixth
century BCE.
In a vision of the prophet Zechariah
(Zech 3), the high priest Joshua is portrayed
as standing in the divine council, which is
functioning as a tribunal. He stands in front
of Yahweh's messenger, with ha§fdtdn on
his right-hand side to accuse him. The mess-
enger rebukes the $árán, and orders that
Joshua's filthy garments be removed and
replaced with clean clothing. In the name of
Yahweh the messenger promises Joshua
continuing access to the divine council in
return for obedience.
As in Job | and 2, the noun $á/àn appears
with the definite article, and hence is not a
proper name. The presence of the definite
article also raises the same question as to
728
SATAN
whether it denotes an office of Accuser in
the divine council. See the above section on
Job 1 and 2 for a discussion of this problem.
In order to understand Zechariah's vision
and the fdján's role in it, it is necessary to
address the historical context of the vision.
While the vision cannot be dated exactly,
the general context of Zechariah's prophecy
was the Jerusalem community after the
return from exile around the time of the
rebuilding of the temple (ca. 520 BCE).
Those scholars who see this community as
basically unified view Joshua as a symbol of
the community and interpret his change of
clothes as symbolizing a change in the com-
munity's status from impure to pure, or sin-
ful to forgiven, in the eyes of Yahweh. In
this interpretation, the fdfàn is understood as
objecting to the change in the community's
status: Yahweh wishes to pardon his people,
and the §Sajan is opposed. However, this
interpretation overlooks evidence that the
restoration community was deeply divided
over cultic issues, including the issue of the
priesthood (HANSON 1979:32-279). When
this fact is taken into account it becomes
unlikely that Joshua should be understood as
a cypher for the whole community. Rather,
the vision reflects a rift in the community
over the issue of whether Joshua should
become the high priest. Zechariah's vision
supports Joshua, and implicitly claims that
the matter has been decided in Joshua's
favour in the divine council itself, with
Yahweh taking Joshua's side. In this inter-
pretation, the śājān can be described as a
projection into the celestial realm of the
objections raised by the losing side. If this
interpretation is the correct one, then the
noun sdfan is here associated with a division
that is internal to the community in
question. This interpretation would add sup-
port to PAcELS' (199]) theory that the
notion of Satan developed among Jews who
wished to denounce other Jews whose opin-
ions they did not share.
As in Num 22 and Job 1 and 2, $ájfàn in
Zech 3 is not a proper name. In Zech 3 the
$dtán is clearly not Yahweh's messenger;
indeed, the $atàn and Yahweh's messenger
are on opposing sides of the issue of
whether Joshua should become the high
priest. Hence Num 22 and Zech 3 use the
noun fdfan to describe different divine
beings. It is unclear whether the fafdn of
Job 1 and 2 is the same celestial being as
the fatdn of Zech 3. If haśśātān should be
translated ‘the Accuser’ with the under-
standing that there is a post or office of
Accuser in the divine council, then it is most
likely that the same divine being is envis-
aged in both contexts. However, if the
definite article carries the connotations out-
lined above, then it is quite possible that Job
1 and 2 and Zech 3 do not have the same
divine being in view.
In 1 Chr 21:1 the noun fdjàn appears
without the definite article. The majority of
scholars therefore understand didn to be the
proper name Satan, though some maintain
that the noun refers to a human adversary
and others argue that it refers to an unnamed
celestial adversary or accuser.
| Chr 21:1-22:1 is paralleled in the
Deuteronomistic History by 2 Sam 24. Both
passages tell the story of a census taken
during the reign of David, an ensuing
plague, and an altar built on the threshing
floor of Araunah/Ornan (—Varuna). In 2
Sam 24 the story begins, "and the anger of
Yahweh again burned against Israel, and he
provoked David against them, saying 'Go
number Israel and Judah'". The correspond-
ing verse in Chr reads, "And a $áján/Satan
stood up against Israel and he provoked
David to number Israel." In both versions
the act of taking a census is adjudged sinful.
Given that the Chronicler used the Deutero-
nomistic History as a source text, it is clear
that the Chronicler has altered his source in
such a way as to take the burden of respon-
sibility for the sinful census away from
Yahweh. Some scholars interpret this to
mean that thc Chronicler was striving to dis-
tance Yahweh from any causal relationship
to sin, or to rid Yahweh of malevolent be-
haviour in general. However, this explana-
tion cannot account for passages such as 2
Chr 10:15 and 18:18-22, where Yahweh is
clearly portrayed as sanctioning lies and
729
SATAN
instigating behaviour that was designed to
cause harm. Another explanation notes that,
in comparison to the Deuteronomistic His-
tory, the Chronicler presents an idealized
portrait of David's reign. In general, the
Chronicler deletes accounts that cast David
in a dubious light. Contrary to this general
tendency, the Chronicler was obliged to
retain the story of the census plague because
it culminated in the erection of what the
Chronicler understood to be the altar of the
Solomonic Temple, and David’s relationship
to the Jerusalem Temple is another theme of
crucial concern to the Chronicler. Given that
the incident could not, therefore, be deleted,
the Chronicler modified his source text so
that the incident no longer compromised
Yahweh's relationship with David, the ideal
king. The Chronicler also shifts blame for the
sinfulness of the census from David to Joab
by stating that the census was not sinful per
se, but was sinful because Joab did not take
a complete census (1 Chr 21:6-7; 27:24).
It is important to establish why the
Chronicler changed his source text because
his motivation has implications for how we
understand $afàn in this passage. If the
Chronicler was trying to generally distance
Yahweh from malevolent behaviour and
accomplished this by attributing such be-
haviour to another divine being, then we can
see in this passage the beginnings of a moral
dichotomy in the celestial sphere. If Yahweh
is no longer thought to be responsible for
malevolent behaviour toward humankind,
and another divine being capable of acting
efficaciously, independent of Yahweh, is,
then it would be quite appropriate to trans-
late Satan with the proper name Satan. How-
ever, if the introduction of §dafdn into the
census story has the more circumscribed
objective of portraying the relationship
between Yahweh and David favourably, and
not of ridding Yahweh of malevolent intent
more generally, then even if aan in this
passage is a proper name, the term is still a
long way from connoting Satan, God's evil
archenemy.
Although there is no consensus position
regarding the dating of Chronicles, the most
persuasive arguments favour dating the first
edition of the Chronicler's history to ca. 520
BCE. If this is correct, then there are two
additional reasons against translating Saran
as a proper namic. Firstly, Zechariah, a con-
temporary, does not use §dfdn as a proper
name. Secondly, the earliest texts that indis-
putably contain the proper name Satan date
to the second century BcE (Ass. Mos. 10:1;
Jub 23:29; possibly Sir 21:27), which would
mean that more than 300 years separate the
Chroniclers text from the first certain refer-
ences to Satan.
In summary, the four Hebrew Bible texts
that mention a celestial fatàn are most prob-
ably dateable to the sixth century BCE or
later, and it is clear that the Sdfan envisaged
in Zech 3 is not the same divine being who
acts as a $dtàn in Num 22. Moreover, in
none of the four texts is $āțān indisputably
used as a proper name. Given these data, it
is difficult to maintain, as many scholars
have, that we can sec in the Hebrew Bible a
developing notion of Satan. First of all, if
Satan is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible,
then the statement that the Hebrew Bible
evidences a developing notion of Satan is
obviously anachronistic. Secondly, the state-
ment is difficult to maintain because at least
two of the texts clearly refer to different
divine beings. And thirdly, if the texts are
relatively closely clustered in terms of date,
then there is less likelihood that they would
evidence conceptual development.
IV. In Hebrew texts from the Second
Temple Period the use of sadn is limited.
The sihner secks forgiveress from
— Yahweh, who is asked to prevent the rule
of Satan or an unclean spirit (cf. 11 QPs?
Plea 19:15), Satan’s power threatens human
beings. Accordingly the time of salvation is
marked by the absence of Satan and evil (4
QDibHam? 1-2,IV,12; cf. Jub. 23:29; 40:9;
46:2; 50:5). Satan is standing among the
winds (3 Erioch 23:16). The council of the
Qumran community had a curse iñ which
they imprecated that satan with his hostile
design and with his wicked spirits be
damned (cf. 4 QBer*>), In the LXX ‘Satan’
as a divine name possibly occurs in Sir
21:27: “When the ungodly curses Satan, he
curses his own life.”
730
SATAN
Being a transliteration from the Hebrew
or Aramaic and almost lacking in the LXX,
the Greek form of the name “Satan” is rare-
ly used in Jewish literature of the Second
Temple Period (cf. T. 12 Patr., T. Job and
Life of Adam and Eve 17:1). Ho Diabolos
(Devil), preferred by Life of Adam and Eve,
Philo and Josephus, is more common.
"Satan" and —"Belial" are used to refer to
the same superterrestrial being (cf. the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Mart. Isa. 2:1.4.7 [= Gk 3:2:
3:11] ) and “Satan” and “Devil” are synony-
mous in their reference (cf. T. Job. 3:3.6 and
16:2 + 27:1 with 17:1 + 26:6). The inciden-
tal use of Satands in some Greek texts, such
as the NT, is a clear Semitism.
According to the various NT authors
Satan (in Q the Devil) rules over a Kingdom
of darkness. Satan is thus depicted as major
opponent of -*Jesus and tries to deceive him
(Mark 1:13). As the opposing force to God,
the Synoptic Tradition identifies Satan with
Beelzebul, the principal of the devils (Luke
11:15-19 / Matt 12:24-27 // Mark 3:22-
23.26). Jesus defeats his power by exorciz-
ing >demons and curing the ill and thus
inaugurates the reign of God which ends
Satans’ rule (Matt 12:28 // Luke 11:20). For
Luke, Jesus’ ministry is the time of salva-
tion and thus puts a temporary end to the
reign of Satan (10:18). The conversion of
the gentiles leads them from darkness to
light, from the power of Satan to God (Acts
26:18). Apostates are handed back to Satan
(1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20 cf. 5:15). As princi-
pal of the God-opposing forces, Satan poses
a threat to the Christian communities (e.g.
Rom 16:20; 2 Cor 2:11). He can still in-
fluence the daily life and thwart human
plans (1 Thess 2:18). Through demons he
causes illness (e.g. Luke 13:16; 2 Cor 12:7);
he deceives humans (1 Cor 7:5; Rev 20:3)
and is even disguised as an angel of light (2
Cor 11:14). Grave errors of members of the
community are ascribed to the influence of
Satan. Peter is rebuked as “Satan” intending
"the things of man" and thus opposing God
(Mark 8:33; Luke 22:31). Judas’ betrayal of
Jesus (Luke 22:3; John 13:27) and Ananias’
fraud (Acts 5:3) for instance, are understood
to be caused by Satan. Opposing religiosity,
such as the Jewish refusal to accept Christ
(cf. Rev 2:9; 3:9), heresy (cf. Rev 2:24) or
cults which endanger the Christian commu-
nities in Asia (cf. Rev 2:13) are seen as
threats coming from Satan. In Jewish apoca-
lyptic tradition, the eschatological fall of
Satan is expected (Rom 16:20; Rev 20:7-10).
In the post-NT tradition the -*Antichrist
is very closely associated with the Devil and
Satan. False teaching originates with them
(Pol. Phil. 7:1). The "angels of Satan" con-
trol the dark way of false teaching and auth-
ority, opposing the angels of God, who are
guiding to the way of light (Barn. 18:1. On
the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists and Gnos-
tics, sce RussEL 1981).
V. Bibliography
O. BócuERg, EWNT 3 (1983) 558-559;
BócuHuER, Das NT und die ddmonischen
Mächte (Stuttgart 1972); H. BOECKER, Law
and the Administration of Justice in the Old
Testament and Ancient Near East
(Minneapolis 1980); A. BROCK-UNrE, "Der
Feind": Die alttestamentliche Satansgestalt
im Licht der sozialen Verhältnisse des nahen
Orients, Klio 28 (1935) 219-227; F. M.
Cross, A Reconstruction of the Judean Res-
toration, JBL 94 (1975) 3-18 [& lit]; P. L.
Day, An Adversary in Heaven: §afan in the
Hebrew Bible (Atlanta 1988) [& lit]; H.
DuHM, Die bösen Geister im Alten Testa-
ment (Tübingen 1904); W. FOERSTER,
TWNT 7 (1964) 151-164; N. ForsyTH, The
Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth
(Princeton 1987); W. Gross, Bileam:
Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der
Prosa in Num 22-24 (München 1974); V. P.
HAMILTON, Satan, ABD 5 (1992) 985-998;
P. HANSON, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Phil-
adelphia 1979); H. KAUPEL, Die Dämonen
im Alten Testament (Augsberg 1930); R. S.
KLUGER, Satan in the Old Testament
(Evanston 1967; original German version:
Zürich 1948); A. Lops, Les origines de la
figure de satan, ses fonctions à la cour cé-
leste, Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur
René Dussaud vol. 2 (Paris 1939) 649-660;
K. Marti, Zwei Studien zu Sacharja: I. Der
Ursprung des Satans, TSK 65 (1892) 207-
245; E. T. MULLEN, The Assembly of the
Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and
731
SATURN — SATYRS
Early Hebrew Literature, (HSM 24; Chico
1980); J. D. Newsome, Towards a New
Understanding of the- Chronicler and his
Purpose, JBL 94 (1975) 201-217; L. OPPEN-
HEM, The Eyes of the Lord, JAOS 88
(1968) 173-180; E. PAGELS, The Social His-
tory of Satan, The ‘Intimate Enemy’: A Pre-
liminary Sketch, HTR 84 (1991) 105-128; P.
RICOEUR, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston
1967); G. Roskorr, Geschichte des Teufels
(Leipzig 1869); J. S. RUSSEL, The Devil.
Perceptions from Antiquity to Primitive
Christianity (Ithaca 1977); RUSSEL, Satan.
The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca 1981).
C. BreYTENBACH (I, IV)
& P. L. Dav (I-II)
SATURN ^ KAIWAN
SATYRS p'T»0
J. The word Sé&irim, the plural of &d'fr
‘hairy’ (Gen 27:11 and often), i.e. ‘(hairy)
he-goat’ (over 50 examples, in addition to
its synonyms ‘attid ‘he-goat’, sdpir and
tayi§), describes a group of creatures which
are usually identified as ‘hairy demons,
satyrs’ (Levy 17:7; Isa 13:21; 34:14; 2 Chr
11:15; HALAT 1250; for older translations
see SNAITH 1975). The conjectured reading
. $& trim for MT séarim ‘gates’ in 2 Kgs 23:8
is old (BHS), but is to be rejected on the
basis of current knowledge (SCHROER 1987:
133 with n. 292). On §éfrim in Deut 32:2
(*May my discourse come down as the rain,
My speech distil as the dew, Like showers
[$e irim] on young growth, Like droplets on
the grass.’) see HALAT 1250-125], s.v. $a'ír
IV and M. DiETRICH. & O. LonETZ, UF 21
(1989) 113-121, esp. 116-117.
Yl. KEEL’s opinion that we do not know
enough about —demons in the Syro-Pales-
tinian region (1984) is to be reevaluated on
the basis of more recent examinations.
Nonetheless we do not possess clear icon-
ographic witnesses to flesh ovt our con-
ceptions of demonic ‘desert beings’, as the
$étrim must have been. The engraved scene
on à Late Bronze Age ivory plaque from
Megiddo (G. Loup, The Megiddo lvories,
732
(OIP 52; Chicago 1939} Pl. 5:4.5), which
has been discussed in this context (KEEL
1984:73 fig. 97), could hardly represent such
a being (~Azazel). It belongs rather to the
group of scenes of fighting animals, as they
are known from Mesopotamia in Middle
Assyrian glyptic art: a (male) sphinx in battle
against a capride/bovide which he overcomes,
II. According to 2 Chr 11:15 a special
cult was established for the $Z'irbm of Jero-
boam J (‘having appointed his own priests
for the shrmes, goat-demons [Se‘irim], and
calves which he [Jeroboam] had made’), al-
though their veneration had been expressly
forbidden according to Lev 17:7: ‘and that
they (the Israelites] may offer their sacrifices
no more to the goat-demons [§é‘frim] after
whom they stray’. In this case the demonic
intermediate creatures are employed in an ex
post facto critique of the worship of foreign
deities. It is possible that behind 2 Chr
11:15 are pictorial representations of Sé‘frim.
W. R. Smith, J. Wellhausen and others
have compared the Sé‘frim with Arabic ginn
(hairy demons in animal form, who can
transform themselves into various shapes,
including human form). On the other hand
SNAITH considered the Séfrim of Lev 17:7;
Deut 32:2 [sic!] and 2 Chr 11:15 storm
demons (‘the rain-gods, the fertility deities,
the —Baals of the rain-storms’ [1975:118)),
while those of Isa 13:21 and 34:14 were
simply animals (‘he-goats’) without any re-
ligious connotation (1975:115). Although
this theory is not convincing in light of the
inclusion of Deut 32:2, it is stil] difficult to
say what manner of being the Sé‘frim were.
The following considerations are to be
included in determining their function: The
appearance of the Séfrim is nowhere de-
scribed. Yet the image of a hairy (cf. fa‘ir
‘hairy’), goat-like (cf. Sa‘ir ‘he-goat’} crea-
ture is probably not far off the mark; the
$Z'irfm appear in uninhabited and devastated
surroundings (Isa 13:19-22; 34:9-15; cf. Lev
17:5 ‘in the open’), which they haunt; they
appear in the company of other sinister crea-
tures (isa 13:21-22: giyyím, "óhim [owls,
hyenas or demons?) bénót ya'áná [os
triches], *'iyyím, tannim [jackals, wolves?];
AMAT. nul
Exe
SAVIOUR
34:13-15: tannim, bénét ya‘ana, *siyyim,
*iyyim, Lilith [cf. Akkadian lilitu], gippóz
[a type of bird?), dayyót [vultures?]), with
whom they ‘meet’ (isa 34:14); there they
hold a (hopping/stamping) dance (ragad pi.
Jsa 13:21, M. J. MULDER, TWAT 7 [1992]
665-668, esp. 666-667); finally for their
negative connotation it is significant that the
Séfrim appear in oracles of doom against
Babylon (Isa 13:19-22) and Edom (Isa 34:9-
15).
Thus the enigmatic séfrim could have
been beings of mixed form (he-goat/demon),
who according to Isa 13:21; 34:14 inhabi-
tated and symbolized an inhospitable world
of derelict habitations. They were—illicit-
ly—venerated (Lev 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15). The
prohibition to worship the Séfrim is an
expression of post-exilic polemic against
foreign gods.
Various factors, including the develop-
ment of the Jewish religion and Persian and
Egyptian influences, led to pronounced but
variant demonic conceptions in early
Judaism (RAC 9 [1976] 627-631, 636).
Belief in demons is widely attested not only
in the Midrashim, but especially in the
Babylonian Talmud (names and taxonomy
in- RAC 9 [1976] 669-674, 679-680). As
dwelling places they preferred devastated
areas, graveyards, ruins and the like, but
also trees such as the palm. ‘hey surround
human beings in vast numbers, attack them
at night and steal whatever is not fastened or
sealed. In regard to the §é‘frim, SifreLev
17:7 gives the following definition: ‘$é‘trim
“the goat-like ones’ (Lev 17:7) means no-
thing other than demons Sdym, as it is
Written: And §yrym (= demons) shall dance
there (Isa 13:21).’ In a comparable way the
Targums translate §‘yrym in Lev 17:7; Isa
13:21; 34:14 (§yr); 2 Chr 11:15 as Sdym
demons’, cf. also GenR 65:10; LevR 22:5;
b. Ber. 62b; b. BabBat. 25a; etc. (RAC 9
{1976} 670).
IV. Bibliography
".FREVEL, ȘI, TWAT 8 (1995) 701-706;
«:G6RG, Damonen, Neues Bibellexikon 1
11991) 375-377; B. Janowski & U. NEU-
MANN-GORSOLKE, Das Tier als Exponent
dämonischer Mächte, Gefährten und Feinde
des Menschen. Das Tier in der Lebenswelt
des alten Israel (ed. B. Janowski et al; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1993) 278-282 [& lit.]; O.
KEEL, Die Welt der. altorientalischen Bild-
symbolik und das Alte Testament. Am Bei-
spiel der Psalmen (Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln
& Neukirchen-Vluyn 41984) 68-74; J. C. DE
Moon, Demons in Canaan, JEOL 27 (1981-
1982) 106-119; *S. ScHROER, 7n Israel gab
es Bilder. Nachrichten von darstellender
Kunst im Alten Testament (OBO 74; Fri-
bourg & Göttingen 1987) 133-135; N. H.
SNAITH, The Meaning of D'"vr30, VT 25
(1975) 115-118; T. STAUBLI, Das Image der
Nomaden im alten Israel und in der Ikono-
graphie seiner sefhaften Nachbarn (OBO
107; Fribourg [CH] & Góttingen 1991) 177-
179, 259-268; G. STEMBERGER, Dämonen
IH, TRE 8 (1981) 277-279; *G. WANKE,
Damonen II, TRE 8 (1991) 275-277 [& lit];
H. WirpBERGER, Jesaja 13-27 (BKAT X72,
1978) 523-524; H. WonLSTEIN, Zur Tier-
Dàmonologie der Bibel, ZDMG 113 (1963)
483-492, esp. 487-489; D. P. WRIGHT, The
Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in
the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian
Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta 1987) 22-
23, 27-28.
B. JANOWSKI
SAVIOUR Zærhp
J. Lap is the nomen agentis of the
Stem o@-, which is also present in the verb
ogCw, and thus in essence denotes a person
who saves or preserves (or has done so). It
can be used about those who have saved a
community or a group of persons or an indi-
vidual from an undesirable condition. In a
specifically religious sense it functions as an
honorific title of several gods, e.g. —Zeus,
Asklepios, Sarapis, or of men whose status
has been raised to the divine sphere, e.g.
kings and outstanding Roman authorities,
later mostly, though not exclusively, the
Roman emperor. In the LXX almost all its
occurrences concem —God (as the trans-
lation of various forms of tbe Hebrew stem
Y$5;; in the NT it is more often used about
733
SAVIOUR
Jesus Christ (especially in the later
epistles).
Il. In a general reflection about Xerxes’
expedition against Greece Herodotus 7.139.5
states that the Athenians might well be
called *'saviours of Hellas". In Aristophanes’
Equites 149 a slave exhorts the sausage-
seller to manifest himself to the city as its
'saviour'. Such a use of the term is, how-
ever, far less frequent than its occurrences in
honour of gods, especially Zeus. The oldest
extant case is Pindar, Olymp. 5.17: "O
saviour Zeus, in the clouds on high". It can
refer to a specific saving act, e.g. when
gratitude was expressed to Zeus for having
saved Delphi from an attack of Gauls in
279/8 (Si 408). In their capacity of gods
of sailors the —Dioscuri also were often
honoured by the title. Leda is said to have
borne sons who were "saviours of men
living on the earth and their quick-going
ships" (Homeric hymn to the Diosc. 6-7, see
also SB 5795). The healing god Asklepios
was very often called sótér (e.g. IG IV?
1.127, OGIS 332.8) and it developed into
his specific title, as can be witnessed in
Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Tales. “Die Be-
zeichnung ho sótér ist für Aristides so sehr
ein Name des Asklepios geworden, daß er
ihn gebraucht wie bei Herakles die Bezeich-
nung Kallinikos (und Alexikakos)" (DóL-
GER 1950:262). Among the gods whose cult
spread in Hellenistic and Roman times espe-
cially Isis and Sarapis held the title (OGIS
87: Sarapidi Isidi Sótérsi); for Isis the femi-
nine sóteira was used (e.g. VIDMANN 1969:
247) Apuleius coined the neologism
sospitatrix to render this into Latin (Met.
11.9.1, 11.15.4, 11.25.1). A list of all the
gods who are called sótér or sóteira is pro-
vided by H&FErR 1909-1915.
The title is, however, also assigned to
great politicians or generals for their
achievements. The first reliable contempora-
ry record of this is Thucydides 5.11.1 about
the Spartan general Brasidas, who in de-
feating an Athenian army in 422 was him-
self mortally wounded. He received sacri-
fices as a héros, was honoured as a ktistés
and regarded as a ‘saviour’. Obviously sótér
figures here within a religious context. The
object of the honours has exceeded normal
human bounds. Others were to follow and
indeed to be honoured during their lifetime.
In 302 BCE the Athenians greeted Demetrios
Poliorketes and his son Antigonos as theoi
sotéres (Plutarch, Dem. 10.4, Diodorus
Siculus 20.46.2, cf. IG 1I2.3424.12 and
HaBicHT 1970:44-48). When the Romans
intervened powerfully in Hellenic affairs,
such treatment also fell to their share. Titus
Quinctius Flamininus (229-174) is the first
example (Plutarch, Titus Flam. 10). A con-
temporary inscription found in the Laconian
seaport Gytheum testifies to this: Titon Titou
Koigktion, stratagon hypaton Rómaión, ho
damos ho Gytheatan ton autou sótéra,
"Titus Quinctius, son of Titus, Roman con-
sul, is honoured by the people of Gytheum
as their saviour”, (SIG? 592 = IGLS 8766).
In the first century BCE such honours befell
Caesar (SIG? 759, Athens) and Pompeius
(SIG? 749b, Samos). An Ephesian inscrip-
tion in honour of Caesar emphasizes the
religious context: ... ton apo Areós kai
Aphrodeités theon epiphané kai koinon tou
anthrópinou biou sótera, "the manifest god,
who is descended from -*Ares and -*Aphro-
dite, and the common saviour of human
life", (SIG? 760). This is not to deny that
the assignment of the title could assume a
stereotyped character. Thus Verres, who as a
proconsul of Sicily in 73-71 was guilty of
all the typical abuses of the Roman aristo-
cratic administration of provinces, had also
been honoured in such a way: Itaque eum
non solum patronum illius insulae, sed
etiam sótera inscriptum vidi Syracusis, “And
thus at Syracuse I saw an inscription in
which he was not only called protector of
that island, but even its saviour’, (Cicero
Ver. 2.2.154). In explaining the importance
of the title, Cicero adds that it cannot be
rendered by one Latin word: Js est nimirum
sótéer qui salutem dedit, "He no doubt is a
saviour who has provided salvation". Later,
in the introductory part of his State, Cicero
stressed its weight in an indirect way: neque
enim est ulla res in qua propius ad deorum
numen virtus accedit humana quam civitates
734
SAVIOUR
aut condere novas aut conservare iam con-
ditas, “Human virtue nowhere comes nearer
to the majesty of the gods than in founding
cities or saving those which were founded”,
(Resp. I 12). The title ktistês, ‘founder’, is
indeed more than once assigned in combi-
nation with sotér, e.g. to Pompeius at
Mytilene (SIG? 751). More often, however,
sotér is combined with euergetés, *benefac-
tor’.
Undoubtedly, such titles also occurred in
a less exalted sphere, witness this Laconian
inscription dating from the Augustan age: ha
polis kai hoi Rómaioi Gaion Ioulion Eurykle
Lacharous hyion ton autas sótera kai euer-
getan, "the city and the (locally active)
Romans honour Gaius Iulius Eurycles, son
of Lachares, as their saviour and bene-
factor", (SEG XXIX 383). A more curious
case is the freedman Milichus, who, having
been rewarded for his part in the dis-
mantling of the Pisonian conspiracy against
the emperor Nero, conservatoris sibi nomen
Graeco. eius rei vocabulo adsumpsit, “he
assumed the title ‘saviour’ in its Greek ver-
sion”, (Tacitus Ann. 15.71.1). Of course, the
purist Roman historian was precluded from
using the term sorér. Nock (1972:727-730)
‘mentions other cases in which “sdrér, while
‘most often used of Emperors, was at times
formally applied to local dignitaries and to
Imperial functionaries, in a manner which
‘Indicates. that it was not felt to be excessive
‘OL; invidious” (727). Nock is in general
feluctant to link the title prematurely to the
‘divine sphere. Nevertheless, such a link is
explicitly made in an edict of 19 CE by Ger-
io avoid. certain acclamations, “which are for
ne invidious and which belong to the level
f. divinity, for they are suitable only for
im who is really the sótér and euergetés of
ithe whole human race”, ie. Tiberius (SB
9924. 35-40). Nock stresses the cautiousness
fof Germanicus' words in regard to the
guo euergetés v were obviously regarded as
idiyine titles. Indeed, in answer to the pro-
pmi Fabius Maximus’ appeal i in 9 BCE the
Augustus as having been sent by Providence
as a "saviour, who was to stop war and to
establish peace” (OGIS 458 = EHRENBERG
& JONES 1955:98.36-37).
In fact, such texts can be spaced as
belonging to the domain of the -ruler cult.
In this respect the title sérér was at first
awarded for specific salutary achievements,
as in the decree of the league of Aegean
islands conceming Ptolemy I in 280/279
(SIG3 390.27; cf. also Pausanias 1.8.6 about
the Rhodians and HasicuT 1970:158) or in
Phylarchus’ report on the way Seleucus |
and his son Antiochos were honoured by the
Athenians of Lemnos when they had been
liberated from Lysimachos’ administration
(FGH 81 F 29; cf. Hasicnt 1970:89-90).
Gradually, however, it developed into a
more genera] honour. See for this RONCHI
(1977:1054-1064) about the successive Pto-
lemies. Antiochos IV was hailed as sotér tés
Asias (OGIS 253) and Caesar even as sóter
Ies oikoumenés (IG XII. 5.557), a title which
is also attested for Nero (OGIS 668) and
(with addition of holes) for Marcus Aurelius
(SB 176, 6674). One further step was poss-
ible, viz. to regard the emperor as a ‘Welt-
heiland'. Jn an inscription of Halicarnassus
Augustus is hailed as saviour tou koinou tón
anthrópón genous (G. HIRSCHFELD, Col-
lection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in ihe
British Museum YN [1893] 894 = ExREN-
BERG & JONES 1955:98a.6-7), the context
giving further testimony to his salutary
influence on society and nature. Later
Hadrian was indeed called sétér tou (sym-
pantos) kosmou (T. B. Mirrorp & I. K.
Nico_aou, The Greek and Latin Inscrip-
tions from Salamis [Nicosia 1974) 13 and
94, CIG MI 4335).
Generally speaking, the salvation pro-
vided ìn the cases dealt with above concems
material life in the present world. The title
occurs far less in a spiritual domain. For Dio
Chrysostom philosophers can heal psychical
damage and thus are sóteres (Or 32.18).
This use of the term is, however, by no
means widespread. Remarkably enough, the
‘atheistic’ Epicurus was celebrated as a
soiér by his followers. This is implicit in
7135
SAVIOUR
Lucretius’ eulogy in De rerum natura V i-
54 (Epicurus is called deus in v 8), but tbe
title is explicitly used in Plotina’s Jetter to
the Athenian Epicureans of 121 ce (SIG?
834.21) and in PHerc 346 IV 26-27 (hymn-
ein ton sótéra ton hémeteron). This stresses
the ‘soteriological’ aspect of Epicureanism,
which is so clearly expressed in the curious
inscription at Oenoanda, the author of
which, a certain Diogenes, states that he
wanted ta tés s6térias protheinai pharmaka,
viz. by an epigraphic survey of Epicurus’
doctrine. See for further discussion of Epi-
curus as sotér CAPASSO (1982: 12-115).
III. In the LXX soter almost always is a
title of God. Only in Judg 3:9, 15; 12:3 and
Neh 9:27 the 'judges' are awarded the title.
Fourer (7JWNT 7, 1013) notes that the
Messiah is never called sótér (but cf. Isa
49:6 and Zech 9:9). Philo of Alexandria
often calls God sérér, a few times in combi-
nation with euergetés (e.g. Opif. 169), once
each with the addition tou pantos (Deus
156), panton (Fug. 162), tou kosmou (Spec.
2.198). Apart from this he uses the title
sotér kai euergetés for the emperor in Flac.
74 and Gaius 22.
"There are 24 instances of sóter in the NT,
of which eight concem God and 16 Jesus
Christ. In the Pastoral Epistles the term
occurs ten times, six of which about God;
the five instanced in 2 Peter all concern
Jesus Christ. It seems prudent to follow
FOERSTER’s strategy in TWNT 7, 1015-1017
in first dealing with the other cases.
Both in Luke 1:47 (the beginning of the
Magnificat) and Jude 25 (doxology) God is
called saviour in a manner reminiscent of
the OT. In the Lucan texts Luke 2:11, Acts
5:31; 13:23 Jesus is announced as specifi-
cally the Saviour of Israel, but in John 4:42
and 1 John 4:14 he is called soter tou
kosmou. The two oldest occurrences are in
the Pauline epistles. In an eschatological
context Phil 3:20 gives vent to the Christian
expectation that the Saviour, the —Lord
Jesus Christ, will come from heaven to
transform “our humble bodies”. Wholly dif-
ferently, Eph 5:23 states that Christ is the
saviour of the body, which within the con-
736
text of the Epistle means the Church. In five
passages in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:1;
2:3, Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) God is called “our
saviour’; 1 Tim 4:10 (“God is the saviour of
all men”) might be polemical against those
who tended to narrow salvation to a small
group. This could also apply to Titus 2:10,
since v 11 adds that God’s grace brings sal-
vation to all men. Jesus Chnst is called "our
saviour” in Titus 1:4, where it is purely for-
mulaic, and in 1 Tim 1:10, Titus 2:13; 3:6,
where the title is elaborated in the context
that follows. Such an elaboration is absent
in 2 Pet 1:1.11; 2:20; 3:2.18. Among these
texts 2 Pet 3:2 stands out as the only
example of Christ being referred to as “Lord
and Saviour” without mention of his name.
In rendering the title in Latin, Christian
authors availed themselves of a variety of
terms, e.g. conservator, salutificator, sospi-
tator, but the Christian neologism salvator,
a nomen agentis derived from salvare, ìtself
a neologism, prevailed. It is used in (some
branches of) the VL and became normal in
the Vg.
IV. Bibliography
M. Capasso, Trattato etico epicureo
(PHerc 346) (Naples 1982); F. J. DÖLGER,
Der Heiland, Antike und Christentum 6
(Münster 1950) 257-263; F. DORNSEIFF,
Xøorńp, PW H 5 (1927) 1211-1221; V.
EHRENBERG & A. H. M. JONES, Documents
Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and
Tiberius (Oxford 1955); W. FOERSTER,
Lemp, TWNT 7, 1004-1022; C. HABICHT,
Gottmenschtum und griechische Städte
(München 19702); O. Hérer, Soteira; Soter,
ALGRM 4 (1909-1915) 1236-1272, H.
LIiETZMANN, Der Weltheiland, KS J (Berlin
1958) 25-62; M. P. NussoN, Geschichte
der Griechischen Religion Yi, Die Hellenis-
tische und Rómische Zeit (München 19884)
184-185, 389-391; A. D. Nock, Essays on
Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Z.
Stewart, Oxford 1972) 1 78-84, II 720-735;
G. Roncut, Lexicon Theonymum rerumque
sacrarum et divinarum ad Aegyptum perte,
nentium quae in papyris ostracis titulis
Graecis Latinisque in Aegypto repertis law-:
dantur, Fasc. V (Milan 1977) 1048-1077; C.
SEA
Spica, Notes de lexicographie néotestamen-
taire. Supplément (OBO 22,3; Fribourg
1982) 636-641; L. ViDMANN, Sylloge
inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sara-
piacae, (RGVV 28; Berlin 1969); P. WEND-
LAND, LQTHP, ZNW 5 (1904) 335-353.
J. DEN BoErr
SEA C'
I. As a geographical entity, the sea de-
limits both cultural and political areas. On
the one hand, it provides connections: since
the third millennium there has been shipping
along the coast of the Persian Gulf (in the
direction of Bahrein and India) and the
Mediterranean region. The sea is a threaten-
ing power which annihilates life by drown-
ing it. On the other hand, the sea is the inex-
haustible reservoir of water, the source of
life. These multiple and ambivalent relations
are represented in the various symbolic
systems. The relationship between the sea
and other forms of water (~>river, —^source)
is not consistent: not even within one and
the same symbol system. There is never an
absolute difference between these forms.
Water is a particularly shapeless element. It
is associated with the shapelessness of the
—serpent, which participates in the ambiva-
lence of both sea and water. The different
cultural areas of the ancient Near East de-
veloped variations on similar themes which
have mutually influenced each other. Just
how these influences occured historically is
not easy to discern.
II. In Egypt, the designation for the sea,
‘the great green’ or ‘the great black’, is
more geographical, while that for the pri-
meval sea, Nun, is more mythological. Nun
surrounds the world. The rising of the sun
god from Nun is therefore an everyday
cosmological event. Another elementary
manifestation of Nun is the annual inunda-
tion of the —>Nile. The appearence of the
fertile —earth (symbolically shaped as the
‘primeval hill’) is also an elementary cos-
mological event. Nun is occasionally con-
ceived as a pair: Nun and Naunet; but the
gender of the figure does not matter at all.
The primeval water is associated with a ser-
pent. A text from the Book of the Dead pre-
sents an image of the end of the universe
which corresponds to its beginning: “Fur-
ther, I shall destroy all I have made, and this
land will return into Nun, into the flood-
waters, as (in) its first state. I (alone) am a
survivor together with ~Osiris, when I have
made my form in another state, serpents
which men do not know and gods do not
see" (ANET 9). In the Story of the Ship-
wrecked Sailor, a benevolent serpent deity is
lord of the sea; and the paradise-like island
where the shipwrecked mariner is saved is a
product of water and returns to water.
Sometimes the dangerous mythical power of
the sea is stressed. Already the instructions
of King Merikare (ANET 417) say: “Well
directed are men, the cattle of the god. He
made heaven and earth according to their
desire, and he repelled the water-monster"
(snk n mw, lit. 'submerger of the water',
marked by the determinative of a crocodile,
an animal which, according to the ico-
nography, belongs to the chaotic powers).
Later, —*Seth is the typical overwhelmer of
this enemy. One of Seth's roles consists in
accompanying the sun god >Re in his daily
fight against Apophis, a coiled serpent with
destructive power. The sea, and the serpent
correlated to it, have thus an ambivalent
character. Since the time of the New King-
dom, there has been a distinct Canaanite
influence, and Seth became identified with
—Baal (the mythical opposition in the As-
tarte Papyrus—the sea on one side, Astane
and Seth-Baal on the other—is a Canaanite
constellation).
An early Mesopotamian concept of the
sea is found in the notion of abzu, the
‘hidden’, subterranean ocean (Ends of the
earth). Associated with the god Enki/Ea
(Aya), it appears as overflowing water fer-
tilizing the dry land. The marshes in south
Mesopotamia, abounding in fish, are another
manifestation of abzu. Enki and his gifts are
essential for life in general. Originally, the
goddess Nammu might have been a female
personification of the primeval water (the
sign for her name is ENGUR, an expression
737
SEA
for water). The texts call Nammu "Mother
who gave birth to heaven and earth", who
"bore all the gods". According to the
Sumerian tradition, Nammu is the mother of
Enki and the creatrix of men. In the Akkad-
ian literature, Nammu is no longer import-
ant.
Later on, in a Semitic milieu, the abzu
concept is differentiated. The beginning of
Enüma elis tells us that the waters of -Tia-
mat (salt water) and Apsu (fresh water) were
originally mixed. The separation of the two
types of water is the first cosmogonical
stagc. Ea's (2 Enki's) victory over Apsu in-
itiates the development of life. However, the
difference between the two types of water is
not absolute. When Tiamat is subdued by
-Marduk, the eyes of this being become the
springs of the rivers -Euphrates and
—Tigris. Ea and Tiamat are surrounded by
—Lahmu, -*dragons, serpents and different
kinds of ‘mixed beings’ marking a state of
‘primitive’, undifferentiated being. These
monsters are not only attested by textual
evidence, there are also iconographical
representations. The description of Gudea's
temple shows that the conception of the pri-
meval sea is essential for temple symbolism.
There is an architectural representation of
abzu and many monsters belonging to it.
The temple, the link between —heaven and
earth, has its roots in the primeval sea: and
thus comprises the whole of the universe.
The earth is not only based upon, but also
surrounded by, the sea. This is confirmed,
too, by a ‘map’ on which the earth, a circu-
lar shape, has a ‘bitter stream’ flowing
around it. According to the Gilgamesh epic,
the ‘end’ of the world is marked successive-
ly by the desert, a mountain range and the
ocean of death’s water. (‘Paradise’, the
island of eternal life, lies paradoxically with-
in this ocean.) The path of the sun-god starts
in this area.
Cosmogonies make use of these concepts.
A late text speaks of a time when “the Apsu
had not been made, ... all the lands were
sea” (HEIDEL 1951:62:8.10). The plot of
Entuna eli§, the New Year myth of Babylon,
has already been mentioned. Creation begins
with the separation of the waters: it is com-
pleted by cutting Tiamat into two parts and
making a space within the flood. The earth
is erected on the lower part of Tiamat. Simi-
lar combat tales were told in places other
than Babylon, and with other protagonists
(e.g., the fight of Inanna against Ebih).
Chaotic power is not necessarily related to
the sea, but the structural parallel is quite
clear. Other cosmogonies combine the
theme of the primeval water with the other
model of Mesopotamian cosmogony: i.e. the
separation of heaven and earth. The combat
pattern is well represented in Mesopotamian
iconography: especially on seals (represen-
tations of the battle, see, e.g., KEEL 1972:
39-47) and on boundary stones (Kudurru).
The elements of cosmic order are based
upon or framed by serpents (examples in
ANEP 519-521).
Exorcisms sometimes entail this type of
cosmogony: Evil is seen as a manifestation
of Tiamat's chaotic power; whilst demons
connected with her are driven out by spells
(one is supplied with a very instructive enu-
meration of wrukku-demon types: urukku’s of
the desert, of the mountains, and of the
sea—all regions beyond the civilised world).
The power of the sea is not subdued for-
ever; the idea that it might increase again is
the theme of the flood story. There is a
badly preserved Sumerian version. In the
Akkadian Atrahasis epic, the function of the
flood is clear: i.e. to end the overpopulation
of primeval humankind and balance it with
excessive destruction. Thereafter, a more
reasonable balancing mechanism takes over.
The best-known version of this story
belongs to the Gilgamesh epic, within the
context of Gilgamesh’s search for eternal
life.
As to biblical traditions, the (fragmen-
tary) Eridu Genesis is especially interesting.
Its themes include the creation and humani-
zation of human beings, the antediluvial
kings (with extremely long lives) and the
flood. The antediluvial —>apkallu’s are the
subject of another tradition. They came from
the sea in order to teach humankind cultural
achievements such as the cuneiform script.
738
SEA
In Anatolia, there is above all Hittite evi-
dence for religious conceptions of the sea;
but mythologies of various origins (especial-
ly Hurrian) also strongly influenced these
conceptions. The Hittites knew a male sea
deity with decidedly anthropomorphic char-
acteristics. The sea god is able to travel on
the earth and in the netherworld: and he
shows emotions like anger and pain. He
does not belong to the primeval gods; but
his mother was a healing goddess. In the
conflict between the ruling weather god and
the displaced king of the gods, Kumarbi, he
belongs to the partisans of the latter. In the
Ullikummi myth, the role of the sea is very
significant. This tale tells how Kumarbi tried
to recover his dominion over the universe.
He created a monster called Ullikummi and
placed it in the realm of the sea on a
shoulder of an Atlas-like deity. Ullikummi
has the form of a rock and steadily grows
upwards toward heaven. The gods were not
able to prevent this growth. The symbolism
of this scene is clear: the scparation of
heaven and earth, the starting point of the
cosmogony, is threatened. The two themes
‘sea’ and ‘unification of heaven and earth’
are associated in one and the same myth.
The solution offered by Ea (the Babylonian
deity!) is quite simple: the saw which once
separated heaven and earth is borrowed
from the primeval dicties and Ullikummi is
cut away. The action takes place near the
mountain Hazzi—the -*Zaphon of the Ugar-
itians (known also in Isracl and there ident-
ified with -*Zion). This region is well repre-
sented in the mythology of the Syro-
Canaanite traditions.
As to the Syro-Phoenician area, economi-
cal and cultural exchange with Mesopot-
amia, Egypt, Asia Minor and the Aegacis is
reflected in mythological and cultic data.
The area surrounding the Mediterranean Sea
is essential, and so the cult of a sea god pro-
tecting the sailors is obvious. A deity com-
parable to the Greek god -*Poseidon is at-
tested to archacologically in various places.
The Ugaritic texts give the clearest view
of the mythological organization of powers
associated with the sea. The ‘father of the
gods’, Il (->El), is situated “at the fountain-
head of the two Rivers, in the middle of the
bedding of the two Floods”. This is a cos-
mological qualification; because II’s abode
lies in a cosmic centre where the upper and
lower waters come together. This centre is
very remote; so the younger gods have to
make a long journey in order to get to the
high God. On the other hand, Il's residence
is situated on a (cosmic) mountain. It seems
that Shukamuna-wa-Shunama (—Shunama),
probably an Atlas-like deity, is associated
with Il (D. PARDEE, Les textes para-mytho-
logiques |Paris 1988] 59-60). The two con-
cepts cannot be harmonized—symbol sys-
tems do not strive after logical consistency.
There are no mythical tales about Il's cos-
mological functions, but only short. formu-
laic descriptions.
In mythical contexts (KTU 1.1-6), the sca
is represented by the anthropomorphically
shaped Yam, the enemy of >Baal. Obvious-
ly Yam is not only the deity of the sea, but
also of the rivers (he is often called zb! ym
tpt nhr, ‘prince Sea. ruler River’). In this
context, the rivers are to be construed as
destructive powers. Yam is closely con-
nected with II (‘son of Il, beloved of II’);
but, whereas Il represents the cosmic aspect
of the primeval water, Yam reflects its
chaotic aspect (which parallels the situation
in Anatolia where the sca god is correspond-
ingly related to the old god Kumarbi).
Various monsters occur together with Yam
(and were possibly sometimes identified
with him): Lotan (-*Leviathan), a seven-
headed serpent; Tunnanu (-*Tannin); Arishu
and ‘Atiqu. The conflict between Yam and
Baal is complex. A crucial question is which
of the two should be allowed to have a
‘house’. This might reflect a historical
conflation of the cults of two different gods
(Baal seems to be a newcomer in Ugarit),
with. Yam representing the ousted deity.
Furthermore, Yam represents the power of
chaos which appears in the sea and the
rivers. To what extent Yam represented a
seasonal phenomenon is controversial.
However, this is not a primary aim of the
Baal-Yam constellation, in contrast to the
739
SEA
Baal-Mot constellation, which primarily
represents the annual change of the wet and
dry seasons. The destructive powers of Yam
and —Mot are somehow connected. Both
are called ‘beloved of Il’. Baal’s fight
against Yam and Mot are also connected (cf.
KTU 1.5—a very difficult text). Mot, though
a representation of the summer heat, is lo-
cated in subterranean mud which resembles
the shapelessness of water.
Magical texts make use of the Baal-Yam
constellation. In KTU 1.83, there is a spell
which advises the destruction of Yam
(depicted in the form of a —dragon with a
fish tail) by binding him on the ~Lebanon
Mountains—obviously in order to dehydrate
him. The difficult text KTU 1.82 contains a
spell against Tunnan, serpents and asso-
ciated beings. The threatening power of
chaos appears thus in everyday experiences.
The Baal-Yam paradigm was popular in
the Late Bronze Age not only in the Syrian
and Anatolian area, but also in Egypt. In the
Astarte Papyrus, the goddess Astarte and
Seth (= Baal) fight against the sea-god. Baal
Zaphon becomes the god of sailors and so
succeeds previous deities of the sea. A
famous sanctuary of Baal Zaphon is situated
near the “Bitter Lake’ in Egypt.
III. The situation in Ancient Israel is in
many respects comparable to that of Ugant.
Firstly, the sea is a cosmological element of
the universe as a whole: along with other
elements (a triadic concept consists of
heaven, earth and sea [Ps 69:35; Exod 20:
11). This structure is also recognizable in
formulas such as “animals of the field, birds
of the heaven, fishes of the sea" [Ps 8:8-9]).
The most detailed cosmogony (Gen 1, P)
starts with the (uncreated) primeval sea
(téhdm, associated with the desert, 16hi).
Then the heaven is created in order to de-
limit the upper part of the ocean. Finally,
the earth comes into being, providing the
possibility of further creations. This process
resembles the cosmogony of Enima eli
and, if one takes into consideration the fur-
ther context of the primeval story, the Eridu
Genesis. However, the elements of combat
have disappeared completely: the sea has
740
become mere unstructured material to be
brought into order. Other cosmogonical
sketches of the beginning of the universe
present less elaborated cosmogonies: The
earth is founded upon the sea (Ps 24:2); it is
determined by a limit (Jer 5:22; Job 38:1).
Not only the earth in general, but ìn par-
ticular the sanctuary (of Jerusalem), is pro-
tected against the attack of the chaotic water
(Ps 46:3).
In cultic literature, the cosmogony is
clearly depicted as a fight between
— Yahweh and the personified power of the
sea. Yam (and 1éh6m—contrary to Ugarit
but analogous to Mesopotamia, this term
plays a role in the context of cosmological
combat) are again associated with other
monsters: e.g. —Tannin, —Leviathan and a
female being named —Rahab. While Ugar-
itic mythology seems to know only male
powers of chaos, within the context of
destructive powers Israel recognizes both
sexes. The enemy is represented as a serpent
or as a seven-headed dragon. It is difficult to
know whether at an early time the cosmo-
logical battle was conveyed in a tale (a myth
in a restricted sense of the word) or whether
it was even enacted in a cultic drama. In the
tradition as preserved, the battle concept is
only a complex of mythological elements
within the context of hymns, prayers, etc.
'The most detailed accounts of the fight can
be found in Ps 74:13-14; Ps 89:10; Ps 18:
16; Nah 1:4). Yahweh ‘rebukes’ the sea
(possibly an anthropomorphic interpretation
of the thunder emanating from the weather
god); he smites the heads of the enemy; he
delimits the realm of the sea or makes the
water dry. Sometimes, the fighting god is
depicted as one riding on a Cherub or a
chariot (Ps 18:11; 77:19). Very often, the
battle against the sea consists of a mere al-
lusion (Hab 3:8; Ps 46:3-4; Jer 31:35; Isa
51:15; Jer 5:22; Ps 29; the symbolism of
Ezek 27:1-28:10 is characterized by the
ambivalence of the sea theme). In theologi-
cally refined passages, the idea of the battle
has nearly vanished (Ps 104:6-7; Job 38:8-
10, and especially in the already mentioned.
cosmogony of P, Gen 1). ee
SEA
There is a strong association between the
destructive power of the sea and other
realms of destruction. The proximity of sea
and desert has already been mentioned: the
same can also be said about the sea and
death (Ps 88:7). In Job 26:12-13, the fight
against the serpent Rahab clears the
heavens. The monster, normally located in
the sea, seems to be associated with clouds:
as is the case with the Egyptian serpent
Apophis.
Temple symbolism (analogous to that of
Mesopotamia) contains an iconic represen-
tation of the sea (the “brazen sea”, 1 Kgs
7:23-26.44, 2. Chr 4:2-10; cf. Kxxr 1972:
120-121), a round vessel with a diameter of
about 4.5 m and a height of about 2.25 m. It
was supported by twelve bulls (each of the
four groups of three bulls corresponding to
one of the four quarters of heaven), symbols
of power and fertility. According to 2 Kgs
16:15-17, these bulls were, as a consequence
of a cult reform, removed. The brazen ser-
pent (~Nehushtan, originally an element of
the temple in Jerusalem, 2 Kgs 18:4, then
connected with the desert tradition, Num
21:9) belongs to the same symbolic context.
Its prophylactic power against snakebites is
congruent with the concept of sympathetic
magic.
The cultic treatment of the power of
chaos is present in a more private sphere as
wel. Black magic consists in “waking
Leviathan" in order to cause evil on certain
days (Job 3:8—the text must not be
emended). On the other hand, there are apo-
tropaic precautions taken against such activ-
ities of the evil powers (Job 7:12).
The Israelite versions of the flood story
also found their place in the context of the
cosmogony (Gen 6-8): The parallel between
creation and destruction is obvious. The
conclusion of both versions (J and P)
emphasizes the uniqueness of the catastrop-
he (Gen 8:20-22; Gen 9:8-17) and the guar-
antee of an everlasting creation.
=“ At a certain point in the tradition, the
Exodus story was influenced by the motif of
the battle against chaos (e.g., Ps 77:16-21;
66:5; 106:7- 12; Exod 15:8-10). The remini-
Y
scence of a military catastrophe of the
Egyptian enemy caused by sea or water in
general (whatever may have been the exact
circumstances) gave rise to such an interpre-
tation. Those waters were now understood to
be a manifestation of the primeval water:
Israe] was able to cross the realm of de-
struction, whereas the Egyptians were anni-
hilated. The ‘cleaving’ of the water, an el-
ement of some Exodus versions (Exod 14:6;
15:8, P and related material), reflects the
‘splitting’ of the hostile monster. ‘Natural’,
‘historical’ and ‘mythical’ qualities are in-
separably conflated.
Not only the Exodus theme is interpreted
in such a manner, but also the motif of the
crossing of the Jordan. The Jordan water
was cleaved and made to dry up: just like
the water of the Sea of Reeds (cf. Josh 3-4;
Ps 114). Fords, as places of danger, are
often associated with cults. In this case, the
memory of such a local cult is attached to
the traditional complexes of Exodus, Con-
quest and cosmogony.
In a late stage of Israelite history, the
battle against the sea was projected into the
future. The final victory of God against his
enemy then becomes a matter of hope: and
the significance of 'chaos' and 'cosmos' is
reinterpreted. Which means that the powers
dominating history are offsprings of the sea;
but their end is determined and realized
when the eschatological rule of God arrives.
This projective interpretation (a typical el-
ement of crisis cults) occurred first in the
time of the exile (Deutero-Isaiah: Isa 51:9;
43:16-21). Apocalyptic conceptions develop
these images (Dan 7:1-14). Leviathan will
be eventually exterminated (Isa 27:1). The
sea will dry up at the precise moment when
heaven and earth are reconstructed (Rev
21:1). Such conceptions are elements of
apocalyptic speculation. They are combined
with other mythological themes without
forming a coherent conceptual whole.
The dualistic vision of apocalyptic texts
is sometimes directly contradicted. In Job
40-41, the hippopotamus (~Behemoth) and
the crocodile are characterized as creatures
of God. Thus they are not chaotic beings—
741
SEIRIM — SERAPHIM
the creative power of God reaches even into
the deep regions of the sea. The same con-
ception occurs in the book of Jonah. The
prophet tries to escape from Yahweh; but,
even on the ship in the middle of the high
seas, he was reached by God. Ultimately, it
is the fish monster (servant of Yahweh!)
who brings him back to land. This is con-
gruent with the ‘universalistic’ view of the
book as a whole.
IV. Bibliography
C. AUrFARTH, Der drohende Untergang.
"Schópfung" in Mythos und Ritual im Alten
Orient und Griechenland (Berlin 1991); M.
H. Carre Gates, Casting Tiamat in an-
other Sphere, Levant 18 (1986) 75-81; G.
CASADIO, El and Cosmic Order: Is the Ugar-
itic Supreme God a deus otiosus?, Studia
Fennica 32 (1987) 45-58; R. J. CLIFFORD,
Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and the
Bible, Or 53 (1984) 183-210; A. H. W.
Curtis, The “Subjugation of the Waters”
Motif in the Psalms: Imagery or Polemic?,
JSS 23 (1978) 245-256; J. Day, God’s
Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cam-
_ bridge: 1985); M. DierricH & O. Loretz,
Baal vernichtet Jammu (KTU 1.2.IV 23-30).
UF 17 (1986) 117-121; G. R. DRIVER,
Mythical Monsters in the OT, Festschrift für
G. Levi della Vida 1 (Rome 1956) 234-249;
O. EissFELDT, Gott und das Meer in der
Bibel, KS III (Tübingen 1966) 256-264; H.
GrsE, Die Religionen Altsyriens, RAAM
(1970); J. H. GRONBAEK, Baal's Battle with
Yam - a Canaanite Creation Fight, JSOT 33
(1985) 27-44; H. GuNKEL, Schöpfung und
Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Góttingen
11895); A. HEIDEL, 77e Babylonian Genesis
(Chicago 21951); T. JACOBSEN, The Eridu
Genesis, JBL 100 (1982) 513-529; Jacos-
SEN, The Harab-Myth (SANE; Malibu
1984); O. Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung
des Meeres in Agypten, Ugarit und Israel
(BZAW 79; Berlin 21962); O. KEEL, Die
Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und
das Alte Testament (Einsiedeln & Neukir-
chen-Vluyn 1972); C. KLoos, Yhwh's Com-
bat with the Sea (Leiden 1986); S. E.
LOWENSTAMM, Die Wasser der biblischen
Sintflut: Ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Ver-
schwinden, VT 34 (1984) 179-194; O.
Loretz, Ugarit und die Bibel. Kana-
anäische Götter und Religion im Alten Tes-
tament (Darmstadt 1990); S. Norin, Er
spaltete das Meer (ConB, OT Series 9;
Lund 1977); J. C. pe Moor, An Anthology
of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Leiden
1987); P. REYMOND, L'eau, sa vie et sa
signification dans l'Ancien Testament
(VTSup 6; Leiden 1958); H. RINGGREN,
Yahvé et — Rahab-Léviatan, Mélanges
bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M.
Henri Cazelles (ed. A. Caquot & M. Delcor;
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) 387-393;
RINGGREN, jam, TWAT 3 (1982) 645-657;
W. ROBERTSON SMITH, Lectures on the Re-
ligion of the Semites. First Series. The Fun-
damental Institutions (Edinburgh & New
York 1889); F. STOLZ, Strukturen und Fi-
guren im Kult von Jerusalem (BZAW 118;
Berlin 1970); C. UEHLINGER, Drachen und
Drachenkimpfe im Alten Vordern Orient
und in der Bibel, Auf Drachenspuren (ed. B.
Schmelz & R. Vossen; Bonn 1995) 55-101;
M. WAKEMAN, God's Battle with the Mon-
ster (Leiden 1973); W. A. WARD, Notes on
Some Semitic Loanwords and Personal
Names in Late Egyptian, OrNS 32 (1963)
413-436; A. J. WENSINCK, The Ocean in the
Literature of the Western Semites (Amster-
dam 1918, repr. 1968).
F. STOLZ
SEIRIM -* SATYRS
SELA ^ ROCK
SELEM - IMAGE
SENEH -* THORNBUSH
SERAPHIM Cz^3
I. The word ‘Seraphim’ is the name
given to the beings singing the trishagion to
Yahweh as king in Isa 6:2-3 and carrying
out an act of purification in vv 6-7. The
Seraphim are now generally conceived as
winged -*serpents with certain human at-
tributes. The word Sdrdp has three occur-
rences in the Pentateuch (Num 21:6.8; Deut
8:15) and four in Isa (6:2.6; 14:29; 30:6). It
742
SERAPHIM
is generally taken as a derivative of the verb
íürap, ito "burn", “incinerate”, “destroy”.
Since the verb is transitive, Sarap probably
denotes an entity that annihilates by burn-
ing. While the etymological sense is thus
"the one who burns (the enemies etc.)", the
term refers several times to some serpentine
being. According to some scholars the con-
nection with the Heb verb $árap is only a
secondary association, the original etymon
being Eg sfr / *srf (cf. srrf ), "gnffin^
(JOINES 1974: 8 and 55 n. 15; GónG 1978).
JI. The study of the ancient Near East-
em evidence, esp. iconographic representa-
tions, has been instrumental in the attempts
to clarify the meaning and background of
the seraphim. While some scholars have
hinted that the seven thunders of —Baal and
his lightning bolts or their iconography
might provide illuminating parallels (cf.
ANEP no. 655), there is now an emerging
consensus that the Egyptian uraeus serpent
is the original source of the seraphim motif
(Goines 1974; De SavicNac 1972). This
interpretation was worked out by KEEL
(1977:70-124) who was able to adduce icon-
ographic evidence showing that the uraeus
motif was wel] known in Palestine from the
Hyksos period through the end of the Iron
Age (on scarabs and seals). During the 8th
century BCE the two-winged and, in Judah
especially the four-winged, uraeus is a well
attested motif on seals, while six-winged
uraei do not seem to occur. Friezes with
uraei (without wings) are found in Egyptian
and Phoenician chapels. The English term
"uraeus" is a loan-word from Greek which
was in tum taken from the Egyptian word
for the cobra figure worn on the forehead of
Egyptian gods and kings, whom the cobra
protects by means of her "fire" (poison).
‘Among the Egyptian designations for the
uraeus one finds the word sht, “fame”. The
‘pre-eminent cobra deity in Egypt was the
crown god Uto.
... IL. Previous attempts to take the two
¿Occurrences in Isa 6:2.8 as more or less dis-
‘inguished from the rest of the attestations
(BDB 977) have now been generally aban-
doned. In the Pentateuch we find Yahweh
:Sending hannëhåším hafíéràapim, "the fiery
serpents” (RSV), among the people (Num
21:6), commanding ~ Moses to make
—Nehushtan, "fiery serpent” (Num 21:8).
The desert is the place of “fiery serpents”
(Deut 8:15) the abode of "the flying
serpent" (Sdrap mé‘6pép, Ysa 30:6). In Isa
14:29 "the flying serpent" is used as a pol-
itical metaphor for a new leader: “... for
from the serpent’s root will come forth an
adder, and its fruit will be a flying serpent.”
That all five of the passages apart from Isa
6, understand Sdrdp to be a serpentine being
is clear from the terminology used in the
contexts in question, and two passages
explicitly mention a winged serpent.
In Isa 6, the seraphim appear in con-
nection with the enthroned heavenly king,
~Yahweh Zebaoth. The following may be
said about their position, form, number and
function. Their position, ‘6médim mimma‘al
16, “standing above” Yahweh (v 2), lends
itself to comparison with the raised uraei on
the chapel friezes, where the uraei are how-
ever without wings. Whether their shape is
serpentine or more humanoid is a matter of
dispute. As for number, there are probably
two seraphim in Isa 6 (cf. v 3a). Concerning
their function Isa 6 displays a noteworthy
mutation of the uraeus motif (KEEL 1977:
113): instead of protecting Yahweh the
seraphim need their wings to cover them-
selves from head to feet from Yahweh's
consuming holiness; Yahweh does not need
their protection. Isaiah thus uses the seraph-
im to underscore the supreme holiness of the
God on the throne.
IV. The seraphim occur a number of
times in the pseudepigrapha and later Jewish
literature (see OTP 2, index sub seraphim
and J. Mice, RAC 5, 60-97). The seraph-
im, cherubim and ophanim are described
as “the sleepless ones who guard the throne
of his glory” (7 Enoch 71:7).
V. Bibliography
J. Day, Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders
and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habak-
kuk III 9 and the identity of the Seraphim in
Isaiah VI, VT 29 (1979) 143-151, esp. 149-
‘151; E. EaGesrecnt, Greif, LdA 2 (1977)
895-896; M. Gónc, Die Funktion der Se-
rafen bei Jesaja, BN 5 (1978) 28-39; K.
743
SERPENT
JoinEs, Winged Serpents in Isatah’s Inaug-
ural Vision, JBL 86 (1967) 410-415; JOINES,
The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult,
JBL 87 (1968) 245-256; Jones, Serpent
Symbolism in the Old Testament (Haddon-
field 1974); *O. KEEL, Jahwe-Visionen und
Siegelkunst (SBB 84-85; Stuttgart 1977),
esp. 70-124; K. Martin, Uraus, LdA 6
(1986) 864-868; U. RUTERSWORDEN, *]10
$arap, forthcoming in TWAT; J. DE Sa-
VIGNAC, Les "Seraphim", VT 22 (1972) 320-
325; P. Werren, Mischwesen, BRL?
(Tübingen 1977) 224-2271.
T. N. D. METTINGER
SERPENT Zn)
I. In MT the generic word for a venom-
ous snake or serpent is nàhài (31 times). In
Semitic the only certain cognate noun is
Ugaritic nh§, ‘snake’ (numerous times in
KTU 1.100 and 1.107), with a possible cog-
nate in Arabic hana$, 'snake' (via meta-
thesis and an altered sibilant). The origin of
the word may be onomatopoeic, derived
from the hissing sound of a snake. Other
words for snakes in MT include peten (cf.
Ug bm, Akk basmu and bin in Deut 33:22;
Bashan), $aràp (lit. ‘burning one’), sipéni,
?*ep'eh, *ak$üb, qippoz, Sépipon, and tannin
(which. can. also. mean 'dragon') It is
difficult to correlate these names with the
numerous species of snakes native to the
region. It is likely that all of these were
regarded as venomous snakes, a common
attribution in traditional cultures. The
Hebrew noun ndhas also has the apparently
related meanings of ‘divination’ (Num 23:23
and 24:1) and ‘fortune, luck’ (attested in
numerous personal names). The denomina-
tive Piel verb nihés means ‘to practice divi-
nation’ (attested also in Aramaic). Occa-
sionally náhá$ and other words for snake
can be applied to mythical dragons
(^ Dragon, Leviathan).
The snake is commonly associated with
selected deities and -demons and with
magic and incantations in the ancient Near
East. The latter association is found particu-
larly in connection with the cure or avoidan-
744
ce of snake bites. The most common sym-
bolic associations of the snake include pro-
tection, danger, healing, regeneration, and
(less frequently) sexuality.
I. In Mesopotamian mythology and
iconography the snake can be associated
with a range of deities and demons. Depic-
tions of a god whose lower body is a snake
may represent tbe deity Nirah, chief minister
to Ishtaran, the city-god of Der, on the bor-
der with Elam. The frequent reliefs of
snakes on kudurru’s (boundary-stones) may
represent Nirah in the role of protective
spirit. Perhaps related are the frequent Elam-
ite images of a high god seated on a throne
of coiled snakes. The symbol of the under-
world deity Ningishzida is a venomous
homed snake, which is depicted nsing from
his shoulders. Ningishzida is named in
incantations as a guardian of underworld
demons, and is a guardian of the gates of
heaven in the Adapa myth. The female
demon Lamasbtu is depicted grasping
snakes in both hands, while the male demon
Pazuzu can be depicted with his exposed
phallus as a snake. In these divine represen-
tations the image of the snake suggests asso-
ciations with fear, danger, and death or with
a protective power, depending on whether
the snake is the emblem of an adversary or a
benefactor. . "E Dl
Another dimension in the Mesopotamian
symbolism of the snake is found in the Gil-
gamesh epic; the animal steals away Gilga-
mesh’s plant of rejuvenation (XJ:279-289).
This episode shows not only the futility of
Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality, but also
explains in folkloric fashion why snakes
shed their skin and rejuvenate. The knowl-
edge of this plant is described as a ‘secret of
the gods’.
In Egyptian mythology and iconography
the snake is a dominant and multivalent
symbol. HornunG notes: “An schillernder
Vieldeutigkeit übertrifft die Schlange jedes
andere Tier der Agyptischen Mythologie ...
Im Bild der Schlange verkörpert sich em
Symbolgehalt, dessen Tiefe und dessen
Vieldeutigkeit keine Grenzen kennen" (LÀ
5 [1984] 648). The snake can appear in
SERPENT
many roles: as an adversary or a protector, a
deity or a demon, and can signify life and
regencration or death and nonexistence.
A venomous snake (the Uraeus serpent)
protects kings and gods; the king has the
snake as part of his being, and so is immune
to snake bites and can heal others. Fierce
snakes are guardians of the twelve gates of
the underworld. The ba’s of all the gods live
in snakes, and the -*dead in the Netherworld
become snakes. The sun-god in his nightly
passage through the primeval waters of Nun
is rejuvenated inside the body of a snake
before his reappearance at dawn. The pri-
meval gods at the beginning of time are em-
bodied as snakes in the primeval waters, and
time itself can be depicted as a snake. At the
end of time -*Atum and -*Osiris return to
snake-beings in the etemal waters. The
deadly and the regenerative powers of the
snake occur in varying proportions in these
instances; hence the complexity of the snake
symbol.
The semantic range of the snake in Egypt
is well-illustrated by the contrast between
two cosmic snakes: Apopis and Ouroboros.
The Apopis serpent is the cosmic adversary
of the sun god, each day attempting to con-
sume the sun and to return the cosmos to
primeval chaos and darkness. Apopis is
destroyed each day by powerful magic, yet
cannot be killed; it retums eternally as the
force of chaos and non-existence, ever
threatening to erase the order of being. The
Ouroboros ('tail-swallower') is the world-
encircling snake who marks the boundary
between the ordered cosmos and the endless
chaos around it. In the contrast of Apopis
and Ouroboros the snake appears as both
exponent of and limit on the powers of
chaos and non-existence.
In Canaanite and Phoenician mythology
and iconography the symbolism of the snake
is less diverse than in Egypt or Mesopot-
amia. There are numerous images of snakes
in various media, at times curled around the
openings of vessels in a protective pose, but
other meanings in other contexts remain
obscure. In the so-called QudSu iconography
the snake is associated with a goddess, prob-
ably —Asherah, the mother of the gods in
Ugaritic mythology. In this pose the goddess
is depicted naked, standing on a lion, and
holding snakes in one or both hands, some-
times also holding flowers in one hand.
There are numerous examples of this image
in Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian figurines
and plaques from ca. 1700-1200 BCE. A
goddess-epithet from the Proto-Sinaitic
inscriptions, dt bin (‘The One [fem.] of the
Snake’), has also plausibly been associated
with the goddess Asherah. Whether the
snake in its association with Asherah con-
notes rejuvenation, rebirth, protection, sex-
uality or some other nuance or conjunction
of meanings is unclear. In a Ugaritic mytho-
logical incantation against snakebites (KTU
1.100) the god —Horon is the chief dispeller
of snake venom and at the end presents a
brideprice of snakes (nAi$m) to a minor god-
dess. In Syro-Palestinian cylinder seals the
snake is sometimes depicted as an enemy of
the warrior-god, probably representing some
of the various chaos-monsters of Canaanite
mythology.
A Hellenistic period recapitulation of
Phoenician mythology (from Philo of
Byblos) presents our only direct commen-
tary on snake symbolism from a non-biblical
West Semitic source (including an admix-
ture of Hellenistic influences): ‘“Taautos
himself regarded as divine the nature of the
serpent and snakes... [it is] fiery and the
most filled with breath of all crawling
things... It is also exceedingly long-lived,
and by nature not only does it slough off old
age and become rejuvenated, but it also
attains greater growth. When it fulfils its
determined limit, it is consumed into itself,
as Taautos himself similarly narrates in his
sacred writings. Therefore, this animal is
included in the rites and mysteries”
(Eusebius, Praep. ev. 1.10.46-47; trans.
ATTRIDGE & ODEN 1981).
IH. In the Hebrew Bible the snake is
associated with -*Yahweh or with magic on
several occasions. The most notable in-
stances are the stories of the Garden of Eden
(Gen 3), the Egyptian plagues (Exod 4 and
7). the bronze serpent (Num 21 and 2 Kgs
745
SERPENT
18), and possibly Isaiah’s initiatory vision
(Isa 6).
The snake symbolism in the stories of the
Egyptian plagues and the bronze serpent is
representative of traditional Near Eastern
associations with the snake. In Exod 4:1-5
(JE) and 7:8-13 (P) as a sign of Yahweh’s
power, Moses’ and Aaron's rod tum into
venomous snakes (néha§ and tannín, re-
spectively). In the JE story the magical
transformation serves to show the Israelites
that Yahweh has indeed revealed himself to
—Moses, while in the P story the transfor-
mation is à sign to Pharaoh of Yahweh's
might. The common Near Eastern resonance
of this scene is shown in the P story when
the Egyptian magicians also transform their
rods into snakes; Yahweh’s greater might is
demonstrated only in that his snake devours
the Egyptian snakes. The association of
venomous snakes with magic is part of the
implicit sense of these passages, an asso-
cjation with which Israelite authors seem
familiar (e.g. Ps 58:5-6). In the story of the
bronze serpent in Num 21:4-9 (JE), Yahweh
commands Moses to construct a snake statue
mounted on a standard to cure the deadly
bites of the Sérapim (lit. ‘buming’) snakes.
When the Israelites see the statue, their bites
are healed. Here also is a traditional associa-
tion of the snake in its symbolic use in healing
rites for venomous snake bites. Yahweh is the
deity responsible for healing through the sym-
bolic instrument of the bronze snake (néhas
néhoset—note the assonance in the ritual
phrase). Due apparently to a reevaluation of
the ritual objects associated with Yahweh,
Hezekiah destroys the bronze serpent in 2
Kgs 18:4. In this passage the snake image is
associated with idolatrous, non-Yahwistic
worship, though it is more likely that the
snake was a traditional sign of Yahweh’s
healing power (~Nebushtan).
In Isaiah’s initiatory vision in Isajah 6,
the prophet sees Sérdpim (lit. ‘burning
ones’) in Yahweh’s heavenly temple. These
creatures have faces, legs, and six wings;
they fly and chant praises to Yahweh. It is
possible that these are winged snake-beings,
like the §4rap-snakes of other passages (note
the 'flying' $àáràp-snakes of Isa 14:29 and
30:6, and cf. Herodotus 2.75 on flying
snakes in the Arabian desert). While depic-
tions of the winged Uraeus serpent are com-
mon in seals of this period, it may be more
likely that these "burning ones' in Isaiah's
vision are variants of the 'fiery' lesser dei-
ties found in other passages who. are
members of Yahweh’s divine assembly
(Angel(s), Host of Heaven). The closest
parallels are to other divine fiery beings
such as ‘his servants, —fire «and» flame?
(Ps 104:4), the creature resep (lit. ‘burning’,
cf >Resheph) who accompanies Yahweh,
and the enigmatic ‘flame of the whirling
sword' who, with the —Cherubim, guards
the way to the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24).
Also related may be Ezekiel’s vision of fire
moving among the heavenly Cherubim and
God’s fiery presence in Ezek 1. Since the
‘burning ones? of Isaiah’s vision are not
overtly depicted as snakes (note that all the
attestations of Sarap-snakes are explicitly
marked by other words for snakes), and
since the prophet remarks on other features
of their bizarre appearance, it is perhaps
more likely that they are fiery beings than
snake-beings.
The most interesting biblical snake with
mythological associations is the snake
(nàhàs$) in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3). This
snake is identified as belonging to the class
of ‘creatures of the field that Yahweh God
had made’, though it is distinguished from
the other animals by his greater ‘cleverness’
(Gen 3:1). This clever animal plays the role
of the trickster in the Eden story, skilfully
deceiving the Woman into disobeying the
divine command concerning the fruit of the
Tree of Life. Cross-cultural studies have
shown that trickster figures characteristically
are ambiguous figures who cross or blur the
accepted categories of existence. The snake
in Eden is true to his trickster identity 1n
crossing or blurring the boundaries between
the categories of animal, human, and divine.
While the snake is defined as an animal, he
is also different from them with respect to
his knowledge or cleverness. In addition,
like à human, the snake has the power of
746
SERPENT
speech (cf. Gen 2:19-20 in which the power
of naming clearly differentiates human from
animal), and he tricks the Woman through
this characteristically human ability. Unlike
the humans, but like God, the snake knows
that the humans will not die upon eating the
forbidden fruit, but will become ‘like the
gods, knowing good and evil’ (Yahweh God
acknowledges that this is the case in Gen
3:22). Hence the snake is an animal, but is
like humans with respect to the power of
language, and is like the gods with respect
to secret knowledge. The snake’s identity
partakes and combines, in complex measure,
characteristics of these three distinct cate-
gories of being. The effect of the snake's
actions are correspondingly coloured by
multiple meanings and ambiguity. While the
human transgression is depicted as sinful, it
also brings the human a greater, divine-like
knowledge: their eyes are indeed ‘opened’
(though what is gained—knowledge of
nakedness—seems ironic and obscure). Like
tricksters of other traditions (cf. Prometheus
and Epimetheus of Greek tradition), the
boon of the trickster is both a benefit and a
loss, for which humans pay the price. The
choice of a venomous snake for this trickster
figure seems predicated on traditional Near
Eastern associations with the snake: asso-
ciations with danger and death, with magic
and secret knowledge, with rejuvenation and
immortality. and with sexuality. It is also
possible that the snake’s association with the
nude goddess in Canaanite iconography lies
behind the scene of the snake and the naked
woman (who is called in Gen 3:20 *Mother
of all Life’, seemingly a goddess epithet) in
the divine garden.
IV. In post-biblical interpretive traditions
the biblical snakes, particularly the bronze
serpent and the snake in Eden, are common-
ly drawn into new frameworks of meaning.
In the New Testament, the lifting up of the
bronze serpent is a symbol of Christ, the
saviour lifted up on the cross who grants life
(John 3:14-15). In Philo the bronze serpent
is a symbol of the power of self-control,
which wards off the temptation of sensual
pleasure, represented by the snake in Eden
(Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2.71-82). The snake in
Eden also comes to be associated in both
Jewish and Christian traditions with -*Satan,
through whose envy death came into the
world (possibly Wis 2:24 and Rev 12:9;
morc clearly in Apoc. Mos. 16-19, Justin,
Dial. 124, Origen, Princ. 3.2.1, and com-
monly in Rabbinic literature). In the anti-
thetical exegesis of Gnostic traditions, the
snake in Eden is viewed as a figure of
—Christ, effecting spiritual liberation from
the oppression of the earthly demiurge
(Testimony of Truth 9.45-49), a view that
irritated Irenaeus and other patristic authors
(Irenaeus, Haer. 1.30.15).
V. Bibliography
H. W. ATTRIDGE & R. A. ODEN, Philo of
Byblos: The Phoenician History (CBQMS 9;
Washington DC 1981) 63-69; J. BLACK &
A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and Symbols of
Ancient Mesopotamia (Austin 1992) 166-
168; H.-J. Fasry, nahas, TWAT 5 (1986)
384-397; N. FonsvrH, The Old Enemy:
Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton
1987) 223-242, cf. (rev.) H. A. Kelly, Jour-
nal of American Folklore 103 (1990) 77-84;
L. GtnZBERG, The Legends of the Jews 5
(Philadelphia 1909-1938) 94-124; E. Hor-
NUNG, Conceptions of God in Ancient
Egypt: The One and the Many (Ithaca 1982)
160-179; K. R. Joines, Serpent Symbolism
in the Old Testament (Haddonfield 1974);
O. KEEL, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst
(SBS 84/85; Stuttgart 1977) 110-124; B. A.
LEVINE & J.-M. DE TARRAGON, ‘Shapshu
Cries Out in Heaven’: Dealing with Snake-
Bites at Ugarit (KTU 1.100, 1.107), RB 95
(1988) 481-518; W. A. MAIER, ’Aserah:
Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37: Atlanta
1986) 81-191; P. DE MIROSCHED/I, Lc dieu
élamite au serpent et aux jaillissantes, /rAnt
16 (1981) 1-25; W. H. Propp, Eden
Sketches, The Hebrew Bible and lts Inter-
preters (eds. W. H. Propp, B. Halpem & D.
N. Freedman; Winona Lake 1990) 197-200;
L. STÖRK, Schlange, LAÄ 5 (1984) 644-652;
H. N. WALLACE, The Eden Narrative (HSM
32; Atlanta 1985) 147-181.
R. S. HENDEL
747
SERUG — SETH
SERUG 272
|. It has been speculated that the bibli-
cal figure of Serug, a relative of the Israelite
patriarchs (Gen 11:20-23), bears the name of
the city Sarug known from first millennium
cuneiform sources. The city, in turn, would
have been named after a deity (Lewy 1934).
II. There is no extra-biblical evidence
whatsoever attesting to the cult of a god
Serug (or Sarug). Lewy's argument is based
on circular reasoning. He writes: "In view of
the evidence that the cities of Harràn,
Nahur, and Sarüg bear the names of ancient
deities ... it is permitted to conclude that the
parents of the patriarchs in Western Mes-
opotamia are, at least in part, ancient West-
Semitic deities that have later been invested
with a human nature" (Lewy 1934 [tr.
KvdT]). The evidence he refers to is non-
existent. Also, the theory seems to be in-
debted more to the once popular view of
Genesis as a euhemeristic account of ancient
Semitic religion, than to a dispassionate
study of the texts.
III. Though the connection between thc
anthroponym Serug and the cityname Sarug
is attractive (compare the case of -*Haran,
both the name of a relative of Abraham and
of a West-Mesopotamian city), it does not
follow that Sarug is the name of a deity.
IV. Bibliography
R. S. Hess, Serug, ABD 5 (1992) 1117-
1118; J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens et
l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 47-48.
K. VAN DER TOORN
SETH
I. A number of oblique references to
the Eyptian god Seth have been found in the
description of the hippopotamus (->Behe-
moth) in the Book of Job.
II. Seth (26) is the Greek transcription
of Eg Sth, son of Geb and Nut, and brother
and rival of -*Osiris. According to the
Osiris mythology, known from allusions in
Egyptian ritual texts and in its full-fledged
form from the account of Plutarch (ca. 60-
120 ce), Scth is responsible for the untimely
death of Osiris. The son of Osiris, Horus,
avenges his father by slaying his murderer.
Seth is in many ways the opposite of Horus:
whereas Horus is the god of the clear skies,
Seth is the god of storm and darkness. In
that capacity he has been equated with
Baal at an early date. In addition to the
struggle between Seth and Horus on account
of Osiris, there are many references in the
Egyptian tradition to various other contests
of the two. A widely found motif has Horus
robbed of his eyes by Seth, and Seth of his
testes by Horus; the mythical motif has been
interpreted as a homosexual assault by Seth
on Horus (TE VELDE 1967). A cosmogoni-
cal interpretation is also possible, though.
In the Egyptian tradition, Seth is in-
creasingly seen as the god of the foreign
lands. Beside the identification with Baal,
Seth has been identified as well with
Teshub, the Hittite storm god. Because of
his foreign associations, Seth came to be a
symbol of the forces of chaos and evil. He
was identified with —^Typhon by the Greeks.
III. A number of authors have suggested
that the confrontation between -Yahweh
and Behemoth in Job 40:15-24[10-19] is
patterned upon the battle of Horus (Yahweh)
against Seth (Behemoth). The description of
Behemoth, then, would reflect aspects of
Seth (RUPRECHT 1971; KEEL 1978; KUBINA
1979). The basis for the alleged parallelism
is the fact that in some Egyptian texts the
red hippopotamus symbolizes Seth
(RUPRECHT 1971:213). Other facets would
corroborate the hypothesis. Thus the bones
“like iron bars” which Behemoth is said to
possess (Job 40:18) are reminiscent of the
“bones of Seth” mentioned in the Pyramid
texts and by Manetho (LANG 1980).
The tentative parallel! between Behemoth
and Seth has proved productive for the inter-
pretation of the relevant passage, but
remains hypothetical. In its defence it may
be said that -^Leviathan, too, is probably
modelled on a divine figure—known from
the Ugaritic texts, though. not the Egyptian.
Also, in the poetic description of Behemoth
there are a significant number of traits that
cannot very well apply to a mere animal:
Behemoth does have supernatural dimen-
748
SEVEN — SHADDAY
sions. Whether these considerations justify
its identification with Seth is uncertain. On
the whole, the association between Seth and
the hippopotamus seems to have been a
secondary aspect of the god’s mythology.
IV. Bibliography
J. Gwyn GrirritHs, The Conflict of Horus
and Seth (Liverpool 1960); O. KEEL,
Jahwes Entgegnung an ljob (Gottingen
1978) 127-141; V. KuBiNA, Die Gottesre-
den im Buche Hiob (Freiburg 1979) 68-76;
B. LANG, Job XL 18 and the "Bones of
Seth", VT 30 (1980) 360-361; E. Rv-
PRECHT, Das Nilpferd im Hiobbuch, VT 21
(1971) 209-231; H. TE VELDE, Seth, God of
Confusion (Leiden 1967).
K. vAN DER TOORN
SEVEN — APKALLU
SHA và
I. Sha' has been construed as a theo-
phoric element in the common West Semitic
name Elisha. The identity of the deity is
unclear. Albright related the name with the
Aramean form of the moongod: Si' —Sin
(AVIGAD 1964:190).
II. An identification of Sha with the
moongod Si! or Sin is unlikely; because the
rendering of Sin in West Semitic alphabetic
scripts is always ? with an ’dleph and never
i* (TicAv 1986:81). A deity Sha‘ is not
attested in cuneiform or West Semitic
inscriptions. In the Hebrew personal names
known from epigraphical material: 3*ybb
(AVIGAD 1964:190-191 + Pl 44 A), snp
(ed. HESTRIN & Davaai 1978:No. 85) and
[...]§* (ed. AvIGAD 1986:No. 182) Sha‘ has
been construed as a _ theophoric name
(AviGAD 1964:190). There is no compelling
reason, however, to interpret 3* as a theo-
phoric element. The element can alternative-
ly be construed as a noun meaning 'salva-
tion’ or as a verbal form derived from v$* or
Sw' II. The same must be said concerning
the Ammonite personal name Pb'ly$* (ed.
HERR 1985).
III. It would be strange if the name of the
prophet Elisha were to contain a theophoric
element referring to a non-Israelite deity.
This, however, is not a convincing argument
against the existence of the deity Sha‘. The
linguistic analysis of the name makes the
assumption of Sha‘ as a theophoric element
improbable. The name 'elijà' should be
construed either as ‘my god helps’, or as
‘my god is noble’ (BECKING 1993).
IV. Bibliography
N. AVIGAD, Seals and Sealings, /EJ 14
(1964) 190-194; AviGAD, Hebrew Bullae
From the Time of Jeremiah (Jerusalem
1986); B. BEckING, Elisha: "Sha! is my
God"?, ZAW 106 (1994) 113-116; L. G.
Herr, The Servant of Baalis, BA 48 (1985)
169-172; R. HesTRIN & M. Dayaai-
MENDELS, Hétamét mimé Bayit Ri'3ón
(Jerusalem 1978); J. H. Ticay, You Shall
Have No Other Gods. Israelite Religion in
the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31;
Atlanta 1986).
B. BECKING
SHADDAY "3
I. Shadday is an abbreviation for 'el
Sad(d)ay, “God of the Wilderness”. The
name occurs 48 times in the OT; the occur-
rence in Job 19:29 is disputed. The longer
form is attested 7 times: Gen 17:1; 28:3;
35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Exod 6:3; Ezek 10:5;
Sadday on its own occurs 41 times: Gen
49:25; Num 24:4.16; Ruth 1:20.21; Isa 13:6;
Ezek 1:24; Ps 68:15; 91:1 and 31 times in
Job. The deity is attested as a theophoric
element in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Phoenician
and Thamudic personal names from the Late
Bronze Age onwards.
A convincing etymology has until now
not been offered (a nearly complete list of
various etymologies for El Shadday is given
by WEIPPERT 1976; two additions are dis-
cussed by KNAUF 1985:97 n. 4; see now
NiEHR & STEINS 1993:1080-1082). On the
basis of the equation between Akk Sadn,
‘mountain’, and Heb šadday—first proposed
by F. DeLrmzscH (Assyrisches Handwörter-
buch (Leipzig 1896) 642-643)—and in view
of the Akk noun Sadda’wSaddit’a, ‘inhabit-
ant of the mountain’, a rendering of Sadday
749
SHADDAY
with ‘He of the mountain’ has been widely
accepted (e.g. W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and
the Gods of Canaan (London 1968] 94; F.
M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic [Cambridge 1973] 52-60). An Egyptian
etymology—as offered by M. Gónc (BN 16
[1981] 13-15)— yields too many phonetic
problems (KNAUF 1985:97 n. 4; NIEHR &
STEINS 1993:1082).
However, the theophoric element in the
Thamudic personal name */Sdy presupposes
an original *Saday, the first consonant cor-
rectly to be rendered by /s/ in Late Egyptian,
and by /3/ in Ugaritic, Phoenician and Israel-
ite (KNAUF 1990). Both Akkadian Sadi, ‘the
mountain wilderness (as seen from the culti-
vated alluvial land along the rivers -*Tigris
and -*Euphrates) and Biblical Hebrew
$adeh, ‘the (uncultivated) field’, i.e. the area
of hunting (cf. e.g. Gen 25:27; 27:3, and the
opposition béhémd — hayit haffddeh, e.g.
Gen 2:20; 3:14) go back to the root Spy.
Any El Shadday is, therefore, a ‘god of the
wilderness’ and can be connected with the
iconographical motive of the ‘lord of the
animals’. In Judaean (and hence, Biblical)
Hebrew, El Shadday is a ‘loan-word’ from
Israelite; otherwise, one would expect
*faday (note that the initial š predates the
Masoretic pointing system as evidenced by
the puns in Gen 49:25; Isa 13:6; Joel 1:15).
II. Late Bronze Age attestations of this
deity (or group of deities) include §3-d-I-‘-m-y
*Saday‘ammi “Shadday is my paternal rela-
tive” (SCHNEIDER 1992:195-196), a name
still to be found in Achaemenid Egypt
(Sd‘m, KORNFELD 1978:72); in Ugaritic,
possibly bʻišd (*Ba‘luSada? (GRÖNDAHL
1967:191-192); and KTU 1.108:12 ’ilu Sadi
yaşidu, “El Shadi is hunting” (LORETZ 1980;
NIEHR & STEINS 1993:1080). The expres-
sion can also be read as: "ilu šadā yasidu
“El, in the wilderness he is hunting”, then
too El acts as an El Shadday.
Epigraphical references from the Iron
Age include the 3dyn-gods interceding with
El on behalf of the people of Sukkoth in the
presumably Israelite (KNAUF 1990) Tell
Deir ‘Alla inscription (WEIPPERT & WEIP-
PERT 1982:88-92), and ’/§dy in a Thamudic
inscription from the vicinity of Taymà' (JS
255, Sth-3rd centuries BCE; KNAUF 1981).
Prosopographic attestations are scarce: in
addition to Egyptian Aramaic 3d*m, there are
'bd'$d' and 'bd$d' in Punic (BENz 1972:
414).
III. The biblical references to El Shadday
or Shadday are, in their present form, exilic
or, Mostly, post-exilic. (El) Shadday is con-
sistently used as an epithet for -Yahweh
(with the sole exception of Job 19:29, where
the *Sadayin (Ketib, same form as in epi-
graphical Israelite) may be mentioned as
revenger gods). These references contribute
little to a clarification of the nature of this
group of gods prior to the second half of the
first millennium BCE.
Of possible Israelite origin are Gen 49:25
and Ps 68:15. In Jacob’s blessing of Joseph,
Gen 49:25, El Shadday (txt. em. for ’et Sdy)
parallels “the god of your father” (the father
being Jacob, ‘god’ refers presumably to
Yahweh, the "abbír Ya'ágób; -Mighty One
of Jacob; cf. KOCKERT 1988:63). If Yahweh
is responsible for “the blessings from the
skies above", El Shadday may be connected
with “the blessings of the primordial waters
that lie beneath”. Gen 49:23-24 presupposes
military encounters not earlier than the
Oth/8th centuries BCE; the reference to the
"blessings of —breasts and womb" (v 25)
presupposes the elimination of the Goddess
from Israelite/Judaean religion, and dates the
present form of Jacob's blessing in the after-
math of Hosea and his followers (KNAUF
1981:23-24; KóckrEnRT 1988:66-67) The
“breasts” (Heb Sadayim, root TDy; but note
that Shadday does not mean ‘breast(s)’ pace
P. DHorME, RB 31 [1922] 230-231) may
have crept into the verse as an allusion to El
Shadday; in this case, they testify to the re-
etymologization of the god's name already
in what may form its first biblical attesta-
tion. Jacob's, i.e. (northern) Israel's special
connection with El Shadday may also be
referred to in Gen 43:14, part of the Jerusa-
lemite Joseph-novella of the late 8th or early
7th century BCE. Another possibly Israelite
text in Judaean reception may be repre-
sented by Ps 68. In its present form, the
750
SHADDAY
hymn is post-exilic (cf. especially vv 2-8.10-
11.17.29-36). The basic theme of Jerusalem-
centered gólá theology, however, is embel-
lished by quotations from ancient Israelite
traditions as, e.g., the song of Deborah (vv
9.14.28). Ps 68:15—connecting Shadday
with snow on mount Zalmon (Jabal ad-
Drüz)—may allude to another possibly
Israelite tradition.
In Judaean texts, El Shadday is predomi-
nantly defined by the use which P made of
the name. P (6th-Sth centuries BCE) formu-
lates a theory about ‘salvation history’
according to which Yahweh revealed him-
self to Abraham, Isaac and —>Jacob, but
not yet under his ‘real’ name (Gen 17:1;
28:3; 35:11; Exod 6:3). P takes into account
that the God who revealed himself to Abra-
ham must also have been known to Ishmael
and -*Esau (whose descendants in the 6th
century BCE did not betray any signs of
orthodox Yahwism). In this case, P may
refer to the wide range of this god’s spatial
distribution (see above). The author of the
book of Job (late 6th-Sth centuries BCE) fol-
lows P's historical theory closely when he
puts Shadday into the mouths of Job and his
friends, given the Arabian locale and the
patriarchal traits of his hero. Since the Pen-
tateuch originated as a 'dialogue', if not
compromise between conflicting traditions
(BLuM 1990), P's ‘El Shadday’ refers also
to the various ‘El-gods’ in the JE tradition
(>E! Roi, >El Olam). Whereas the JE tra-
dition may have intended to facilitate the
identification of gods also worshipped in
post-exilic Palestine or its environs with
Yahweh (cf. DE Pury 1989; KNAUF 1991:
25-26), P insists that the ‘era of syncretism’
is past, and that, Moses having spoken,
the allegiance of every Israelite is due to
Yahweh alone.
In Ezek 10:5—hence Shadday in Ezek
1:24, missing in the LXX—El Shadday is a
£od whose voice is comparable to a con-
siderable storm. In ké3ód mis$adday yab&’
(referring to the day of Yahweh) Isa 13:6 =
Joel 1:15 (6th-4th centuries BCE), Shadday is
re-ctymologized by the root Spp. This
understanding of the name may also have
influenced the use of Shadday (as the
“violen/powerful” god) in Ruth 1:20-21 and
Ps 91:1. For Num 24:4.16, Shadday is just
another epithet for Yahweh like El or
-*Elyon (contrary to the widely held opinion
of the archaic character of Balaam’s oracles,
TiMM 1989). In the biblical references,
Shadday is a rather universal/cosmic god;
not a single attestation refers to the level of
‘family religion’ (pace ALBERTZ 1992:56).
or links him specifically with Abraham or
his clan (pace KNAUF 1985).
In the fictitious list of the heads of Israel-
ite clans in Num 1 (P5), three names contain
the element Shadday: Shede'ur, father of
Elizur, from Reuben (v 5); Zurishaddai,
father of Shelumi’el, from Shimcon (v 6);
and Ammishadday, father of Ahiezer, from
Dan. The list, transmitted within a post-
exilic literary context, contains orthographi-
cally late features (like pdhswr v 10). No-
thing corroborates the view that this late list
contains ancient traditions (cf. already KEL-
LERMANN 1970:155-159). The fact that all
three Shadday-names appear in the gener-
ation preceding Moses’ contemporaries sug-
gests that the list was constructed in accord-
ance with Exod 6:3 (P).
The biblical authors used an archaic deity
(still worshipped, however, in Arabia at the
time of their writing) according to their pur-
poses; they do not testify to an ancient, or
widespread, cult of that deity among tribal
Israelites or Judaeans, and they contribute
little to our knowledge of the nature of that
deity before it entered the literary process.
That much is clear from the erroneous ety-
mologies involved in the puns employed by
these authors: Toy in Gen 49:25, Spp in Isa
13:6; Joel 1:15. A third aberrant etymology
may have led to the Massoretic form with
lengthened /d/: *šad-day “which is suf-
ficient” (cf. hikanos as the ‘translation’ of
Shadday in some instances in the LXX).
Although it is always difficult to identify
divine characters from iconographic sources
and to equate them with deities known from
written material, an attempt will be made to
connect some iconographicaly known
figures with (El) Shadday. The cffort is
751
SHADDAY
made under the assumption that with the
emergence of the plough and incipient state-
hood, the ‘Great Goddess’ of the Neolithic
period gave way to a male head of the pan-
theon (El) and his active son, the weather-
god. The goddess was marginalized as
‘mistress of the animals’, a ‘goddess of the
wilderness’ (bélet séri; in Ugarit, *ttrt 3d,
KTU 4.182:55; 1.91:10, cf. Dav 1992; for
the iconography of the ‘mistress of animals’
in Palestine during the Middle and Late
Bronze ages see KEEL & UEHLINGER 1992:
25, 53, 62). The (neolithic or even pre- neo-
lithic) ‘lord of the beasts/god of the wilder-
ness’ survived in marginal groups (cf. KEEL
& UEHLINGER 1992:206 and see also above
for the LB references to El Shadday) and
made a powerful come-back in the 12th to
the 8th centuries as ‘lord of the scorpions’
(KEEL & UEHLINGER 1992:132, 147), who
developed into a ‘lord of the ostriches’ in
Israel and Judah (KEEL & UEHLINGER
1992:157-158, 196-199, 205) and ‘lord of
Capridae’ in Isracl (KeeL & UEHLINGER
1992:206, 317). The desert god connected
with the ostriches might be related to
Yahweh, who, however, is just one of the
‘lords of the beasts’ seen in a wider context
(not restricted to the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah). Although the ‘goddess of the wilder-
ness’ lost her prominence during the early
Iron Age (but did not completely disappear),
it is significant that at Tell Deir ‘Alla the
Shadday-deities act as lesser gods within a
pantheon that is dominated by two god-
desses, Shagar and Ashtart. If the national
deity Yahweh was present in the local pan-
theon of Sukkoth at all, he must have been
included among the ‘gods of the wilderness’.
In the Iron IIC and III periods, i.e. under
Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian rule, the
iconographic motive of the ‘lord of the
beasts’ was swallowed up by imperial pro-
paganda presenting the ‘king of kings’ as
victor over the chaos of the wild (KEEL &
UEHLINGER 1992:330-301.434.438). For the
period in which the Bible was written, El
Shadday (the ‘lord of the beasts’) was in-
deed a memory from a time that had passed,
surviving only at the fringes of Palestine
among, e.g. the Edomites (cf. KEEL & UEH-
LINGER 1992:444). El Shadday may thus
serve as a prime example of the long way
that a deity from ancient Canaan and early
Israel had to go until it became an item of
OT theology, and of the impossibility of
drawing conclusions from this theology
regarding the reality of religion in the late
2nd and early first millennium BCE—there
were no contemporary inscriptions and pic-
tures to elucidate the life and reality of what
was only a faint memory, and a tradition only
half understood, for the biblical authors.
In the LXX Sadday has been rendered
with various words and expressions. In the
Old Greek version of Job, the rendition (6)
ravtokpátop, '(the) -*Almighty', is pre-
dominant. This translation—to be inter-
preted against its contemporary Hellenistic
religious and philosophical background—
together with its Latin cognate, omnipotens,
opened the way for theological speculations
concerning omnipotence as a divine at-
tribute.
IV. Bibliography
R. ALBERTZ, Religionsgeschichte Israels in
alttestamentlicher Zeit, Vol. 1 (Góttingen
1992); F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the
Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (StP 8;
Rome 1972); E. BLUM, Studien zur Kompo-
sition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin
New York 1990); F. GRONDAHL, Die Per-
sonennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (StP 1;
Rome 1967); P. L. Day, Anat: Ugarit's
“Mistress of Animals”, JNES 51 (1992)
181-190; O. KEEL & C. UEHLINGER, Göt-
tinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue
Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Ka-
naans und Israels aufgrund bislang uner-
schlossener ikonographischer Quellen (Frei-
burg/Basel/Wien 1992); D. KELLERMANN,
Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10
literarkritisch und — traditionsgeschichtlich
untersucht (BZAW 120; Berlin 1970); E. A.
KNaur, El Saddai, BN 16 (1981) 20-26;
KNaUF, El Saddai - der Gott Abrahams? BZ
29 (1985) 97-103; KNauF, War Biblisch-
Hebräisch eine Sprache? Empirische
Gesichtspunkte zur Annäherung an die
Sprache der althebräischen Literatur, ZAH 3
752
SHAHAN
(1990) 11-23; KNauF, Dushara and Shai’ al-
Qaum. Yhwh und Baal. Dieu, Lectio
difficilior probabilior? L’exégése comme
expérience de décloisonnement. Mélanges
offerts à Frangoise Smyth-Florentin (ed. T.
Rómer; DBAT Beih. 12; Heidelberg 1991)
19-29; M. KÖCKERT, Vätergott und Väter-
verheissungen (FRLANT 142; Göttingen
1988); W. KORNFELD, Onomastica Aram-
aica aus Ägypten (Wien 1978); O. LORETZ,
Der kanaanäische Ursprung des biblischen
Gottesnamens El Saddaj, UF 12 (1980) 420-
421; H. Nienr & G. Steins, šaddaj, TWAT
7 (1993) 1078-1104; A. DE Pury, Le cycle
de Jacob comme légende autonome des ori-
gines d'Israél, Congress Volume | Leuven
(SVT 43; Leiden 1989) 78-96: T. SCHNEI-
DER, Asiatische Personennamen in dgyp-
tischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches (OBO
114; Fribourg/Göttingen 1992); S. TIMM,
Moab zwischen den Mächten. Studien zu
historischen Denkmälern und Texten (Wies-
baden 1989); H. WEIPPERT & M. WEIPPERT,
Die "Bileam"-Inschrift von Tell Dér *Allà,
ZDPV 98 (1982) 77-103; M. WEIPPERT,
Saddaj (Gottesname), THAT II (1976) 873-
881.
E. A. KNAUF
SHAHAN
I. In the biblical toponym Beth-shean
GRJ- or JOT, Josh 17:11.16; Judg
1:27; 1 Sam 31:10.12; 2 Sam 21:12; 1 Kgs
4:12; 1 Chr 7:29), Jirku detected a ref-
erence to the Babylonian deity Sahan
(1926:84).
If. In Old Babylonian texts the god
Sahan occurs a number of times as theo-
phoric element in personal names and place-
names; it is always preceded by the divine
determinative (references KREBERNIK 1984).
So far, only one independent attestation of
the deity is known. One Warad-Sahan refers
to himself in the inscription on his cylinder
seal as “servant of the god Sahan” (YOS 14
no. 68). Little is known about the deity.
Though identified once with the god Irhan
(Euphrates), the two are to be distin-
guished; confusion could arise because 4/r-
ha-an has sometimes mistakenly been read
as SSa-ha-an.
Ill. A connection of Sahan with the el-
ement §@an or šan in the place name Beth-
shan is unlikely on more than one count.
The element Shan could reflect the name of
a god: Egyptian writings of the name (btsir,
Ges.!8 148) sometimes denote the last el-
ement as a foreign deity by including the
‘inverted legs’ sign (S. Ayrruv, Canaanite
Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents
[Jerusalem 1984] 78-79). Such a qualifi-
cation could also be explained, though, if
the Egyptian rendering were to go back to
Heb bét-Sé’6l, ‘Necropolis’, since the nether-
world (-*Shcol) and the —dead could both
be ascribed divine status. The name Beth-
shan (‘House of rest’) would then have to be
considered as a cuphemistic correction of
the original toponym (SEEBAss 1979:170).
Should Shan nevertheless refer to a god, the
toponym would compare to such names as
Beth-Dagon, Bethel, and Beth-Horon. Yet
the god could hardly be identified with
Sahan. Phonetically, it is difficult to con-
ceive that a hard guttural such as the Akkad-
ian h should become a mere aleph in
Hebrew, or be Soppe altogether (note that
the reference to °Sa-an quoted by Jirku
1927 cannot be sustained; a reading An-Sa-
an is more likely). There is, however, a
more satisfying solution to the etymology of
Beth-shan. The root $N is well attested in
the Semitic languages, and has the meaning
‘to be peaceful, quict’. Beth-shan is there-
fore most likely to be interpreted as ‘House
of rest’ (HALAT 1280).
IV. Bibliography
A. JiRKU, Zur Gütterwelt Paliistinas und
Syriens, Sellin-Festschrift. Beitrdge zur Reli-
gionsgeschichte und Archiologie Paldstinas
(ed. A. Jirku; Leipzig 1927) 83-86, esp. 83-
84; M. KnEBERNIK, Die Beschwórungen aus
Fara und Ebla (Hildesheim 1984) 333-334
n. 185; H. SkeEnass, Der israelitische Name
der Burcht von Bésàn und der Name Beth
Schean, ZDPV 95 (1979) 166-172.
K. VAN DER TOORN
753
SHAHAR
SHAHAR “mg
I. In the Hebrew Bible šahar “dawn”
appears in a variety of prose and poetic texts
(23 times), in three personal names, a place-
name, and the superscription of a psalm. It
is possible that a few of these were under-
stood to allude to a deity. Cognates of Sahar
occur as a divine name at Ugarit (Shr), at
Emar (Sahru, Emar nos. 369:24, 52; 371:
10), and in Old South Arabic (Sir), and may
be interpreted as referring to a deity in per-
sonal names in various Semitic languages.
The Akkadian cognate, Séru, may refer
specifically to the morning star and as such
occurs as a deity in several personal names,
e.g. Sérum-malik, Sérum-tukulti, Sérum-ili
(AHW 1219a). In West Semitic texts of the
first millennium Shr (the f. form, srt, in
Moabite) appears only as a common noun
except in personal names, where its function
is often ambiguous. It is clearly theophoric
in such names as ‘bdshr (Punic).
H. The Ugaritic Shr, used with the
meanings “dawn” and “tomorrow”, also
sometimes refers to “the morning star” as a
deity. In the god list KTU? 1.123:11 3hr w
ilm (Shahru wa Shalimu, "Dawn and Dusk"
or "Morning Star and Evening Star") appear
among several divine pairs. They reappear
with some of the same pairs in KTi
1.107:43, in which they join the Sun-god-
dess in collecting snake venom. In KTU?
1.100:52, along with several of the same
gods, they fail to dispose of the snake's
venom. KTU? 1.23:49-54 recounts their
siring by >El, their birth, and their place-
ment with the sun(-goddess) and —>stars.
Their residence is also given as the
heavens in KTU2 1.100:52. It is moot
whether the Shahru and Shalimu of KTU2
1.23.49-54 are identical with the lovely and
beautiful, but also cruel and voracious, gods
who are the chief subject of the text. Like
the sun, dawn/the morning star has links
both with the heavens and the underworld.
At Emar, Sahru appears alongside under-
world deities as the object of offerings
(Emar no. 369:24-25). The same Emar text
also links Sahru with the storm god. The
Hurrian (and eventually Hittite) deities,
Sheri and Hum (Day and ->Night), may
share some features with Shr w Slm. They
are portrayed as the divine bulls that pull the
storm god’s chariot and intercede with him
on behalf of supplicants. Old South Arabic
Shr is often found in collocation with
*Athtar and with a -*dragon's head as asso-
ciated symbol.
III. In prose and in onc poetic passage
(Hos 10:15) Sahar appears in temporal ref-
erences, but in several poetic passages in the
Bible it has been claimed that Sahar refers
to a deity. Unfortunately, so little is known
of the mythology of Shahru that such al-
lusions cannot be demonstrated; and in most
contexts it seems likely that the Israclite
poets are using poetic expressions without
assuming divine associations.
As a natural phenomenon Sahar was cre-
ated by God (Amos 4:13) who gave it its
allotted place, as implied in the rhetorical
question of Job 38:12. Despite the mytholo-
gical allusions of the surrounding verses, the
personification of dawn in Job 38:13, which
speaks of it taking the edges of the earth as
if it were a cloth and shaking off the
wicked, is probably to be understood as a
poetic portrayal of the disappearance of noc-
turnal miscreants at the break of day. Dawn
is also personified in a single clause in Ps
57:9 = 108:3: “I will wake up dawn!" The
context of both verses is an extended, en-
thusiastic announcement of praise to God, in
which harp and lyre are also called upon to
"wake up".
In four texts Sahar is used in a simile. It
is an image of a bride looking down (i.e.
from a window; Cant 6:10; the parallel
terms for "sun" and —"moon" avoid the
nouns that are also used of dcities); the
crack of dawn is an image of the inaugur-
ation of a new era (Isa 58:8); the coming of
dawn is an image of what is reliable (Hos
6:3; also 1QH 4.6); the spread of dawn
across the hills is an image of an invading
hoard (of locusts; Joel 2:2). An actual—
rather than a deified—dawn serves as a per-
fect image in all these cases, with the poss-
ible exception of Cant 6:10; and there a
goddess would fit better than a god.
754
SHALEM
Job prays that the day of his birth might
not see the “eyelids of dawn” (some insist
that ‘p‘pym means “eyes”; Job 3:9). This
refers not to a detail of a divine image, but
to opening eyelids as a poetic image of the
first appearance of light on the horizon. The
same expression appears as an image of
—Leviathan's eyes (Job 41:10). Ps 139:9
refers to the Kanpé ("wings" or "skirts") of
dawn (opposed to the remotest sea)—i.e. the
eastern (as opposed to the western) edge of
the world. While the context refers to
mythological cosmology, the parallelism
does not suggest divine associations.
Finally, in Isa 14 former rulers now in the
underworld greet the fall of the king of
Babylon, recalling how he had said he
would erect his -*throne above the divine
stars (Kókébé ?'él) on the mount of assem-
bly in the far north and become like —Elyon
(vv 13-14). The clearly mythological refe-
rences in this passage suggest that the terms
in which he is addressed—Hélél ben Sahar
"Day Star, son of Dawn” (v 12)—are also
mythological. The divine Shahar may be the
father of the Morning Star in an unknown
myth, or the patronymic may be a poetic
conceit—thus LXX naturalizes it: "which
rises early" (similarly Vg).
The present context of each of these
verses generally allows them clear and rich
meaning without reference to the deity, and
there is no observable connection between
them and the few mythological data current-
y known concerning the extra-biblical
ahru. It remains possible, however, that
one or more of these expressions were tradi-
tionally associated with the deity, and that
such associations might be evoked in the
minds of those who knew of the deity or his
mythology.
Two late biblical names, ?áhisáliar (| Chr
7:10) and Sélaryá (1 Chr 8:26), probably
reflect the common noun (cf. the comparison
of Yahweh with the dawn in literary pas-
sages—c.g. Deut 33:2; Isa 60:1-2; Mal
3:20). The same is true of the several hypo-
coristica consisting only of the element Sir
found on inscriptions. The name Sahárayim
(1 Chr 8:8), if genuine, probably reflects the
time of the bearer's birth (M. Nori, IPN,
223 n. 5).
The remaining references are less clear.
In Isa 8:20 Sahar may be either the common
noun (“he shall have no dawn”) or possibly
a different word. A mythological reference
to the womb of Shahar(!) has been seen in
Ps 110:3, but the whole verse is obscure.
While it is possible that the deity is referred
to in the place name Seret hasSahar (Josh
13:19) and in the phrase "ayyelet hassaliar
"Hind of the Dawn" (in the superscription of
Ps 22:1) the reference in both is too uncer-
tain to warrant any commitment.
IV. Bibliography
G. pEL OLwo Ltrt, Mitos y Leyendas de
Canaan (Madrid 1981) 427-448; H. GESE,
M. HórNrR & K. RupoLpPH, RAAM 80-82,
168-169, 253, 271-272. 317; A. JiRKU,
"Ajjelet has-Sahar (Ps 22, ), ZAW 65 (1953)
85-86; J. W. McKay, Helel and the Dawn-
Goddess. A re-examination of the myth in
Isaiah XIV 12-15, VT 20 (1970) 451-464; S.
A. Meter, Shahar, ABD 5 (1992) 1150-
1151; J. H. TiGay, You Shall Have No Other
Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of
Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31; Atlanta 1986)
79 n. 26, 80; H. WILDBERGER, Jesaja
(BKAT X/2; Neukirchen 1978) 550-553.
S. B. PARKER
SHALEM C70
I. Shalem (presumably the divine
power symbolized by Venus as the Evening
Star) occurs as a deity (Slm/Salim) in the
texts from Ugarit and may well occur as a
divine name Salim/Salim in personal names
among the earliest known Semites of Mes-
opotamia and the later Amorites. Shalem is
interpreted as a divine name in the place
names Jerusalem (yérüsálaim) and Salem
(Sdlém), and is also interpreted as a theo-
phoric element in some personal names,
notably those of David's sons Absalom
(Absalém) and Solomon (Selómoóh).
JI. The brief Ugaritic mythological text
KTU 1.23, known as ‘The Gracious and
Beautiful Gods’, is the most important
source concerning the god Shalem. In this
755
SHALEM
text, primarily a fertility ritual, Salim (Even-
ing Star) is linked with Sahar (Morning
Star) as offspring of the head of the pan-
theon, -*El and two ‘women’ he en-
countered by the seashore. These two gods,
aspects of Athtar/Venus, are nursed by ‘the
Lady’, surely Anat or Athirat (7 Asherah),
and have insatiable appetites—'(one) lip to
the earth, (one) lip to the heavens', like
-*Mot. They symbolize the powerful new
life associated with the sacred marriage. In
other texts (KTU 1.100; 107) the two gods
are associated with the sun goddess. In the
texts from Ugarit, Shalem also occurs sep-
arately in the god lists (Ug Sim; Akk
Salimu). The occurrences of šlm/šalim in
personal names at Ugarit may be taken as a
divine name or as an epithet (RSP 3.487).
Attempts to characterize Shalem beyond the
evidence from Ugarit, e.g. as connected with
child sacrifice (STOLZ 1970:205-209), reflect
speculative reconstruction. The nature of
Shalem remains little known (HANDY 1992).
The earliest possible attestations of
Salim/Salim occur in Pre-Sargonic and
Sargonic personal names (GELB 1957:273;
Roserts 1972:51, 113). But in these names,
like the Old Assyrian and Amorite names
with Salim/Salim, one cannot clearly distin-
guish a divine epithet from an unmarked
divine name. (Many divine names, of
course, derive from epithets.) In many of the
personal names Salin/Salim can be inter-
preted as a deity (as known from Ugarit)—
although the element is not marked as a
divine name—or as a divine/human epithet,
*... the complete/healthy one’. In names
with kinship terms that presumably denote
.the name-bearer as a substitute for a de-
ceased family member, i.e. a substitution
name, SalinVsalim is an epithet of the child,
‘the/my ‘kin’ is healthy’ (Stam 1939:294-
295). The latest possible occurrences of the
West Semitic deity Salim, in Phoenician-
Punic personal names (BENZ 1972:417-
418), some of which are semantically equiv-
alent to the much earlier Sargonic names,
present the same problems in interpretation.
III. Shalem is not directly attested in the
Bible, although there are various possible
traces of this deity. Central to all recon-
structions is the place name, Jerusalem
(Yértigdla[yJim, ketiv Yértigalém), common-
ly interpreted as ‘Foundation of (the deity)
Shalem’.
Actually, Jerusalem as the name of the
city is attested already in the Egyptian
Execration Texts (nineteenth century BCE),
which mention ^wPmm, representing
R(a)wus()l-m-m (HELCK 1962:52, 59), and
Jerusalem occurs in the Amama letters
(mid-fourteenth century BCE) as Urusalim.
This means that the connection of the city
with Shalem—if the proposed etymology is
correct—dates from at least the early second
millennium BCE. Such a connection is fur-
ther supported by the identification of
—Melchizedek as king of Salem (Salém) in
Gen 14:18, a place name usually interpreted
as a variant of Jerusalem, as in Ps 76:3 and
in much of the post-biblical Jewish tradition.
The further identification of Melchizedek as
a priest of El Elyon (-Most High)—El
being the father of Salim in Ugaritic mythol-
ogy—is also quite significant. Surely El
(Elyon) and other Canaanite—and non-
Canaanite—gods were worshipped in
Jerusalem prior to David's capture of the
city in the early tenth century BCE. Since
—Shahar, closely linked with Shalem at
Ugarit, is mentioned in the Bible (Isa
14:12), a cult of Shalem is quite plausible.
But the direct evidence for the continuing
cult of Shalem in the city bearing the deity’s
name is rather questionable. The most wide-
ly cited evidence comes from the names of
two of David's sons, namely, Absalom
CAbšālôm, | LXX Abessalon = Heb
*'Abisálóm) and Solomon (Sélómóh). (The
objection that Absalom is born in Hebron,
prior to the capture of Jerusalem, is
countered by the observation that Absalom's
mother is the daughter of the king of
Geshur, an Aramaean realm, and that she
may have abetted the recognition of
‘foreign’ gods. Solomon, of course, was
born in Jerusalem.) These two names, if
revocalized as salem (which overlaps
semantically with iàlóm), could be viewed
as recognition of the Canaanite god Shalem,
756
SHALMAN
and many scholars so argue (Gray 1965:
185-186; StoLz 1970:9, 204). However, in
either vocalization the names most probably
represent the large class of personal names
that express the sense of substitution for a
deceased relative. The name "Ab(f)ialóm,
'My Father is at Peace', honours a deceased
father or grandfather, whereas the name
Sélomoh indicates 'His (David's?) Peace’,
or, more probably, 'His (the deceased's)
Healthiness’ (STAMM 1980:45-57). The el-
ement Sim is also known in personal names
in Hebrew inscriptions, with the same issues
in interpretation (T1GAY 1986:67-69, 79-80).
The altar that Gideon erected in Ophrah,
called Yhwh Sal6m (Judg 6:24), is altema-
tively interpreted as identification of
Yahweh with the deity Shalem or with the
epithet ‘ally’, a bringer of peace (Ticay
1986:69). ;
Rather more speculative: are connections
of Shalem with the supposed cult of the
Venus star in Jerusalem and with the plaus-
ible cult of Sedeq (Gray 1965:184-185;
SrToLZ 1970)—Melchizedek and Adoni-
zedek provide a connection with Jerusalem.
Sedeq provides another example of the
interplay between divine epithets and divine
names. For Shalem, the ‘evening star’, con-
nections have even been suggested with the
Star of Bethlehem.
* IV. Bibliography
F: L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoe-
nician and Punic Inscriptions (Rome 1972);
IJ. Gers, pend of Old Akkadian (MAD
3: Chicago 1957); J. Gray, The Legacy of
‘Canaan (VTSup 5; Leiden 1965); L. K.
HANDY, Shalem, ABD 5 (1992) 1152-1153;
W. HELCK, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu
Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.
Chr. (Wiesbaden 1962); F. B. KNUTSON,
RSP 3 (1981) 471-500; J. J. M. ROBERTS,
The Earliest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore
1972); J. J. Stam, Die akkadische Namen-
dung (MVAAG 44; Leipzig 1939)
STAMM, Beiträge zur hebräischen und alt-
ientalischen Namenkunde (OBO 30; Frei-
Durg 1980); F, STOLZ, Sırukturen und Fi-
Ruren im Kult von Jerusalem (BZAW 118;
Berlin 1970) 181-218; J. H. Ticay, You
E
ES
Shall Have No Other Gods. Israelite Re-
ligion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions
(Atlanta 1986).
H. B. HUFFMon
SHALMAN
I. The name of king Solomon has,
among other things (HALAT 1425), been
interpreted as related to an Arabic deity
s/šimn (M. HÖFNER, RAAM 372; WbMyth 1,
466-467). This deity can, probably, be
equated with the West Semitic god Shalman
/Shalaman.
IJ. The oldest attestation of the deity
occurs aS a theophoric element in the
Middle-Assyrian personal name 4Sq-la-ma-
an-mu-Sab-Si (C. SAPORETTI, Onomastica
medio-assira [StP 6; Roma 1970] 387). In
an Egyptian votive stela from the 20-21st
dynasty a deity (Rip)-Sl/rmn is attested (R.
STADELMAN, Syrisch-paldstinensische Gott-
heiten in Agypten {Leiden 1967] 55). In
Ugaritic personal names the (theophoric)
element SImn occurs (F. GRÖNDAHL, Die
Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit [StP
1; Roma 1967] 193. 414). The Egyptian and
the Ugaritic attestations have been inter-
preted as referring to a deity Shulman
(e.g. W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Syro-Mesopot-
amian God Sulman-E’mun and Related
Figures, AfO 9 (1931-32] 164-169) as well
as to Shalman (HELCK 1971). The element
Salaman occurs in personal names from
Neo-Assyrian deeds and documents without,
however, the determinative for gods (TIMM
1989:317). In a Neo-Assyrian contract on
the selling of a woman, 4Sal-ma-nu is men-
tioned alongside Ashur (~Assur) and Sha-
mash (—Shemesh) as one of the prosecutors
for the buyer (ND 7091 = S. DALLEY & J.
H. POSTGATE, The Tablets from Fort Shal-
maneser [CTN 3; Oxford 1984] 47:24). The
name of a Moabite king PSa-la-ma-nu
(Tiglath-Pileser III Display inscription from
Nimrud:10'; TUAT Y/4) and the Edomite per-
sona] name Slmn‘bd (Ostracon 6:1; J. R.
BARTLETT, Edom and the Edomites
[JSOTSup 77; Sheffield 1989] 219) have
been interpreted as containing the theo-
757
SHAUSHKA
phoric element Shalman (Timm 1989:315-
318). In Hatra, Palmyra and in North and
South Arabian texts the deity s/SImn is at-
tested. According to Hörner (WbMyth 1,
466-467) Shalman must be interpreted as a
horseman’s deity. The god survived until
Seleucid and Roman-Byzantine times (Timm
1989:315n43). A late survival of the venera-
tion of the deity is to be found in Greek
inscriptions from the mountain peak Jebel
Sheikh Barakat (ancient Kopvọń) from ca.
80-120 ce that contain dedications to Eea-
avec who js presented here as the consort
of *Zeùçs Máôßaxoç (>Altar; L. Jalabert &
R. Mouterde, JGLS 2 [Paris 1939} Nos. 465-
469 and 471-473. Lekoapavec should be
seen as the feminine or feminized form of
Shalman.
YIL The name of king Solomon can
better be related to the verb $1m and the
noun Salém, ‘peace’, than with a deity Shal-
man. The personal name Salman (Hos
10:14) cannot be regarded an OT attestation
of Shalman. The text contains the memory
of “the ravaging of Beth-arbel by Shalman
on the day of battle’ and may refer to an
attack on the Israelite town by an Assyrian
monarch Shalmaneser, perhaps Shalmaneser
Ti] in the mid-9th century BCE (ASTOUR
1971; Timm 1989:319-320). The name of
the Assyrian king Shalmaneser (2 Kgs’ 17:3;
18:9) contains
—Shulman.
IV. Bibliography
M. C. ASTOUR, 841 Bc, The First Assyrian
Invasion of Israel, JAOS 91 (1971) 383-389;
W. HELCX, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu
Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.
Chr. (Wiesbaden 1971) 452; M. HÓFNER (&
E. MERKEL), Salman (Salman), WbMyth 1,
466-467; S. TiMM, Moab zwischen den
Mächten (AAT 17; Wiesbaden 1989) 311-
320.
the theophoric element
B. BECKING
SHAUSHKA
I. Shaushka can be treated as an import-
ant Hurran goddess. Her name is written
either in syllabic (e.g, dSa-(u)-ui-ga) or in
758-
ideographic form (e.g. SISTAR(-ka)) in texts
from Boghazkéy, Nuzi or Alalakh; alpha-
betic texts from Ugarit spell her name šušk
or Swsk. In Jer 25:26; 51:41 the name
Sheshach has been erroneously interpreted
as a reference to this goddess.
Il. The ideographic spelling of the name
suggests that Shaushka is connected with
—]shtar (of Niniveh) with whom she shares
some characteristic features. The centre of
her cult was southern Anatolia and northem
Syria; but during the time of the Hittite
Empire she enjoyed great popularity; thus
Hattushili III made her his tutelary goddess.
Her place within the family of the gods is
not entirely certain: according to some texts
Anu or >Sin is her father; the weather-god
Teshub (—Hadad) is her brother and hus-
band in texts from the eastern Hurrian
sphere and from Ugarit; Hittite texts say that
Hebat is Teshub’s wife, though. Most proba-
bly her name can be derived from the
Hurian word Savozi, ‘great’; we may assume
that the Hurrians originally called Ishtar just
the ‘Great One’, namely Shaushka, which
then became the ‘name’ of the goddess
(WEGNER 1995). To Shaushka’s circle
belong some minor deities; most notably
Ninatta and Kulitta who accompany her as
musicians and hierodules.
The reliefs at Yazilikaya near Boghazkéy
show the goddess twice: relief no. 56 pre-
sents her with the goddesses, relief no. 38
with the male gods; the fact that she has
male and female characteristics is also evi-
dent from Hittite texts about Shaushka of
Lawazantiya: she is clothed like a man and
like a woman (KUB XXXI 69:5-6), and has
male attributes such as an axe or weapons.’
Sometimes this has been taken as a sign of
her bisexual (androgynous) character but
this is not absolutely certain. Shaushka's
male and female aspects can also be con-
nected with her role as goddess of love and
war. Her warlike traits may interfere with:
her role as patroness of love; though she Js
usually said to promote harmony and con-
jugal love, some texts say that her Jove (and'
sexuality) is unpredictable or even danger
ous. A similar ambivalence surrounds
REM eo
SHEAN ~ SHEBEN
Shaushka when it comes to magic and
healing. In some Hurrian texts she is the
goddess from whom the magicians, whether
male or female, obtain their power; in this
respect she resembles the Luwian goddess
Kamrushepa; Shaushka’s main preserve is
sexual magic because she can change the
sex of men and women; according to KUB
XV 35 she is able to take manliness, virility
and vitality away from men, further to take
their weapons, bows and arrows and give
them spindle and distaff instead and clothe
them in female fashion; women she can rob
of motherhood and love. In the so-called
‘soldiers’ oath’ (KBo VI 34), garments of a
woman, a distaff and a mirror are shown to
the soldiers; these will be their proper assets
if they break their soldiers’ oath. A ritual
text against impotence (KUB VII 5+) can be
cited too: here the magician gives a bow and
an arrow to the impotent man and says "T
have taken womanliness away from you and
given you back manliness. You have cast
off the ways of a woman, now show the
ways of a man". Bow and arrow, on the one
hand, and distaff and mirror, on the other,
are the typical symbols of the goddess of
war and love. Her magic is able to heal as
well as to destroy.
Being an important Hurrian goddess tn
Northern Syria and Anatolia, Shaushka is
celebrated in various cults. In nearly all
major festivals she receives offerings; her
cult centre was located at Samukha, a town
Situated near the upper Halys or the upper
Euphrates; other famous cult centres for her
are Alalakh, Nuzi, as well as Ugarit.
^x III. There is no direct reference to this
Boddess m the OT. Sarsowsky’s (1914)
proposal that Sheshach (Jer 25:26; $1:41)
Was an appellation of Assyria because
Shaushka was an Assyrian goddess cannot
be maintained. Sheshach does not mean ‘the
land of the goddess Shaushka'; it is most
Probably to be interpreted as an atbash kind
Of: cryptogram for Babylon (HOLLADAY
1986:675).
owever, Shaushka may be relevant for
understanding of some other biblical
Passages. Phenomenologically we can find
the idea of Shaushka’s changing peoples’
sexuality in Deut 22:5 where it is forbidden
for a woman to dress like a man and for a
man to dress like a woman (ROMER 1982
relates this to the Mesopotamian Ishtar).
Another point of Shaushka’s biblical con-
nections can be seen in relation to the
Queen of Heaven. Shaushka was not only
the daughter of Anu. In northern Syria she
was also assimilated to other goddesses such
as —Anat. In the first millennium —Astarte
or —Atargatis are reminiscent of Shaushka.
As all these Syrian goddesses influence the
OT’s references to the Queen of Heaven,
one might also be entitled to assume that
Shaushka’s character was not unknown in
ancient Israel. Archaeological material
seems to point to familiarity with her within
the geographical area of the OT: she is
depicted on the Hittite ivory from Megiddo
(ALEXANDER 1991), though we do not know
precisely how this ivory dated to the second
half of the 2nd millennium BCE reached
Megiddo.
IV. Bibliography
R. A. ALEXANDER, SauSga and the Hittite
Ivory from Megiddo, JNES 50 (1991) 161-
182; W. L. HorLAbaY, Jeremiah ] (Her-
meneia; Philadelphia 1986), W. H. P.
ROMER, Einige Überlegungen zur heiligen
Hochzeit nach altorientatischen Texten, Von
Kanaan bis Kerala. FS van der Ploeg
(AOAT 211; Kevelaer & Neukirchen 1982)
411-428; A. Sarsowsky, GHU and WN,
ZAW 34 (1914) 64-68; J. WEGNER, Gestalt
und Kult der Istar-Sawuska in Kleinasien
(AOAT 36; Kevelaer & Neukirchen-Vluyn
1981); WEGNER, Der Name Ša(w)uška, Słu-
dies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi
and the Hurrians 7 (1995) 117-120.
M. HUTTER
SHEAN ~> SHAHAN
SHEBEN J2%
I. The element Sbn, Sheben, which
occurs in various Hebrew personal names,
may be theophoric. From the limited cvi-
dence available, it is likely that a divinity
759
SHECHEM - SHEGER
Sheben was known in Levantine culture. If
so, all that is known of the god for the time
being is its name.
Il. A Neopunic inscription on a sep-
ulchre from Sardina (C/S J, 152) lists as one
donor ‘bdmlgri [b]n bd’ [b]n *hibn, ‘Abd-
Melqart, (sjon of Bodo, {s]on of Ahsheben’.
It has been observed (S. Harris, A Gram-
mar of the Phoenician Language [New
Haven 1936} 66) that Phoenician contains a
plethora of construct-state names expressing
the relationship of the bearer to the deity
and that such names are those meaning
‘son’, ‘daughter’, ‘brother’, ‘sister’, ‘male-
slave’, and ‘female-slave’. Such construct-
phrase names are constructed on the pattern
of a common noun followed by a divine
name in which the common noun is nomen
regens while the divine name is nomen
rectum (BENZ 1972:225). In the above
inscription ‘bdmlgrit surely means ‘Slave-of
Melqart'. As for *hSbn, it may also be a con-
struct-state name, meaning ‘brother of
Sheben’. Because Phoenician and Punic
orthography do not distinguish a suffix
ending from a construct singular (BENZ
1972:232), however, and because this
inscription is not accompanied by a tran-
scription into Greek or Latin, the name
*hSbn might equally reflect a pronunciation
.Ahi-Seben. This would have been under-
stood as a nominal sentence ‘My-brother-is-
Sheben’ (XELLA 1975:81). The construct-
state pattern, though common in Phoenician,
js rare in other Semitic languages (HARRIS
1936:66). The nominal interpretation would
provide "?hibn with numerous onomastic
structural parallels (NoTH IPN 66-75). In
either case, -Sbn would appear to be the
name of a god, but one whose sex would
not be determinable on the construct-state
interpretation.
Another possible attestion of this divinity
is in the name 'bd's$bn in which the aleph
can be taken as a mater lectionis, as in the
names Àhn'mlk, and mtm b'1 (XELLA 1975:82).
It cannot be discounted, however, that
‘bwšbn is a misspelling of the extremely
common 'bd?3mn (BENZ 1972:150).
Possible early traces of this divinity may
be adduced from Ugarit (XeLLa 1975:82),
In UT 10:24, ibn is a proper name. In UT
1052:5, it could either be a personal name or
a toponym which is attested in the Akkadian
texts of Ugarit: e.g. URU Sub-ba-ni. (UT
Glossary no. 2379; XELLA 1975:82). Ugar-
itic (UT 15:1) may provide the closest paral-
lel to the Neopunic reference in bribn
(XELLA 1975:82).
ji. Various Hebrew proper names, such
as Sbn’; Sbnyh, Sbnyw; and 3bnyhw (HALAT),
attested in the Bible and epigraphically, may
shed some light on the problem. Yet the tra-
ditional explanation of these names, which
takes the element Sbn as a finite form of the
verb *5BN (NoTH, JPN, no. 1303), is not
seriously undermined by possible attesta-
tions of a deity Sheben. The combination
with the divine name yh or yhw makes it
unlikely that 3bn in Hebrew anthroponyms
serves as the name of a—pagan— god (cf. J.
H. Ticay, You Shall Have No Other Gods
[HSM 31; Atlanta 1986] 61-62).
' IV. Bibliography
F. L. BENz, Personal Names in the Phoen-
ician and Punic Inscriptions (Rome 1972);
P. XELLA, Un dio punico 8bn?, RSF 3
(1975) 81-83.
S. D. SPERLING
SBECHEM > THUKAMUNA
SHEGER X).
Y. The word Seger occurs six times in
the Hebrew Bible, always in connection
with the offspring of cattle. The stereotyped
expression ségar ’dlapéké, forming a fixed
pair with ‘astérét sé°nkd, ‘the offspring of
your flock’ (Deut 7:13; 28:4.18.51), refers to
the increase of herds. Whereas the peter-
rehem designates the human firstborn
(literally ‘that which opens up the womb’),
the peter Seger béhéma is the firstborn of
cattle (Exod 13:12). In the Hebrew text of
Sir 40:19 gr is mentioned alongside ni^
(‘orchard’) in the meaning of ‘(young)’
cattle’; both blessings are inferior to a de-
voted wife (for a synopsis of the Hebrew:
Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts see F^
760
SHEGER
VATTIONI, Ecclesiasticus [Napoli 1968) 216-
217) Outside the Hebrew Bible Sheger
occurs as a deity in Uganitic texts, a Punic
personal name, and—perhaps—the Deir
‘Alla inscription.
IL In Ugaritic texts, the god Sgr is men-
tioned twice In a broken passage of the Baal
cycle (KTU 1.5 i16, 17), and once in an
offering list (KTU 1.148:31). In the latter
text Ser forms a binomial pair with the god
itm (Sgr w itm; —^Asham). In RS 1992.
2004:14 (reading and interpretation courtesy
D. Arnaud) the entry corresponding to Sgr w
itm is Shar & gir, indicating that itm is the
Ugaritic equivalent of the Mesopotamian
deity Ishum (cf. —Fire) and that $gr is
parallel to Mesopotamian Shaggar. The
identification of Shaggar with a moon deity
is explicit in Hieroglyphic Hittite correspon-
dences to syllabically written personal
names ($30 = sà-ga+ra/i; cf. E. LAROCHE,
Akkadica 22 [1981] 11; H. GONNET, apud
D. ARNAUD, Textes syriens de l'âge du
bronze récent [AuOr Suppl 1; Barcelona
1991] 199.207). It appears thus that this
deity not only had a connection with small
cattle (as suggested by the biblical evidence)
but also with the moon, and the pair Sgr w
itm therefore shows a certain similarity to
‘the ad hoc pair yrh w rsp (KTU 1.107:15).
Given the fact that Yarihu is the primary
Junar deity at Ugarit and Rasbap (—Re-
sheph) the primary underworld deity,
Shaggar and Yarihu would bear a functional
resemblance to each other, Shaggar being
perhaps the deity of the full moon. It is not
‘without significance, in this connection, that
in an Emar ritual the fifteenth day of the.
month is ascribed to Shaggar (Emar no-
1313:42). This lunar god Shaggar is to be dis-
‘tinguished from ?pgAx/dsag-gar the deified
‘Jebel Sinjar (StoL 1979). Note that the per-
:sonal name which Arnaud read as Vtti-Sagru
Short for */ddin-9Sagru, ‘Sheger-has-given’)
ds rather to be analysed as Vri-fa-agru Q.-
oe review of Emar, RA 84 [1990]
The occurrence of Sheger (alongside
=Ashtar) in the Deir ‘Alla text (Combination
$ 14(16]) is not very revealing. It is unclear
E
B.
whether the terms are used as divine names
(‘full moon’ and ‘morning star’) or merely
as words for animal offspnng (cf. J. A.
HACKETT, The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla
[HSM 31; Chico 1984} 41; H.-P. MULLER,
Einige alttestamentliche Probleme zur
aramáischen Inschrift von Der 'Allà, ZDPV
94 [1978] 56-67, esp. 64-65; MULLER, Die
aramüische Inschrift von Deir ‘Alla und die
álteren Bileamsprüche, ZAW 94 [1982] 214-
244, esp. 230; H. & M. WEIPPERT, Die
^Bileam"-Inschrift von Tell Der ‘ʻAlā,
ZDPV 98 [1982] 77-103, esp. 100-101).
That Shaggar was still known as a deity in
the first millennium BCE is reflected by the
theophoric name ‘bdSgr (‘servant of She-
ger’) in a Punic inscription (F. L. BENZ,
Personal Names in the Phoenician and
Punic Inscriptions [Rome 1972] 163, 413).
Further information on Shaggar (Sheger)
is provided by the biblical data. The combi-
nation with ~Astarte (whether the plural
form ‘astérét is a real plural or an artificial
vocalisation based on a misunderstanding of
the form ‘Strt is a delicate matter), suggests
that Sheger is connected with fertility.
Because in Exod 13:12 Seger as a symbol of
animal fertility contrasts with the female
womb as a symbol of human fertility, Seger
has been interpreted as ‘the womb of beasts’
(FEIGIN 1926). Etymologically, however, the
meaning ‘offspring’ is preferabie (cf.
HALAT 1315 s.v. *73). The connection
between Shaggar as a deity of full moon and
Shaggar (Sheger) as a deity of the fertility
of cattle is not as far-fetched as it may
seem; the influence of the moon on concep-
tion and birth was a widespread tenet in the
ancient Near East (see e.g. P. DERCHAIN ef
al, La lune: mythes et rites [SO 5; Paris
1962] 33-35, 100).
III. The central issue in the discussion of
the biblical occurrences of Seger is whether
or not the word was originally the name of a
deity (see, e.g. DELCOR 1974:14; LonETZ
1990). STAMM (1990) regards the develop-
ment from a common noun to a proper di-
vine name the most plausible reconstruction;
this would mean that the biblical usage has
retained the original non-hypostasized mean-
761
SHELAH
ing. This explanation would have to hold for
Astarte and —Dagon as well--which is
quite unlikely. Originally, there was no clear
distinction in the Near East between grain
(Dagan), wine (-Tirosh), increase of cattle
(Sheger), and the fecundity of the flocks
(‘Ashtaroth), on the one hand, and the dei-
ties responsible for these things, on the
other. The occurrence of the foursome in
Deut 7:13 (cf. M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy
1-11 [AB 5; New York 1991] 373) marks a
point where the link between the phenomena
and their gods has been severed; there is
hardly a trace left of the mythological
background of the concepts.
IV. Bibliography
M. ASTOUR, Some New Divine Names from
Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284, esp. 281;
M. DELCOR, Astarté et la fécondité des trou-
peaux en Devt. 7,13 et parallèles, UF 6
(1974) 7-14; S. Fericin, “20, “Womb of
Beasts”, AJSL 43 (1926) 44-53; J. Hort-
IJZER & G. VAN DER Koos, Aramaic Texts
from Deir ‘Alla (Leiden 1976) 273-274; O.
LORETZ, Ugarit und die Bibel (Darmstadt
1990) 87; J. J. Stamm et al., BALAT, Vol. 4
(1990) 1316; M. SToL, On Trees, Moun-
tains, and Millstones in the Ancient Near
' East (Leiden 1979) 75-77.
_K. VAN DER TOORN
SHELAH no)
|. Shelah has been interpreted as a
theophoric element in the personal names
Métüsalah (Gen 5:21.22.25-27; 1 Chr 1:3)
Salah (Gen 10:24; 11:14; 1 Chr 1:18) and
Silht (1 Kgs 22:42; 2 Chr 20:31). He has
been interpreted as the god of the infernal
river of the Canaanite population of Pales-
tine and Phoenicia (TSEVAT 1954). In Ugarit
Sth is one of the names of the river of death.
Il. The deity occurs in the Phoenician
personal names M2WI8 (Harris 1936:27;
not attested in BENz); 120 (RES 906:2);
mwa (CIS 4207:5) and MOWN (CIS 65.1-
2; BENZ 1972:416). This last name has been
interpreted as an explanatory name: ‘Osiris
is Salah' (TsEvAT 1954:45). This identi-
fication would identify Shelah as a deity of
the underworld, like Osiris.
In the Baal-cycle from Ugarit, in a para-
doxical passage on Jove and death, -*Baal
makes love with a young cow beside the
river of death, the šłh (KTU 1.5 [Baal V] v
19). In the epic on Keret, 3/1 occurs as the
deified river of death. In the description of
the awful fate of the seven wives of Keret, it
is stated that ‘his seventh wife fell [sc: to
death) by Sl (KTU 1.14 [Keret I] 1:20-21;
Loretz 1975; Dietrich & LoRETZ 1987:
204 n.67; contra VERREET 1990:331). This
passage implies that Shelah should be ident-
ified as a deified form of the river of the
death, comparable to naharu in Ugarit
—River; —^Hubur in Mesopotamia (TROMP
1969:147-151) and Styx in Greece.
JI. Of the three personal names men-
tioned, only SilAf occurs in pre-exilic docu-
ments. However, this name of the grand
mother of king Josafat should more prob-
ably be interpreted as ‘my off-shoot
(HALAT 1406). It is possible to interpret the
name of the antediluvian Methushelah as
containing the theophoric element Shelah:
‘man of Shelah’. Against Tsevat, however, it
should be noted that the element miw-
should not necessarily be translated with
‘adherent; worshipper’ (HUFFMON 1965:
234). The genealogical list in Gen 5 being
late . (P), it is questionable whether . the
ancient Israelites regarded the name as
theophoric. Sdlah occurs likewise only in
lists with a post-exilic redaction. The inter-
pretation of the name is uncertain. It might
be a shortened form of Silhi.
The interpretation of Sih as the deified
River of Death in the epic of Keret has
implications for the reading of two passages
in the Book of Job. In Job 33:18, Elihu 1s
arguing that some kind of human conduct
can save man from death: “to save his soul
from the Pit and his life from crossing the
sth." In Job 36:12, Elihu is repeating his
argument in parallel wording: “But if they
do not obey, they will pass s/h and they
shall die without knowledge”. Traditionally,
5lh has been construed as a javelin (FOHRER
1963:454). The parallelismus membrorum
and the meaning of 32h in Ugaritic imply
762
SHEM
that šh refers to the ‘River of Death’ in
both passages. In Israel, however this river
is not interpreted as a deity (TRomP 1969:
147-151; Loretz 1975).
There are no relations between Sih “River
of Death’ and fillihim ‘marriage gift? (1
Kgs 9:6) or Selah *off-shoot' (Cant 4:13;
—fhilahuha) "The interpretation of VAN
SELMS (1966) who construes Sélah as the
divine name —Lah coupled with the relative
pronoun à, should be dismissed since no
names with a paralle) construction are
known (HEss 1993).
IV. In Rabbinic sources an opposition is
made between a DDIM MD iM, a field irri-
gated by rain from above, and a M3 nT]5
TU? a field artificially irrigated with
water from underneath the earth; see e.g.
Mo'ed Katan Y,1. In this second designation
an echo of Sih in its meaning as ‘River of
Death; Underworld River’ is transmitted
(TsEvaT 1954a:45-46).
V. Bibliography
F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the Phoen-
ician and Punic Inscriptions (StP 8; Roma
1972); M. Dietrich & O. Lorerz, Das
Portrát einer Kónigin in KTU 1.14 I 12-15,
UF 12 (1980), 199-204; G. FonmEn, Das
Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Gütersloh 1963); Z. S.
Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Lan-
guage (AOS 8; New Haven 1936); R. S.
Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of
Genesis 1-11 (AOAT 234; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1993) 70-71; H. B. HUFFMON, Amor-
ite Personal Names in the Mari Letters (Bal-
timore 1965); O. LonETZ, Der Gott 31h, He.
Slh Y und 3ih HI, UF 7 (1975) 584-585; A.
VAN SELMS, A forgotten God: LAH, Studia
Biblica et Semitica (FS Th. C. Vriezen; ed.
W. C. van Unnik & A. S. van der Woude;
Wageningen 1966) 318-326; N. J. Tromp,
Primitive Conceptions of Death and the
Netherworld in the Old Testament (BeO 21,
Roma 1969); M. TsEvat, The Canaanite
God Sdlah, VT 4 (1954a) 41-49; Tsevat,
‘Additional remarks on ‘The Canaanite God
‘Salah’, VT 4 (1954b) 322; E. VeRREET, Der
‘Keret Prolog, UF 19 (1987), 317-335.
E
SHEM ow
I. The name of Shem, one of the three
sons of Noah, literally means ‘name’ (Gen
5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9; 10; 1 Chron 1; Sir 49:
16; HALAT 1435). šm occurs as a theo-
phoric element in personal names from Ebla
(GorDON 1988:153-154). A deity Shem is
probably present as theophoric element in
names like sémida‘, Shemida (Josh 17:2; 1
Chron 7:19), and sémi’él, Samuel (Jirku
1927). The name of this deity should be dis-
tinguished from the use of the noun šem as
an hypostatical indication of Yahweh;
Name.
II. In Mesopotamian personal names—
mostly im Amorite ones—the element
s/$/$umu, ‘name; progeny’, occurs (H. B.
HurrMON, Amorite Personal Names in the
Mari Texts [Baltimore 1965] 249-250; J. J.
STAMM, Die Akkadische Namensgebung
[Darmstadt 21968] 40-42. 236. 303-304.
366-367). Although the determinative for
deities is not often placed before the element
in these names, L J. GELB (Computer-aided
Analysis of Amorite [AS 21; Chicago 1980]
82) designates Sum as a deity. In bilingual
lexical texts from Ebla fu-um is equated
with dumuzi (MEE JV | Rev vii’:6'-7' 9-11]
Rev xi:6-7; Tammuz). For some scholars
this equation definitively proved Shumu to
be a deity (LUBETSK! .1987:2-5; Gornon
1988:153-154).
In Ugaritic and Phoenician inscriptions
too the element 3m occurs in personal names
(F. GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen der
Texte aus Ugarit [StP 1; Roma 1965] 31.
34. 117. 193-194. 355. 414; F. L. Benz,
Personal Names in the Phoenician and
Punic Inscriptions [StP 8; Roma 1972] 419).
A deity Shumu is not attested, however. In
KTU 1.2 i:8 and 1.16 vi:56 mention is made
of ‘ttrt šm b'l. This locution bas been inter-
preted as a divine triad: —>Astarte-Name-
~Baal (LUBETSKI 1987:4). Since divine
triads are otherwise unknown at Ugarit, the
element šm bT can be better understood as
an epithet, either ‘name/emanation of Baal’
(M. DretricH & O. LorETz, Jahwe und
seine Aschera [UBL 9; Münster 1992] 61)
E. BRekiNG (i ‘consort of Baal’ (J.C. be Moor, ARTU,
: 30. 222).
i | 763
SHEMESH
All these observations imply that the
worship of a deity Shumu cannot be proved.
The Eblaite equation can also be interpreted
as an indication that the (theophoric) el-
ement s/S/Sumu functions as reference and
substitution for another deity.
YH. Shem is the eponymous ancestor of
Semitic speaking peoples in the view of
Genesis. He is not cast in a heroic or semi-
divine role in the OT. Together with his
father Noah, his brothers Ham and —Ja-
pheth and their respective wives he entered
the Ark and was saved from the flood (Gen
6:9; 7:1-13; 9:1-18). With his brothers he
shared the divine blessing and covenant
(Gen 9:1. 17). In the Sibylline Oracles the
sons of Noah are given the names of Greek
gods. Shem is there identified with Kronos.
In some Rabbinic traditions, Shem is ident-
ified with —Melchizedek, king of Salem
(Gen. Rab. 44:8; Tanhuma Lech Lecha 19);
in other traditions he is seen as the founder
of the first school (bMak 23b; Gen. Rab.
36:8; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 9:27).
In the OT, some names occur which—
according to ZADOK (1988:182)—contain
the theophoric element Sm: (1) S2mirdmér,
‘Semiramoth’ (1 Chron 15:18.20; 16:5; 2
Chron 17:8) construed by Zapox (1988:48)
as ‘Shem-is-height’; (2) Sémidda‘, ‘Shemida’
(eponymous ancestor. of a tribe; Num 26:32;
Josh 17:2; 1 Chron 7:19) probably a deriva-
tion of sémyada‘, ‘Shem has acknowledged’
(Jirku 1927:84-85; Zapok 1988:24); (3)
$émi? el, ‘Samuel’, this name has preserved
an old nominative ending -u after the subject
and can be rendered as 'Shem is god'
(HALAT 1438; ZADOK 1988:46). In view of
the observations made above, it can be as-
sumed that the element Sm in these names
does not refer to a deity Shem, but functions
as a substitution for a godhead. Therefore,
e.g. sémi’él, ‘Samuel’, can be interpreted as
meaning ‘Yahweh-is-god° (T. N. D. MET-
TINGER, The Dethronement of Sabaoth (CB
OTS 18; Gleerup 1982] 131).
LuseEtsk! (1987) offers an unusual inter-
pretation of Gen 11:4. In the story on the
Tower of Babylon the phrase occurs “Let us
make for ourselves a name (5ém)”. In Rab-
binic traditions this 3ér has been interpreted
as referring to an idol. LUBETSKI connects
this view with the alleged worship of a deity
Shem in the ancient Near East and comes to
the conclusion that the Generation of Dis-
persion was punished for having constructed
the image of a non-Yahwistic deity on top
of the building at Babel (1987:6). His view
has been dismissed by C. UEHLINGER
(Weltreich und “eine Rede": Eine neue
Deutung der sogenannten Turmbauerzáh-
lung [OBO 101; Freiburg/Gottingen 1990)
41-44. 380-396) who remarks that the
phrase 'àíá Sém, ‘to make a name’, has no-
thing to do with cultic practices or idolatry
but should be connected with Mesopotamian
royal ideology: Assyrian kings tried to ‘estab-
lish their name’ in view of eternal remem-
brance.
IV. Bibliography
C. H. Gorpon, Notes on Proper Names in
the Ebla Tablets, Edlaite Personal Names
and Semitic Name-giving (ARES Y; A. Archi
ed.; Roma 1988) 153-158; E. Isaac, Shem
(person), ABD 5 (1992) 1194-1195; A
JiKu, Zur Gótterwelt Paldstinas und
Syriens, Sellin-Festschrift (ed. A. Jirku;
Leipzig 1927) 83-86; M. LUBETSKI, 3m as a
Deity, Religion 17 (1987) 1-14; R. ZADOK,
The pre-hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy
and Prosopography (OLA 28; Leuven
1988).
B. BECKING
SHEMESH Ùm 7
I. As used in the Bible, Hebrew UIW,
vocalized femes in the MT, 1s never an ac-
tual divine name. Palestinian toponymy of
biblical times reflects, nevertheless, the Ca-
naanite cult of the Sun-god, as shown by the
place names Beth-Shemesh (Josh 15:10; 21:
16, etc.), En-Shemesh (Josh 15:7; 18:17), Ir-
Shemesh (Josh 19:41) They preserve the
memory of sanctuaries devoted to the solar
deity, which is probably mentioned ca. 800
BCE in the Deir 'Allà plaster inscnpton
(1,6). The bêt Šemeš in Jer 43:13 is, instead,
the temple of the Egyptian Sun-god in
Heliopolis (>Re). Surprisingly enough,
764
SHEMESH
Hebrew anthroponomy does not contain
obvious traces of a solar cult, for Samson’s
name may simply mean ‘little sun’, as sug-
gested by the diminutiva] suffix -ón « -aàn,
while the Aramaic proper name Shimshai
(Ezra 4:8-9, 17, 23) can just be ‘sunny’ or
‘sunlit’. The same meaning can be attributed
to Shashai (Ezra 10:40), that may originate
from Samay, since ss transcribes Šamaš in
the Tell Fekherye inscription (line 7).
Il. The lack of evident traces of solar
worship in Hebrew anthroponomy seems to
indicate that the cult of the sun was not very
popular in Syria-Palestine in the Iron Age,
contrary to Egypt and to Mesopotamia. The
Sun-god was a minor deity for the Phoen-
icians and the Aramaeans, despite the role
the Ugaritic Sun-goddess Shapash plays in
literary and ritual texts of the Late Bronze
Age. The Deuteronomistic writer mentions
worship of “the host of heavens”, compris-
ing “the sun, the moon, and the planets”,
only during the half a century of the reigns
of Manasseh and Amon (2 Kgs 21:3; 23:5).
Therefore, scholars generally suppose that
this was an Assyrian astral cult which was |
imposed upon Judah as a symbol of subjec-
tion and vassalage. Its condernnation in
Deut 4:19 and 17:3 reflects the views of the
same Deuteronomistic schoo] and does not
imply any older practice.
- The horses and of the chariot(s) of the
sun (2 Kgs 23:11), as well as Ezekiel’s
vision of the men prostrating themselves
before the rising sun (Ezek 8:16), are
somewhat different. In fact, the horses and
the chanot(s) were placed at the entrance to
the Temple of ^ Yahweh and the men were
practising their cult in the same Temple,
facing eastwards, towards the gate by which
Yahweh, the God of Israel, has entered the
Sanctuary (Ezek 43:2, 4; 44:2). These fea-
tures indicate that the sun’s chariot was
Yahweh’s vehicle and that the men seen by
the prophet were not sun-worshippers, but
devotees of Yahweh, just as the child-
sacrifice performed in the Valey of Ben-
Hinnom (2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31) was in-
tended to honour Yahweh himself (Mic 6:7).
%, The concept of a sun’s chariot, born from
the ancient idea that the sun is a wheel turn-
ing through the heavens, is already attested
by the myth of the chariot of fire and the
horses of fire which carried —Elijah up to
heaven (2 Kgs 2:11-12; cf. 6:17; 13:14; Sir
48:9). This particular concept is probably
implied also by the Aramaic inscriptions
from Zingirli, in the eighth century BCE,
when the Sun-god is mentioned after —El
and —Rakib-El, 'the Charioteer of EI' (KAJ
214:2.3.11.18; 215:22) The latter's name
suggests that this was a divine triad con-
ceived as a chariot's crew and, that the sun’s
chariot was in fact El’s vehicle, driven by
the Charioteer of El, who was actually the
holy patron of the Aramaic dynasty of
Zingirli.
We can surmise that a similar conception
existed also in Jerusalem, and even in
North-Israel, as shown by the episode of the
ascension of Elijah to heaven. Although
king Josiah had abolished this particular
form of Yahweh’s cult and had destroyed
the horses and the sun’s chariot placed at
the entrance of the Temple (2 Kgs 23:11),
this conception underlines the symbolic
vision of Ezek 1, as already understood by
Sir 49:8 and the Mishna, Hag. 2:1, which
actually uses the term merkaba of 2 Kgs
23:11 to designate Yahweh’s chariot as in
Ezek 1. This term, which does not appear in
Ezekiel—explamned, perhaps, by the fact that
the destruction of the mirkebet hasSemes
‘the chariot of the sun’ was stil] recent—is
used instead in 1 Chr 28:18. It dates back to
David “the model of the chariot”, identified
however by a glossator with "the —cherub-
im with their wings outspread to screen the
Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh”. The di-
vine chariot also preoccupied the mind of
the members of the Sadducean community
of Qumran, whose Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice mention ‘the model of the throne
of the chariot’, tabnít kiss? merkabá (4Q
403). According to their Ritual of the Daily
Prayers (4Q 503), the morning service
started "when the sun was coming out to
shine over the earth”, bs’t him ll!yr 1 Wrs.
This confirms Flavius Josephus' statement
about the Essenes, viz. that "their devotions
765
SHEMESH
to the divinity take a particular form: before
the rising of the sun they utter no profane
word, but recite some ancestral prayers
facing the sun, as if they beseeched it to
rise” (Bell. Jud. 11,128). These “ancestral
prayers” recall the men “with their faces to
the east, prostrating themselves towards the
rising sun”, as Ezekiel saw them in the
Temple (Ezek 8:16).
Relics of this ritual practice are found,
perhaps, in the Blessing of the Sun, Birkat
hahammá, a rabbinic prayer-service in
which the sun is blessed in thanksgiving for
its creation and its being set in motion in the
firmament on the fourth day of the world
(Gen 1:16-19). The ceremony is held once
every 28 years, most recently on the 18th of
March 1981. It takes place on the first
Wednesday of the month of Nisan, after the
moming prayer, when the-sun is about 90°
above the eastern horizon. The date of the
Birkat hahamma is based on calculations by
the Babylonian amora Abbaye (278-338
CE). The Blessing starts with Ps 84:12,
where the psalmist states blandly that
Yahweh is seme Gmdgén, “sun and cover”,
an antithetic image that suggests the sunlight
granted by the LoRD and the protection he
provides against heat. It contains Ps 19, that
preserves a fragment of an old hymn to the
' sun (Ps -19:5c-7), and ends with Isa 30:26:
“The light of the sun Côr hahammá) shall
be sevenfoid, as the light of the seven days”. -
There can be little doubt that the sun was
conceived in biblical times as a vivid sym-
bol of Yahweh’s Glory (-Kabod). Yahweh’s
coming is decribed already in Deut 33:2 and
Hab 3:3-4 as the rising of the sun, and his
Glory comes from the East according to Isa
59:19 and Ezek 43:2, 4; 44:2, while Isa
60:19 announces that Yahweh’s Glory will
replace the sunlight when the new Jerusalem
will arise. In Sir 42:16, the "rising sun" is
paralleled by "Yahweh's Glory": imi zwrht
'] kl nglth // wkbd yhwh '1 kl m'syh, "the
rising sun shines on everything // and the
Glory of Yahweh on all his works" (cf. Sir
43:2-5). According to the Book of Mysteries
from Qumran, referring probably to the Day
of Judgement, “justice will shine like the
sun, the foundation of the Universe”, hsdg
yglh kšmš tkwn tbl (IQ 27 1:6-7), and the
author of IQH 7:25 addresses God as fol-
lows, “Thou art for me an eternal luminary”
(li méór *ólám). Similar accents can be
heard in the Odes Sol., whose author de-
clares that the LogD "is my sun" (13:1-2)
and that He is “like the sun upon the earth”
(11:13). The importance of the sun is also
underlined by Philo of Alexandria in De
somniis J, 13.76-86, but Wis 7:29-30
stresses that ^ Wisdom is superior to the sun.
It is uncertain whether the winged sun-disk
represented on Judaean royal stamp-seal
impressions (ANEP 809) is a Yahwistic
symbol or rather a traditional royal emblem
of the ancient Near East. Instead, the
bearded male figure seated on a winged
wheel, who appears on a fourth-century
Judaean coin (ANEP 226), certainly ex-
presses the conception of Yahweh’s sun-
throne iconographically. The wheel corre-
sponds to the gig! hims (the wheel of the
sun) of CD 10:15 and the galgal hammé
(the wheel of the sun) of the Babylonian
Talmud, for instance Yoma 20b. .
WI. This solar symbolism might have
represented a danger for the punty of
Yahweh’s worship, for the sun, the moon,
and the —stars are even somewhat
personified in Joseph's dream (Gen 37:9).
Job judges it necessary to profess that he
never raised his hand in homage to the sun
or the moon (Job 31:26-27). He even avoids
using the word Semes (sun) and replaces it
by ’6r (light), just as the priestly author of
Gen 1:14-18, who stresses that God had cre-
ated the sun. In a similar context, however,
Femes is used in Jer 31:35 and in Pss 74:16;
104:19; 136:8; 148:3-6. Whatever the orig-
inal background of the ancient conjuration
in Josh 10:12 was, the actual text of Josh
10:12-14 stresses Yahweh's authority over
the sun and the moon (cf. Sir 46:4). A simi-
lar belief is reflected in Job 9:7 and Isa 38:
7-8 (cf. 2 Kgs 20:9-11; Sir 48:23), where
the sun obeys a man of God.
It is difficult to ascertain whether the use
of hammd instead of Semes in Isa 24:23;
30:26; Job 30:28; Cant 6:10 is intended to
766
SHEMESH
avoid some. possible mythological conno-
tations. In magical incantations from Late
Antiquity one finds. Aammd (J. Naven & S.
SHAKED, Amulets and Magic Bowls [Jerusa-
lem 1985 ] Amulet 4:20 ) as well as SimSa’
(ibid., Bowl 7,7), pronounced however in a
way different from Shamesh (3my$, ym),
the name of the Sun-deity inherited from the
Babylonian tradition (ibid., Bowl 13:11.21;
C. C. ISBELL, Corpus of the Aramaic Incan-
tation Bowls [Missoula 1975}, nos. 38:2;
62:2). In Jater Jewish descriptions of the sun
travelling in the firmament in his chariot one
finds šemeš in the Midrash Num. Rabba 12:
4, but hammå in Pirge de R. Eliezer 6.
XV. In the Palestinian tradition, attested
already by the oldest parts of the Books of
Enoch, Aramaic manuscripts of which
(4QEn? and 4QEn) go back to the second
half of the third century Bce, the fifteenth
fallen angel was called Shamshi-El (Smiy’)),
‘Sun of God? (J Enoch 6:7; 8:3). He had
taught men “the signs of the sun” (nhšy
$m$) Le. astrology, and belonged therefore
to the group of the ten angel-teachers. His
name became Samsape’el or Simapise’el in
the Ethiopic Book of Enoch and was
shortened to LapwyA or LewryA in the Greek
fragments of the work. He appears under
this name in Sib. Or. II, 215, an essentially
Christian work, that mentions him among
the angels intervening at the Last Judgment,
but the first role is played there by Uriel,
who breaks open the door of —Hades and
brings out its inhabitants (Sib. Or. II, 233-
237).
V. Bibliography
A. Caquot, La divinité solaire ugaritique,
Syria 36 (1959) 90-101; J. H. CHARLES-
WORTH, Les Odes de Salomon et les manu-
scrits de la Mer Morte, RB 77 (1970) 522-
549 (esp. 538-540); J. Dus, Gibeon—eine
Kultstatte des $m-und die Stadt des benja-
minitischen Schicksals, VT 10 (1960) 353-
374; H. vAN DYKE PARUNAK, Was Solo-
mon’s Temple aligned to the Sun?, PEQ
110 (1978) 29-33; J. D. EISENSTEIN, Sun,
Jewish Encyclopedia XI (New York 1906)
589-591; R. Ester, Jahves Hochzeit mit
der Sonne, FS F. Hommel Il (Leipzig 1918)
LOIN EINE s e
21-70; J. FERRON, Le caractére solaire du
dieu de Carthage, Africa 1 (1966) 41-58; T.
H. Gaster, Thespis. Ritual, Myth, and
Drama in the Ancient Near East (Garden
City 19612) 66-67; J. F. HEALEY, The Sun
Deity and the Underworld in Mesopotamia
and Ugarit, Death in Mesopotamia (ed. B.
Alster, Copenhagen 1980) 239-242; F. J.
HoLLis, The Sun Cult and the Temple at
Jerusalem, Myth and Ritual (ed. S. H.
Hooke; Oxford 1933) 87-110; Horus, The
Archaeology of the Herod's Temple, (Lon-
don 1934) 125, 132-133; T. HARTMANN,
wry femes Sonne, THAT YI, 987-999; E.
LiPINSKI, Le culte du Soleil chez les Semi-
tes occidentaux du I*' millénaire av. J.-C.,
OLP 22 (1991) 57-72; LIPIŃSKI, Šaemaeš,
TWAT 8 (1994) 306-315; J. Mater, Die
Sonne im religiósen Denken des antiken
Judentums, ANRW Il, 19/1 (Berlin/New
York 1979) 346-412; P. Maser, Sonne und
Mond. Exegetische Erwägungen zum Fort-
leben der spätantik-jüdischen Tradition in
der frühchristlichen Kultur, Kairos 25
(1983) 41-67; H. G. May, Some Aspects of
Solar Worship at Jerusalem, ZAW 55 (1937)
269-281; May, The Departure of the Glory
of Yahweh, JBL 56 (1937) 309-321; J. W.
McKay, Religion in Judah under the
Assyrians (732-609 B.C.) (London 1973);
McKay, Further Light on the Horses and
Chariot of the Sun in the Jerusalem Temple,
PEQ 105 (1973) 167-169; J. MORGENSTERN,
The King-God among the Western Semites
and the Meaning of Epiphanes, VT 10
(1960) 138-197 (esp. 159-161.179.182-189);
MORGENSTERN, The Cultic Setting of the
‘Enthronement Psalms’, HUCA 35 (1964) 1-
42; G. NAGEL, Le culte du Soleil dans
l'ancienne Égypte, ErJb 10 (1943) 9-56; M.
P. NussowN, Sonnenkalender und Sonnen-
religion, ARW 30 (1933) 141-173; W. O. E.
OESTERLEY, Early Hebrew Festival Rituals,
Myth and Ritual (ed. S. H. Hooke; London
1933) 111-146 (esp. 115-116, 133-135); G.
PETTINATO, Is. 2,7 e il culto del sole in
Giudea nel secolo VIII av. Cr., OrAnt 4
(1965) 1-30; A. RUBENS, Sun, EncJud 15
(Jerusalem 1971) 516-518; N. H. SNAITH,
The Jewish New Year Festival. Its Origin
767
SHEOL
and Development (London 1947) 90-93; H.
P. STAHLI, Solare Elemente im Jahwe-
glauben des Alten Testaments (Freiburg/Gót-
tingen 1985); K. VAN DER TOORN, Sun,
ABD 6 (1992) 237-239; J. TuBACH, /m
Schatten des Sonnengottes. Der Sonnenkult
in Edessa, Harran und Hatra am Vorabend
der christlichen Mission (Wiesbaden 1986);
C. VIROLLEAUD, Le dieu Shamash dans
l'ancienne Mésopotamie, ErJb 10 (1943)
51-79.
E. LIPIŃSKI
SHEOL VWI
I. Ideas of the underworld as the abode
of the dead are known from ancient Israel,
as well as from the surrounding cultures
(Moracpi 1985; Spronk 1986; XELLA
1987; Lewis 1989; TRoPPER 1989; BLocu-
SMITH 1992). In the Hebrew Bible £276] is
by far the most commonly used word for the
netherworld, appearing altogether 65x (66x
if the text in Isa 7:11 is emended). Also
other words were used in ancient Israel to
denote the realm of the dead (Tromp 1969:
23-128). The feminine noun Sheol appears
only in Hebrew, and as a loanword in Syriac
and Ethiopic (HALAT 1274). For some rare
occurrences in Aramaic see DISO 286. A
reference to Sheol in the Ebla-texts has been
claimed, but remains to be further investi-
gated (DAHOOD 1987:97). The etymology of
Sheol has been widely discussed (GERLE-
MAN 1976:838, GOrG 1982:26-33, WACH-
TER 1992:902-903, HALAT 1274, Lewis
1992:101-102), but it is safe to conclude
that despite a plethora of suggestions, no
satisfactory solution has been reached in the
matter.
There appears to be no textual support for
the claim that personifications of Sheol in
the Hebrew Bible reflect mythological ma-
terial.
Il. In the Hebrew Bible we occasionally
find descriptions of Sheol personified. These
personifications have often been related to
mythological descriptions found particularly
in Ugaritic texts. Thought to be similar to
representations of underworld deities else-
where, these biblical portrayals have been
felt to reflect not only the underworld itself,
but also the personified chthonic power
behind death, a demon or deity Sheol
(GASTER 1962:788; PARKER 1976:224). Typi-
cally, it has been claimed that some of the
descriptions of the insatiable appetite of
Sheol in the Bible are “remarkably reminis-
cent of Mot’s voracious appetite in CTA
5.1.19-20; 5.2.2-4” (Lewis 1992:103). How-
ever, these and similar views are not shared
by all scholars (PODELLA 1988:81; WÄCH-
TER 1992:907).
In Prov 1:12 the wicked highwaymen,
tempting the young man to criminal
behaviour, liken themselves to Sheol, swal-
lowing their victims alive. Representing a
broad scholarly consensus, it has been
claimed that this metaphor "derives from a
piece of Canaanite mythology" (McKANE
1977:269). In a similar manner, in Prov 27:
20, human greed is compared to the greed of
Sheol and —Abaddon (another poetic name
for the abode of the death. Kerib has here
w’bdh). Behind this text, too, commentators
have found a mythological delineation of the
deity ^Mot (McKANE 1977:617-618). Also
in Prov 30:16 the reference to the insatiabil-
ity of Sheol has been interpreted as deriving
from ancient Near Eastern mythology
(McKANE 1977:656). There is, however, no
reason to read these texts in Prov against the
background of ‘Canaanite mythology’. All
of these texts are typical wisdom texts, and
there is nothing in them that goes beyond
the wisdom observation that death claims a
large toll, and that there apparently is no end
to people dying. In particular Prov 30:15-16
indicates beyond doubt that this is how these
expressions should be understood. The
whole context concems insatiability. As the
leech (~Vampire) is insatiable in its greed
for blood, Sheol is greedy for more human
beings, the barren womb for offspring, the
dry earth for water, and the fire for fuel.
Apparently, there is no ‘mythological back-
ground’ for the metaphor of the two
daughters of the leech, or the fire crying for
more fuel. In a similar manner the inexor-
able greediness of death represents a piece
768
SHEOL
of basic knowledge experienced by all men
at all times. Rather than stemming from bits
and pieces of Canaanite mythology it would
seem that the personifications of Sheol de-
rive from the daily experience that death has
a great appetite for the living.
Similarly, in Hab 2:5, the personified
Babylonian empire is compared to Sheol. In
the same way as Sheol's appetite for dead is
never satisfied the greed of the Babylonian
empire for other nations is insatiable. The
comparison, appearing in a word of doom
against Babylon, probably reveals influence
from wisdom traditions (cf. Hab 2:4). But
again, the comparison is strictly metaphor-
ical and poetical, and there is no reason
whatsoever to see anything mythological in
this text. In Isa 5:14, too, the metaphor of
Sheol as a greedy monster, making his
throat wide open in order to swallow the
people, noble and common, is merely meta-
phorical (cf. also Hos 13:14, Isa 14:9, 11,
15; 28:15, 18; 38:18, Pss 6:6; 49:15).
Since the texts in which we find descrip-
tions of Sheol personified in their present
shape are purely poetical, any attempt to go
beyond the texts and ask whether these texts
ultimately go back to mythological descrip-
tions is bound to end up as sheer specu-
lations. Thus, when scholars have claimed
that what we find in these personifications of
Sheol does represent an act of demytholog-
ization, which may have a polemical tone,
wc shall have to characterize such state-
ments as speculative (ALONSO SCHOKEL
1988:125). Nor can we, on the basis of these
texts say anything about what the wniters
who wrote them thought about such matters.
Even if we should be dealing here with rem-
nants of ancient theomachic conflicts, pas-
sages of this kind cannot be taken without
further ado as evidence of Hebrew attitudes
to life and death (BARR 1992:35). But it is
doubtful whether in fact these and similar
texts do reflect theomachic conflicts at all,
or whether they may not merely be poetical
expressions, utimately stemming from wis-
dom traditions.
The whole issue becomes even more vital
when we know that no deity Sheol has ever
been attested. In the discussion whether or
not Sheol may appear as the name of a deity
the personal name Methushael, occurring in
Gen 4:18, has played a certain role (GASTER
1962:788; PARKER 1976:224; Lewis 1992:
103). Quite commonly, the name Methusha-
el has been interpreted as ‘Man of [the god]
Sheol’. However, most of the discussion of
the name Methushael has been of a rather
varying quality, and it is only through the
important study by Layton that some
progress towards a better understanding of
this name seems to have been made (1990:
66-74). According to Layton, however,
“The PN Metusha’el is probably nothing
more (or less) than a corrupt form of the PN
Metushelah. Whatever the case may be, no
meaning can be assigned to the second el-
ement of the PN Metusha’el as pointed by
the Massoretes” (1990:74). Even if Layton
should not be correct in his particular claim,
the difficulties in explaining the name
Methushael as a derivation from an assumed
deity Sheol are still too many to be over-
looked, and the existence of a god Sheol can
hardly be created on such a weak basis.
It is unfortunate that we still have no sys-
tematic and comprehensive study of the
personifications of Sheol in the Hebrew
Bible. The relatively lengthy treatment by
TRoMP, in particular working with Ugaritic
texts, and attempting to demonstrate that
many of the texts in question reflect a com-
mon ancient Near Eastern mythological lan-
guage, altogether appears to be remarkably
vague on the whole matter (TROMP 1969:22-
23, 80, 102-107, 163, 186). Morcover,
Tromp’s study is methodologically weak as it
avoids any discussion of personifications of
Sheol and their relationship to ‘demons’, ‘dei-
tics’, ‘hypostases’ as opposed to mere ‘meta-
phorical/poetical’ descriptions in general.
Personification as a rhetorical/poetical
device is very widespread in the Hebrew
Bible (ALonso SCHOKEL 1988:123-125).
Despite its enormous importance, the phe-
nomenon has been little studied. Among the
better known cases are Lady Wisdom
(Murpry 1990:133-149), and the personi-
fication of the city (GALAMBUSH 1992). In a
769
SHEPHERD
similar manner personifications of ‘death’
and the 'netherworld' are known from most
cultures. Thus, the personification of
mawet—‘death’—is also found in several
texts in the Hebrew Bible, often appearing
in word-pairs with Sheol. Obviously, it does
not follow from this that in these texts we
find references to a deity or demon ‘Death’
(cf. Jer 9:20, Ps 49:15, Job 28:22). That
both ‘death’ and the ‘realm of the dead” are
personified in poetic texts is quite natural
and one should not attempt to put anything
more into it. This is shown also from the
many texts where mawet and Sheol appear
in word pairs (full survey in ILLMANN
1979:149-151). The personifications of
mawet, too, are to be regarded purely as
poetical/metaphorical (WACHTER 1992:908).
HI. Bibliography
L. ALONSO SCHOKEL, A Manual of Hebrew
Poetics (Subsidia Biblica 11; Roma 1988);
J. Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope
of Immortality (London 1992); E. BLocu-
SmitH, Judahite Burial Practices and
Beliefs about the Dead (JSOT/ASOR Mono-
graph Series 7; Sheffield 1992); M.
Danoop, Love and Death at Ebla and their
Biblical Reflections, Love & Death in the
Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of
Marvin H. Pope (Ed. J. H. Marks & R. M.
Good; Guildford 1987) 93-99; J. GALAM-
BUSH, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel. The
City as Yahweh's Wife (SBL DS 130; Atlan-
ta 1992); T. H. Gaster, Dead, Abode of
the, /DB 1 (1962) 787-788; G. GERLEMAN,
isd, THAT Il (1976) 837-841; M. Gore,
'Scheol' - Israels Unterweltsbegnff und
seine Herkunft, BN 17 (1982) 26-33; K. -J.
ILLMAN, Old Testament Formulas about
Death (Publications of the Research Institute
of the Abo Akademi Foundation 48; Abo
1979); S. C. Layton, Archaic Features of
Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew
Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta 1990); T. J. Lewis,
Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and
Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta 1989); Lewis,
Dead, Abode of the, ABD 2 (1992) 101-105;
W. McKane, Proverbs. A New Approach
(OTL; London 1977); L. Mora.ot, L’Aldila
dell'uomo nelle civiltà babilonese, egizia,
greca, latina, ebraica, cristiana e musul-
mana (Milano 1985); R. E. Murpny, The
Tree of Life. An Exploration of Biblical Wis-
dom Literature (New York 1990); S. B.
PARKER, Deities, Underworld, /DBS (Abing-
don 1976) 222-225; *T. PopELLa, Grund-
züge alttestamentlicher Jenseitsvorstellungen
UNO, BN 43 (1988) 70-89; K. SPRONK,
Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the
Ancient Near East (AOAT 219; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1986); Archeologia dell'inferno.
L'Aldilà nel mondo antico, vicino-orientale
e classico (ed. P. Xella; Verona 1987); J.
Tropper, Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im
Alten Orient und im Alten Testament
(AOAT 223; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989); N. J.
Trompe, Primitive Conceptions of Death and
the Nether World in the Old Testament
(BibOr 21; Rome 1969); *L. WACHTER,
OWS, TWAT VII/8 (1992) 901-910 (& lit].
H. M. BARSTAD
SHEPHERD 79
I. On the basis of Gen 49:24, MaaG
reconstructed the expression Rd‘eh Yifra’él,
‘Shepherd of Israel’ as the name of the per-
sonal god of Israel/Jacob, comparable in his
view to the -*'Fear of Isaac’ and the
—'Mighty One of Jacob' (1980:121). Since
the name can only be obtained by textual
emendation, Maag's proposal is hardly con-
vincing (cf. KOCKERT 1988:65-67). Though
‘shepherd’ is not unusual as an epithet for
Near Eastern gods, it has nowhere attained
the status of an independent divine name.
II. In antiquity the occupation of shep-
herd was regarded as a manly and noble
one. It required courage, endurance, and a
great amount of practical wisdom. The
image of the shepherd offered an apt and
much-used metaphor for human rulers and
gods. Kings were like shepherds in the sense
that they protected their subjects from harm
and provided them with conditions in which
they could thrive. In self-laudatory inscrip-
tions of Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings,
the comparison is quite frequent (VANCIL
1992:1188-1189). Some kings were not
merely likened to shepherds, but credited
with a career as one before they exercised
kingship. According to the Sumerian King
770
SHEQER — SHIELD OF ABRAHAM
List, the famous kings Etana and Lugalban-
da had both begun as shepherds (sipa;
WAETZOLDT 1972-75:424). This biographi-
cal detail, that reminds one of David, may in
fact have been a standard literary motif:
shepherding constituted a kind of appren-
ticeship for kingship.
The parallel beween kings and gods need
hardly be explained: the latter were simply
more powerful. When the metaphor of shep-
herd is applied to gods, it is the notion of
protection that predominates. Hence the
regular occurrence of the epithet in theo-
phoric personal names of the type Šamaš-
re’ua, ‘Shamash is my shepherd’ (see e.g. J.
J. STAMM, Die akkadische Namengebung
{Leipzig 1939] 214, 223). Yet also outside
the realm of personal devotion to which
these names attest we find the epithet ‘shep-
herd' used for most of the major gods
(AKkGE 164-165).
III. In the Bible the image of the shep-
herd is frequently—though not always ex-
plicitly—applied to God. He is represented
as a sollicitous guardian of the herd, car-
rying the animals that cannot keep up, and
not urging on those that have young (Isa
40:11). The image is not merely idyllic. God
is also a powerful leader who drives out
ether nations to make room for his own
flock (Ps 78:52-55.70-72). The classic ela-
boration of the shepherd metaphor is found
in Ps 23: it describes the vindication of the
suppliant before the eyes of his opponents
during an ordeal ceremony (cf. K. VAN DER
Toorn, Ordeal Procedures in the Psalms
and the Passover Meal, VT 38 [1988] 427-
445, esp. 441) as God’s leading his devotee
like a shepherd to green pastures.
. The thesis put forth by Maag should be
distinguished from the use of ‘shepherd’ as
a metaphor for God. It implies that ‘Shep-
herd’ (or more precisely ‘Shepherd-of-
Israel’) was a name used for the ‘God of the
fathers’ (cf. A. ALT, Der Gott der Väter
[Stuttgart 1929]) whom Israel (or Jacob)
Worshipped. The thesis rests on the assump-
tion that the word "eben, —'rock', now sep-
araüng thc words ró'eh and Yisra’él, is a
‘Secondary interpolation. Admittedly, the pres-
ent form of the text seems overloaded (H.
ROARS ETE
Y
PE
GUNKEL, Genesis [HAT 1/1; Göttingen
1917] 486): one expects either ‘the Shep-
herd of Israel’ (cf. Ps 80:2; cf. 121:4 Sdmér
Yisra’él) or ‘the Rock of Israel’ (cf. Isa
30:29 sür Yifrdà'él). Yet neither expression
seems particularly archaic; the supposition
that either of them ever served as an inde-
pendent designation of the personal or fam-
ily god (the so-called ‘god of the fathers’
postulated by Alt) cannot be substantiated.
Like the expression *dbir Ya'ágób, ‘Mighty
One of Jacob', which also occurs elsewhere
in the Hebrew Bible as an epithet of
— Yahweh (Isa 49:26; 60:16; Ps 132:2.5; cf.
Isa 1:24 "?àbír Yiíra?el), both would seem to
be poetic designations of Yahweh the God
of Israel.
IV. Bibliography
M. K6cCKERT, Vdtergott und Vdterverheis-
sungen (FRLANT 142; Göttingen 1988); V.
Maag, Der Hirte Israels. Eine Skizze von
Wesen und Bedeutung der Väterreligion,
Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesam-
melte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttesta-
mentlichen Religionsgeschichte (ed. H. H.
Schmid & O. H. Steck; Göttüngen/Zürich
1980; originally published in the Schwei-
zerische Theologische Umschau 28 [1958]
2-28) 111-144; M. SaEBg, Divine Names
and Epithets in Genesis 49:24b-25a, Fest-
schrift E. Nielsen (VTSup 50; Leiden 1993)
126-127; J. W. VaANcIL, Sheep, Shepherd,
ABD 5 (1992) 1188-1190; H. WAETZOLDT,
Hirt, RLA 4 (1972-75) 421-425.
K. VAN DER TOORN
SHEQER ~> FALSEHOOD
SHIELD OF ABRAHAM OMON 433
I. The phrase magén ’abradham, ‘Shield
of Abraham’, occurs only in Sir 51:12 [in
the Hebrew text, not in LXX], the final song
of thanksgiving in the context of a liturgical
antiphony (cf. Ps 136). ALT (1929) and LEs-
LIE (1936) assumed that mágen "abraham
was a special name of the god of Abraham,
because God is described as presenting him-
self as “a shield for you” ?andki magén lak,
“J am a shield for you”, Gen 15:1). The sug-
gestion cannot be properly understood out-
774
SHIELD OF ABRAHAM
side the context of Alt's hypothesis concern-
ing the God of the Fathers.
II. Avr's reconstruction of the name
“Shield of Abraham” presupposes that
Genesis 15 goes back to a preliterary tra-
dition (1929:48); this oral tradition would
have preserved the ancient cult legend for
the god of Abraham. In recent years well-
founded objections have been raised against
both presuppositions (for references see
KÖCKERT 1988:204-247; BLUM 1984; WEI-
MAR 1989). One obvious criticism must be
that mdgén, ‘shield’, though frequently
occurring, especially in the psalter (13 pas-
Sages), as an appellative of Yahweh, is
never used in the form of "Shield of X" (Sir
51:12 derives from Gen 15:1b).
For a number of reasons, some exegetes
question the vocalization mdgén and take
the verbal root MGN for a starting-point
instead. This root occurs in the Piel in Hos
11:8 (as a parallel to NTN) and Gen 14:20.
The interpretation of j3 as a verbal form
opens various possibilities. EHRLICH (1908:
58) and KESSLER (1964) adopt the reading
mogén, KESSLER translates Gen 15:1 as “...
I am about to give you your very great
reward”, because he thinks this fits in well
with Abraham's question in v 2 (1964:496-
497). Philologically speaking, this interpre-
tation is not impossible, because one can
indeed form an active voice participle anal-
ogous to Qal (cf. dbr) with verbs normally
only used in Piel. All the same, mgn Pi. as
used in Gen 14:20; Hos 11:8 and 1QM
18:13 means ‘deliver up’ and is used with
the accusative of the person.
DaHooD (1966) and Cross (1973) adopt
the reading mdgan. They interpret this word
in the light of Ug mgn (‘to bestow a
favour’ [Cross 1973:4], ‘beschenken’ [WUS
No. 1513]) as ‘benefactor’, 'suzerain'
(DAuoop 1966:414). Dahood supports his
interpretation with a reference to Pun
mágón, Lat imperator, dux and Ps 84:12 (in
this passage he translates Jemes in the light
of Hittite contracts and El-Amarna letters as
‘sovereign’ and mdgén > mdgdn as 'suze-
rain’ (1966-1970: 16]). He interprets Pss
47:10; 84:10; 89:19 in this sense as well,
linking ndyby *mym, msyh or mlk with mgn.
The evidence in support of the interpretation
of mágón as a Punic title for generals is
doubtful, however (FREEDMAN & O’Con-
NOR 1984:658). There is no valid reason
why one should read magén as magan in the
Book of Psalms (cf. the pertinent analysis in
O. Loretz 1974a:177-183).
DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTIN (1974:
32) distinguish between MGN I, ‘Shield’
(KTU 4.127:3); MGN II, ‘Gift (KTU 1.4
i:23; 1.8:1; 1.16 i:45); and MGN ITE, ‘to
bestow, to give’ (KTU 1.4 iii:25, 28, 30, 33,
36). LonETZ sees Gen 15:lb as a "perfect
bicolon according to the laws of Canaanite
poetics". Because of the parallel of mgn
and fkr he translates: "1 (myself) am your
gift / your generous reward!" (1974b:492).
The question remains, though, whether such
a spiritualized conception was really pos-
sible in the context of archaic oriental poet-
The only possible interpretation of 32 in
terms of a numen would be the one ad-
vanced by Dahood and Cross. By way of
implication, however, this interpretation
assumes the context of the oriental state
ruled by a king; it does not fit in with the
social reality of an existence on the fringes
of nomadism. However, there is no need to
change the textual basis for interpretation in
Gen 15:1 in any of the modes suggested
above. The various proposals arc quite
arbitrary when judged in the light of the cvi-
dence for ‘shield’ as a designation of God in
cultic lyric poetry. In Gen 15:1 ‘shield’ is an
epithet of Yahweh. The usc of a shield as a
defensive weapon (cf. Deut 33:29) makes it
possible to adopt that term as a metaphor of
divine protection (cf. Deut 33:29; 2 Sam
22:3.31.36 and parallel passages; Ps 18:3.31.
36; Pss 3:4; 7:11; 28:7; 33:20; 59:12; 84:12;
115:9-11; 119:114; 144:2; Prov 2:7; 30:5,
which may be compared with a Neo-Assyr-
ian oracle to Esahaddon [sec TUAT 2/1, p.
59 iv:18-19]: "Esarhaddon, in Arbela [I am]
your effective shield"); the protection here is
promised to the people represented by their
ancestor. The one who makes the promise,
however, and who needs to be identified in
772
SHIMIGE
person with that protection, is Yahweh him-
self.
WI. Bibliography
A. ALT, Der Gott der Väter (BWANT
I/12; Stuttgart 1929 - KS 1; München
1953:1-77) 24-29, 67 n. 4; E. BLUM, Die
Komposition der Vatergeschichte (WMANT
57; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984) 366-383; F. M.
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.
Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel (Cambridge, Mass. 1973) 3-12; M. J.
DaHoop, Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography
XL Bib 47 (1966) 403-419; Danoop,
Psalms (AB 16; New York 1966-1970) 16-
17; Danoop, Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicogra-
phy XI, Bib 54 (1973) 361; M. DIETRICH, O.
LORETZ & J. SANMARTIN, Zur ugaritischen
Lexikographie XI, UF 6 (1974) 31-32; A. B.
EHRLICH, Randglossen zur hebräischen
Bibel 1 (Leipzig 1908) 57-58; D. N. FREED-
MAN & M. P. O'Connor, mdgén, TWAT 4
(1984) 646-659; M. KESSLER, The "Shield"
of Abraham?, VT 14 (1964) 494-497; M.
KÓCKERT, Vütergott und Váterverheifungen.
Eine Auseinandersetzung mit A. Alt und
seinen. Erben (FRLANT 142; Göttingen
1988); E. A. LESLIE, Old Testament Re-
ligion in the Light of its Canaanite Back-
ground (New York 1936) 37; O. LORETZ,
Psalmenstudien III, UF 6 (1974a) 177-183;
Loretz, men — ‘Geschenk’ in Gen 15:1, UF
6 (1974b) 492; P. WEIMAR, Genesis 15. Ein
redaktionskritischer Versuch. Die Väter
Israels. Beitrage zur Theologie der Pa-
triarchenüberlieferungen im Alten Testa-
ment. (FS J. Scharbert; ed. M. Górg; Stutt-
gart 1989) 361-411.
M. KÓCKERT
SHIMIGE
I. The biblical anthroponym Shamgar
(Judg 3:31; 5:6) is most likely understood as a
Hurrian name (Simig-ari) meaning ‘Shimige
has given’ (FEILER 1939). Shimige is the
Hurrian sun-god (VON ScHULER 19832).
Il. In the religion of the Hittites a num-
ber of solar deities are worshipped, the main
Ones being the sun-goddess of Arinna, con-
nected with the underworld, and the sun-god
of the heavens, usually referred to in the
texts as uru. When it comes to the Hurrian
sun-god, this Sumerogram has to be read as
Shimige.
As regards his nature and function,
Shimige has a lot in common with the Mes-
opotamian sun-god Shamash as well as with
ancient Near Eastern solar deities in genera}
(Shemesh). Shimige is all-seeing, taking
note of the acts of men, punishing the evil-
doer and blessing the righteous. In his capa-
city as omniscient witness, he is often invo-
ked in treaties. A divine judge, he
announces the decisions of the council of
the gods by signs on earth. Positive traits
predominate in descriptions of the god: he is
the —shepherd of men, the upholder of justi-
ce, and the protector of the weak.
The cult of Shimige was not confined to
Anatolia. Along the Phoenician coast also he
had his worshippers. In the time covered by
the Amarna letters, for instance, the ruler of
Qatna honoured Shimige as his family god
("the god of my father", EA no. 55). The Ugar-
itic onomasticon, too, shows that Shimige
was a familiar deity in Western Syria (cf.
such names as arSmg and tmgdl, see F.
GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte
aus Ugarit [StP 1; Rome 1967} 253-254).
III. Though attempts have been made to
find a Semitic etymology for the naine
Shamgar (VAN SELMS 1964:300-301), they
have failed to carry conviction (DE VAUX
1973). Since the name Shimigar(i) is well
attested in the Hurrian onomasticon, and
considering the fact that the cult of Shimige
was not unknown in the Syrian territory,
Shamgar’s name is best understood as Hur-
rian. The first to suggest a foreign origin
was HAUPT (1914:199-200). Shamgar's patro-
nym ‘son of Anat’ (possibly an occupa-
tional designation) strengthens the hy-
pothesis of the foreign ongin of the man.
There is no evidence of any awareness of
the theophoric character of Samgar’s name
on the side of the biblical narrator.
IV. Bibliography
W. FEILER, Hurritische Namen im Alten
Testament, ZA 45 (1939) 221-222; V.
Haas, Geschichte der Hethitischen Religion
773
SHINING ONES ~ SHULMAN
(HdO 1/15; Leiden 1994) 379-381; P.
HauPr, Die Schlacht von Taanach, Studien
zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsge-
schichte Julius Wellhausen zum 70. Geburts-
tag (ed, K. Marti; BZAW 27; Giessen 1914)
191-225; E. von ScHULER, Sonnengott-
heiten, WbMyth V] (19837) 196-201; A.
VAN SELMS, Judge Shamgar, VT 14 (1964)
294-300; R. pe Vaux, Histoire ancienne
d'Israél, Vol. 2 (Paris 1973) 127-128.
K. VAN DER TOORN
SHINING ONE(S) 270
J. The noun farim in Ps 82:7, tradition-
ally rendered as ‘princes’ or the like, has
been construed as the designation of divine
beings: ‘Shining Ones’ (MULLEN 1980:227-
245) or ‘Shining One’ (PaGE 1996:162-
164). Pace (1996:162) interprets the final
mem as having emphatic force and derives
the meaning from Proto-Semitic SRR, ‘to
shine’. Ps 82:6-7 would contain allusions to
a Canaanite Myth of Cosmic Rebellion.
IY. A myth of Cosmic Rebellion as such
is not known from ancient Near Eastern
sources although echoes of it have been
heard in Ugaritic (KTU 1.23:8-11.52-56.61-
64; 1.24:23-33) and bibiical texts (e.g. Gen
6:1-4; Isa 14; Ezek 28:1-10.11-19; Ps 82;
Job 38:1-38; Dan 11-12). W. F. ALBRIGHT
(Archaeology and the Religion of Israel
[Baltimore 1946) 83-86) argued that the
Ugaritic deity Athtar could be seen as the
prototype of a mythical rebellious deity.
PAGE (1996:51-109) has shown that Athtar
is not cast in a rebellious role in the Baal-
cycle but the mysterious character of the
deity might have opened the lane for negati-
ve speculations, Athtar then becoming a
rebellious divine being.
The name of the binomial Ugaritic deity
mt-w-r attested only at KTU 1.23:8 has
been interpreted by MULLEN (1980:238-39)
and Pace (1996:96-100) as ‘Death-and-Shi-
ning One’, the deity being identical with
Athtar, comparable to Ayll bn Shr, the Bright
morning Star (Isa 14:2; —Helel) The ety-
mological argument for this interpretation 1s
rather weak. Preference should be given to
the more traditional interpretation of mt-w-£r
as ‘Death-and-Ruler’ (e.g. D. PARDEE, AfO
36-37 [1989-90] 461-462; N. WYvart, UF
24 [1992] 425-421).
The epithet for Eshmun [X]r qdi, 'holy
prince', in the Eshmun-ezer inscription (KA7
14:17) has been construed by PAGE
(1996:98) as meaning 'Shining One', with-
out a convincing argument, however.
IIE. Psalm 82 contains polemics against
the worship of deities other than YHWu.
Since they do not act 3n an appropriate way
toward the poor and the needy, they will, in
spite of them being gods, die like human-
kind. hd hírym stands in parallellism to 'dm
and therefore frym should indicate human
beings. As such the Psalm is a polemic
aginst the Canaanite conception that princes
fallen in battle could await divine status and
beatific afterlife (see K. Spronx, Beatific
Afterlife in Acient Israel and in the Ancient
Near East [Neukirchen Vluyn 1986] e.g.
226, 300). Although rym could refer to
‘angelic princes’ (HALAT 1260; Prince)
the suggestion of Mullen and Page to read
divine beings in Ps 82:7 is too speculative.
IV. Bibliography
T. MULLEN, The Assembly of the Gods
(HSM 24; Chico 1980); H. R. PAGE, The
Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of its
Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature
(VTSup 65; Leiden 1996).
B. BECKING
SHIQMAH ~ SYCOMORE
SHIQQUS ~ ABOMINATION
SHULMAN
I, A deity Shulman is known às a
theophoric element in Mesopotamian per-
sonal names. The god's name has often been
connnected with the noun Sulmu, “welfare”,
suggesting that the god functioned as a di-
vine healer (ALBRIGHT 1931-1932:167).
Shulman occurs as a theophoric element m
the name of the Assyrian king Salman’eser,
‘Shalmaneser’ (2 Kgs 17:3//18:9) and has
7714
SHULMANITU
been recovered in the personal names
Solomon (B. MEISSNER, Babylonien und
Assyrien II [Heidelberg 1925) 33, 40, 48;
see however HALAT 1425) and Shalman
(Hos 10:4).
II. The deity Shulman is attested only in
theophoric elements of personal names,
mostly from the final quarter of the 2nd mil-
lennium BCE (= Middle Assyrian period),
e.g. !Sulmanu-asared (Shalmaneser), i.e.
“(the god) Shulman is foremost, first-rank
(among the gods)” (cf. TALLQvisT 1914). A
form of the god Shulman seems to have sur-
vived in north Syria as late as the Hellen-
istic period and beyond (MILIK 1967a:578;
1967b:293-297).
In an Egyptian votive stela from the 20-
21st dynasty a deity (R3p)-Sl/rmne is at-
tested (R. STADELMAN, Syrisch-palástinen-
sische Gottheiten in Agypten [Leiden 1967]
55). In Ugaritic personal names the (theo-
phoric) element $/mn occurs (F. GRÖNDAHL,
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit
(StP 1; Roma 1967] 193. 414). Though it is
tempting to relate both deities to the Mes-
opotamian Shulman, they can better be
interpreted as referring to a West-Semitic
deity +Shalman.
III. In Hosea 10:4, the memory of “the
ravaging of Beth-arbel by Shalman on the
day of battle” may refer to an attack on the
Israelite town by an Assyrian monarch
Shalmaneser, perhaps Shalmaneser III in the
mid-9th century BCE (AsTouR 1971; S.
TiMM, Moab zwischen den Müchten [AAT
17; Wiesbaden 1989) 319-320). The theo-
phoric element Shalman is all that remains
in this abbreviated name.
It has been conjectured that the god
Shulman was known among the West Sem-
ites as ~Shalem, the divinity whose name is
thought to be a component of the name of
the city Jerusalem, where a temple of thc
god was allegedly to be found (LEwv 1940).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Syro-Mesopotamian
God Sulman-ESmun and Related Figures,
AfO 9 (1931-32) 164-169; M. C. ASTOUR,
841 Bc, The First Assyrian Invasion of Is-
rael, JAOS 91 (1971) 383-389; J. LEwv, Les
textes paléo-assyriens et l'Ancien Testa-
ment, RHR 110 (1934) 29-65 [62-64];
Lewy, The Sulmin Temple in Jerusalem,
JBL 59 (1940) 519-522; J. T. MiLik, Les
papyrus araméens d'Hermoupolis et les
cultes syro-phéniciens, Bib 48 (1967) 546-
584; MiLiK, Inscriptions araméennes en
caractéres grecs de Doura-Europos et une
dédicace grecque du Cordove, Syria 44
(1967) 289-306; K. L. TALLQVIST, Assyrian
Personal Names (Helsingsfors 1914) 222-
223.
M. CoGAN
SHULMANITU
I. "The Shulammite" in Cant 7:1 is
held by some scholars to be a reference to
Shulmanitu, an Assyrian war goddess with
underworld associations (ALBRIGHT 1963:5-
6; 1969:134, 150, 187).
Il. The name of the goddess is known
from Middle Assyrian texts from the reign
of Tukulti-Ninurta I (ca. 1243-1207 BCE),
written dpi(siLIM)-ni-tu (cf. RIMA 1.259-
263). The name also appears in the Takultu
ritual text (KAR 214, ii, 47) and the god list
An = Anum (CT 24, 33, Obv. 16 9SuL-Ma-
NI-TU = [Star-URU-SILIM-MA). Albright ex-
plained the form of the name as being adjec-
tival, i.e. the goddess Ishtar, belonging to
the god —Shulman; the ending -itu having
both gentilic and adjectival meanings
(ALBRIGHT 1931-1932:164-169). Later, he
asserted: “The Hebrew form (in Cant 7:1) is
presumably due to a conflation of (the god-
dess) Sulmanit with Sunamit, the Shunamite
woman, appellation of the last consort of
King David" (ALBRIGHT 1963:5). Yet the
reading of the name of the goddess in the
Tukulti-Ninurta inscription is far from cer-
tain and a number of scholars prefer Dinitu;
(RIMA 1:259).
III. The word Shulammite appears only
twice in the OT, both times in Cant 7:1.
Commentators are far from unanimous as to
its meaning; cf. the thorough survey of
scholarly approaches in Pore 1977:596-600.
If Canticles is interpreted as a text with
roots in pagan fertility worship, the Hebrew
775
SHUNAMA
Shulammite is seen as reflecting the name
Shulmanitu, the feminine form of the divine
name Shulman.
Yet the suggested cultic background of
Canticles has not found much support in the
work which is basically secular love poetry.
Many take “the Shulammite” as an appella-
tion, a form of “the Shunammite”, (so ms. B
of LXX), i.e. the woman from the town of
Shunem. This woman is almost universally
identified with Abishag, the maiden from
Shunem who served as the elderly King
David’s bed companion (1 Kgs 1:3; cf., too,
2 Kgs 4:8). It is often noted that Eusebius
identified Shunem with the village of Shu-
jem near Mount Tabor (Onomasticon, No.
856); but this was with reference to Josh
19:18; a second Shunem, the one of Kings,
was located in Samaria. One must also con-
sider that if it is an appellative, then "the
Shulammite” might be referring to an other-
wise unknown “woman of Shalem”, i.e.
Jerusalem (cf. Gen 14:18; Ps 76:3). Still
others take Shulammite as a term of endear-
ment; King Solomon’s beloved is called
“the Solomoness”. A similar designation is
used in the Ugaritic tale of Aqhat, in which
the wife of Dane] is called "Lady Dantay"
(ANET 1512).
IV. Bibliography
. W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Syro-Mesopotamian
God Sulman-E&mun and Related Figures,
AfO 9 (1931-32) 164-169; ALBRIGHT, Ar-
chaic Survivals in the text of Canticles,
Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to G.
R.. Driver (eds. D. W. Thomas & W. D.
McHardy; Oxford 1963) 1-7, esp. 5-6;
ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan
(Garden City 1969) 134, 150, 187; M. H.
Pore, Song of Songs (AB 7C; Garden City
1977).
M. CoGAN
SHUNAMA
I. The name of the city of Shunem,
Xünem, is attested in Josh 18:19; 1 Sam 28:
4; 2 Kgs 4:8 (see also the indication for
inhabitants of that city *Sinammi, | Kgs
1:3.15; 2:17.20-21; 2 Kgs 4:12.25.36). The
etymology is unclear (HALAT 1339 offers
no etymology), the narne has been related to
a Ugaritic deity Shunama occurring as an
element in the binomial divine name Tkmn-
w-Snm (GINSBERG 1936:92; Jinku 1970).
II. The binomial deity -~Thakumanv-
wa-Shunama is attested at Ugarit in literary-
religious texts as well as in offering-lists,
The two names appear together. In KTU
1.114, the description of a heavenly
marzeah, they are depicted as sons of El
and, probably, to be identified with the
'gate-keeper of the house of EP (D.
PARDEE, Les textes paramythologiques
[RSOu 4; Paris 1988] 59-60). Here, they
perform the filia] duty towards a drunken
father referred to in the epic of Aqhat (KTU
1.17 1:30). In the ritual KTU 1.41:12.16 the
offering of an ewe for the deity is prescribed
for the ritual on the fifteenth day of the
month ‘First-of-the-Wine’, besides which
the offering of a ram is prescribed as an
additional offering at the same event. On the
third day of the festival an ewe must be
offered to Thakumanu-wa-Shunama (KTU
1.41:31-32). In a list of deities in alphabetic
Script Thakumanu-wa-Shunama are pre-
sented as the sons of El (KTU 1.65:1-4).
The resemblance of Thukamuna with the
Kassite deity Sugqamuna has induced
scholars to identify Shunama with the con-
sort of Sugamuna, the mountain-goddess
Sulimaliya (e.g. MIRONOV 1933:143; Gray
1958:138; E. LIPINSKI, OLP 2 [1971] 66-67;
Wyatt 1990:447). It should be noted that
Shunama is presented as the brother of Thu-
kamuna and the son of El in the Ugaritic
texts. These observations preclude an identi-
fication with an apparently feminine deity.
Besides, the etymological relations between
the names of the two deities are far from
clear (PARDEE 1990:197-198).
The etymology of the name Shunama 1s
still unclear in spite of many proposals (see
the outline in PARDEE 1990:196 n. 2). The
identification of Shunama with the second
element in the epithet for El ab 3nm, ‘father
of years’ is proposed by Jrrxu (1970:278-
279) and C. H. Gordon (EJ, Father of
Snm, JNES 35 [1976] 261-262; see FERCH
776
SHUNEM - SIDON
JBL 99 [1980] 82-83) who interpret the epi-
thet as ‘father of Shunama’. This proposal.
however, is not convincing (-*Ancient of
Days).
Recently, Wyatt has proposed that the
story in Gen 34 is an old Indo-European
myth on sacred marriage brought to thc
region by the Hurrians (the Horites of the
story; WvATT 1990). In his view the Ugar-
itic binomial deity contains an allusion to
this myth. In Gen 34, Shanimu has been
transformed into Dinah, daughter of
-»Jacob, by the adoption of the epithet dnt
(cf. Hebrew 26nd), ‘harlot’, ‘whore’,
appropriate to a goddess engaged in sacred
marriage myths and perhaps rituals. The
ancient myth has been transformed into a
moral tale. No hint of the ancient divine
status of Shechem or Dinah survives.
Wyatt's view rests on obsolete speculations
regarding the presence of an influential
Aryan stratum in the ancient Near East in
the second millennium BCE.
III. The toponym Shunem is also attested
in the Amarna correspondence: Su-na-ma
(EA 250:43; 365:12.20) and in the list
describing the ninth century BCE campaign
of Pharaoh Sheshonk: §d-na-m<a> (15).
The relation between the Ugaritic deity and
the Canaanite/Israelite toponym is probably
a case of homonymy. In the OT stories the
name of the city of Shunem does not have a
religious signification. The healing by a
magic touch performed by Elisha in 2 Kgs 4
is not related to the city of Shunem as such.
IV. Bibliography
H. L. GINSBERG, Kine Ugarit (Jerusalem
1936); J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan
VTSup 5; Leiden 1958) 138; A. JiRKU,
nm (Schunama). der Sohn des Gottes ’Il,
ZAW 82 (1970) 278-279; N. D. MiRONOV,
Aryan Vestiges in the Near East of the
Second Millenium BC, AcOr 11 (1933) 140-
217: *D. PARDEE, Tukamuna wa Sunama,
UF 20 (1988) 195-199 (with lit); N.
Wyatt, The story of Dinah and Shechem,
UF 22 (1990) 433-458.
B. BECKING
SHUNEM C30 —- SHUNAMA
SID —> SIDON
SIDON [7S5
I. The ancient Phoenician city of Sidon,
situated 25 miles north of Tyre, plays a con-
siderable role in biblical literature. It came
to stand for Phoenicia in general (SCHMITZ
1992:17). Lewy has argued that the city
bears the name of the demon Sidinu known
from the Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal
(1934).
II. In Assyrian records, the city of Sidon
is written si-du-nu (S. PARPOLA, Neo-
Assyrian Toponyms [AOAT 6; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1970] 322-323). The name thus
resembles the Akkadian word for vertigo
(sidánu), once treated as a demon in the
Amarna fragment of the Myth of Nergal and
Ereshkigal (d$i-i-da-na, EA 357:49). The
phonological resemblance does not suffice,
however, to posit that the one was named
after the other. It would be highly unusual to
find a city named after a demon—and a very
minor one, at that.
Another possibility of linking the name of
the city with the name of a god might be
found in the god Sid whose cult was wide-
spread along the Mediterranean coasts
(TEixipoR 1977). Though the nature of the
god is nowhere explicitly stated, his name is
probably connected with fishing: in Hebrew
the root SwD refers to both hunting and
fishing. A connection with the god Agreus
CHunter') mentioned by Philo of Byblos
(quoted by Euseb. Praep.Ev. 1.10.11) is
conceivable (H. W. ATTRIDGE & R. A.
Open, Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician
History. Introduction, Critical Text, Trans-
lation, Notes (Washinton DC 1981] 83-84).
Yet though Sidon could be etymologically
explained as ‘belonging to the god Sid’, the
god Sid is never mentioned as the city god
of Sidon; that position was for b‘l sdn, ‘Baal
of Sidon’ (KAI 14:18). It is unlikely that this
designation is an epithet of Sid who is never
mentioned in texts from Sidon.
Though the city of Sidon is probably not
named after the god Sid, it is very possible
777
SILVANUS
that the name of both the city and the god
go back to the same root. This would mean
that Sidon was named after one of its major
sources of income: fishing (WESTERMANN
1974:695). In this respect, the toponym
might be compared with Bethsaida, ‘house
of fishing’, a place at Lake Tiberias (Matt
11:21 and par.).
III. The denunciations of Sidon in the
books of the major prophets indicate that the
city was known as a centre of trade (Isa
23:2.4.12) and maritime supremacy (Ezek
27:8). Though the Deuteronomists refer pol-
emically to ‘the gods of Sidon’ (Judg 10:6;
1 Kgs 11:5; 2 Kgs 23:13), there is no indi-
cation that Sidon was ever considered to
have divine status or to have been named
after a god.
IV. Bibliography
J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens et
l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 48-49;
P. C. Scuumz, Sidon, ABD 6 (1992) 17-18;
J. TEIXIDOR, The Pagan God (Princeton
1977) 41; C. WESTERMANN, Genesis l-11
(BK I1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974) 695-696.
K. VAN DER TOORN
SILVANUS
I. Silvanus is used in Latin for the
Greek name Silas (or vice-versa). This has
the effect of remodelling the name into a
theonym. The name is bome by a distin-
guished Christian in Acts and some of the
letters.
IL. Silvanus is an adjective (‘of the
woods’), which has led to speculation that
this rustic god is a special form of some
more substantive god, e.g. Faunus (Wis-
SOWA 1912:213; cf. ^Quirinus), and in any
case there is a certain measure of confusion
with the Greek 'Silenos' (Wissowa 1912:
215 n. 11). A rustic god, he has no part in
the state calendar or priestly apparatus,
though inscriptions have revealed his altars
and mini-temples (aediculae) even in Rome
(WissowA 1912:213). In addition to his
province of 'woods', he is viewed in rela-
tively cultivated and cleared Italy (PETER
1915:843) as a “god of fields and flock”
(Vergil, Aeneid 8, 600). Dolabella, a Roman
surveyor, (Gromatici latini [ed. K. Lach-
mann; Berlin 1848] I 302) partitions his
activity into (a) care of household goods
(indeed inscriptions associate him with
Lares and Penates); (b) care of flocks; (c)
care of boundaries when a grove demarcates
the boundaries of several properties. His cult
typically took place in a small precinct with
trees and mini-temple and had some organ-
isational importance: women were excluded
and men could be united into collegia
through his cult, even when they were part
of the imperial staff. Throughout the West-
ern Empire (notably in Illyricum—the for-
mer Yugoslavia) there are substantial
remains of his cult, because of the identi-
fication of local natural deities with a
Silvanus who was evidently more popular
on the ground than the writings of the
Roman élite might lcad us to believe. He is
depicted bearded and rather long-haired,
with a branch in his left hand and a pruning-
hook in his right. In a sense he is a pro-
jection of the tree under which his statue
may rest (cf. MANNHARDT 1905:121).
III. Silvanus is the Latin name in the
Vulgate of the Greek Silas (itself represent-
ing an Aramaic name)—4he leading Chris-
tian brother mentioned at Acts 15-18. Strik-
ingly, even the Greek text names him as
‘Silvanus’ at 1 Thess 1:1 and 2 Thess l:1
(and 1 Pet 5:12, unless that is a different
Silvanus), suggesting the deliberate adoption
of this Latin name by Silvanus himself (just
as a Saul became Paul). It is possible,
alternatively, that Silas is a contraction of
Silvanus (cf. ScHMIEDEL 1903:4519). It is
tempting to consider Silas-Silvanus welcom-
ing association with a god close to the
hearts of ordinary people and not especially
regarded by the élite—or by books on
Roman religion. The name is, however, not
unparallelled: PW lists 6 examples, as do
PAPE-BENSELER (including a philosopher
mentioned by M. Aurelius 10:31) and there
is the fascinating case of POxy 335 (c. 85
CE), where one Paulos sells a Nikaias Sil-
vanos, "one of the Jews from Oxyrynchos",
a sixth of a house (FRAME 1912: 68).
778
SIMON MAGUS
IV. Bibliography
P. F. Dorcey, The Cult of Silvanus: A
Study in Roman Folk Religion (Leiden
1992); G. DuMÉziL, La religion romaine
archaïque (Paris 1966) 338-340; J. E.
FRAME, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Epistles of St Paul to the Thes-
salonians (Edinburgh 1912) 68; A. KLorz.
Silvanus, PW 8A (1927) 117-125; W.
MANNHARDT, Wald- und Feldkulte 2 (2nd
ed.: Berlin 1905) 118-126; R. PETER,
Silvanus, ALGRM iv (1909-15) 824-877; P.
W. SCHMIEDEL, Silas, Silvanus, Encyclo-
paedia Biblica 4 (ed. T. K. Cheyne & J. S.
Black; London 1903) 4514-4521; G. Wis-
sowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (2nd
ed.; München 1912) 213-216.
K. DOWDEN
SIMON MAGUS
I, The name Simón, although Greck,
was not uncommon among Jews and Sam-
aritans. It was even substituted for Symeón,
the usual and indeclensionable form of the
Semitic Sim‘6n; thus, the original name of
Jesus’ disciple, Peter, is mostly written
Simón (e.g. Mark 1:16), although the correct
form, Symeón, is also found (e.g. Acts
15:14). The sobriquet magos could be used
to denote a Persian or Babylonian expert in
astrology (cf. the magoi in Matt 2), but it
was also the name for a magician (BAGD
486a). Simon was branded as a magician.
When Philip came to “the city of Samaria”
in order to preach the Gospel, he learnt “that
a certain man by the name of Simon was
already in the city practising magic
(mageuón) and astonishing the people of
Samaria, saying to be someone great, to
whom they all gave heed from small to
great, saying, 'This man is the Power of
God called the Great" (Acts 8:9-10). Simon
is said to have been converted along with
the rest of the Samaritans. Later, he offered
the apostles moncy for the gift of the -*Holy
Spirit and was therefore rebuked by Peter.
Il. "The city of Samaria” must be
Sychar (cf. John 4), the centre of the Sam-
aritan community worshipping -> Yahweh on
Mt. Gerizim (Fossum 1985:163-164;
FossuMw 1989:363). The participle ‘called’
(kaloumené) is an addition of the author of
Luke-Acts, who often adds the present parti-
ciple passive to a name or sobriquet of a
person, place or thing (BAGD, 400a). Since
Simon in later sources is known simply as
‘the Great Power’, the genitive ‘of God’
would also seem to be a Lukan addition (cf.
below). Simon (by which name we do not
have to think of the historical person) prob-
ably declared, “I am the Great Power”
(which is the formula corresponding to the
people's acclamation, “This one is the Great
Power’), This was a genuinely Samaritan
divine name. In the Samaritan Targum, the
Hebrew "el, -*'God', is often represented by
the Aramaic /iéld, ‘the Power’. In the
earliest Samaritan hymns and the midrashic
work, Memar Margah, ‘the Power’ is often
praised as being ‘great’ (rab). Even ‘the
Great Power’ (héld rabbd) is found as a
divine name and praised in the same way:
“Great is the Great Power” (Fossum 1989:
364). Since the plural form /iélín could be
used about the -*angels, another interpre-
tation of ‘the Great Power’ may also be sug-
gested: it denotes the principal angel. Para-
doxically, the two interpretations are not
mutually exclusive. In the Pentateuch and
the Book of Judges, the so-called —'Angel
of Yahweh (or, God)’ frequently appears as
indistinguishable from God himself. Thus,
‘God’ heard the cry of Hagar's son, but ‘the
Angel of Yahweh' addressed his mother
(Gen 21:17); “the Angel of Yahweh ap-
peared to him [i.e. Moses] in a flame of fire
out of the bush", but "God called to him out
of the bush" (Exod 3:2.4). Apparently. by
introducing the figure of the Angel of the
Lord, a later editor has tried to tone down
the anthropomorphisms in the older source,
where God himself appeared on earth and
conversed with people.
In Exod 23:20-21 God even gives the
Angel his own Name: “I am going to send
an angel in front of you, to guard you on the
way and to bring you to the place that I
have prepared. Be attentive and listen to his
voice; do not rebel against him, for he will
779
SIMON MAGUS
not pardon your transgression; for My Name
is in him.” The Angel who is going to lead
the Hebrews to the Promised Land is an
extension of God’s personality by virtue of
sharing the divine Name, which in the
ancient world denoted the nature or mode of
being in its carrier. The Angel possessing
the Name of God thus has the power to
withold the absolution of sins, a divine pre-
rogative.
Simon apparently was seen as the mani-
festation of God, 'the Great Power’, in
human form. The author of Acts has added
the genitive in order to indicate that Simon
was not regarded as the essential Godhead,
but as the corporeal hypostasis of the deity
(cf. Acts 3:2, “the gate of the temple called
the Beautiful”, which is the only phrase in
Luke-Acts corresponding syntactically to
that in Acts 8:10, “the Power of God called
- the Great": in the former phrase, the geni-
tive:is not apposite but possessive, implying
that 'the Beautiful Gate' belongs to the
temple [Fossum 1989:371]).
Luke asserts that Simon was a magician.
Now in the world of religion, my miracle is
your magic. Simon may have been a miracle
worker. How is this function compatible
with his title, ‘the Great Power (of God)’?
In Samaritanism, -*Moses is portrayed as
the miracle worker par excellence. Around
the beginning of our era, the Samaritans
expected the coming of the Prophet like
Moses, whose advent is prophesied in Deut
18:15.18. Memar Marqah Ill.1 warns
against the false prophet who "states that he
is like Moses in performing a wonder or a
miracle." The arch-heretic in Samaritan
sources, Dositheus, claimed to be the
prophet like Moses. In Christian writings,
Dositheus and Simon are associated, and in
a Simonian tradition incorporated in thc
Pseudo-Clementine literature, they are even
portrayed as rivals in a battle cast into the
form of a miracle contest (Homilies 11.24
[Fossum 1989:376-377]). Did Simon too
claim to be the Prophet like Moses?
The Simonian legend in the Pseudo-
Clementines relates that Simon beats Dosi-
theus in a rivalry over the right to the title,
"the Standing One' (Ao hestós), which de-
notes imperishability. In Samaritan Aramaic
texts, the participle gàá'ém, 'standing', which
has the same significance, is used with ref-
erence to Moses as well as God and the
angels (FossuM 1989:384-388). In Samarit-
anism, Moses shares the various divine
names (Fossum 1985:87-92); he is thus
assimilated to the Angel of the Lord (this is
also seen from the fact that the Samaritan
Targum to Exod 23:20 substitutes ‘Apostle’
(3áliah) for ‘Angel’, because ‘Apostle’ was
one of the favourite titles of Moses in Sam-
aritanism [Fossum 1985:145-147]). In
Memar Margah 1V.1, it is said: “Who can
compete with Moses, whose name was
made the Name of the Lord.” In Acts Pet.
17, it is claimed that Simon's name is ‘the
Name of the Lord’ (cui nomen est autem
nomen domini). Thus, Simon's titles, ‘the
Great Power’ and ‘the Standing One’, could
designate him as the eschatological Prophet
like Moses as well as the Angel of the Lord,
the human manifestation of God.
Luke’s account that Simon was converted
by Philip cannot be truc, for the only
position allotted to Jesus in the Simonian
system as reported by the hercesiologists is
that as a precursory incarnation of Simon
himself. In fact, the figure of Jesus can be
removed without any damage being done to
the system as such. That Simon offered the
apostles moncy for the gift of the Spirit is
Christian polemics. Acts 8:14-25, which
recounts the sanction of Philip's mission by
the apostle and the affray between Peter and
Simon, is a Lukan composition which does
not have the same claim to authencity as the
preceding verses.
III. The heresiologist Irenaeus (ca. 180
CE) makes Simon the author of Gnosticism.
This report raises many questions. Does
Irenacus “mean to imply a genetic relation-
ship, or merely that Simon was the first to
take this line? How much of this report can
be traced back to the historical Simon, and
how much was fathered on him by later
members of the sect? Was Simon himself a
gnostic, and in what sense? Can we really
identify Simon the heresiarch with the
780
SIN
Simon of Acts, or has some development
taken place in the interval between?” (WIL-
SON 1979:486).
It is clear that we cannot derive each and
every form of Gnosticism from Simon, but
Simon could nevertheless have been “the
first to take this line"—Aat least the first of
whom the heresiologists had heard. It should
be noted that the Simonian system js re-
markably simple in comparison to the 2nd
century Gnostic systems, to which it mani-
festly is related. Moreover, the teaching
attributed to Simon Jacks some of the Gnos-
tic characteristics (e.g. the idea that matter is
anti-divine and evil per se, and the doctrine
that there is a divine spark in human beings
which must be released from its imprison-
ment in the material body). Finally, Simon’s
system even contains some remarkably un-
Gnostic features. Thus, the notion that God
had to appear on earth as a human being in
order to save his hypostasized Thought, who
was incarnated in a prostitute, is highly orig-
inal and runs counter to the docetic propen-
sity of Gnosticism.
It would seem that the teachings ascribed
to Simon amount to an early proto-Gnostic
system. It is impossible to say how much
derives from Simon himself, but we should
at least allow for some kind of continuity
between the teaching of Simon and that of
his followers (WILSON 1979:490; FossuM
1989:359-361; but cf. HaLı 1987:262-275}.
IV. Bibliography ,
J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord (WUNT 36; Tibingen
1985); Fossum, Sects and Movements, The
Samaritans (ed. A. D. Crown; Tiibingen
1989) 293-389; B. W. HALL, Samaritan
Religion from John Hyrcanus to Baba
Rabba (Sydney 1987) 262-275; G. LÜDE-
MANN, Das frühe Christentum nach den
Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte (Göttin-
gen 1987) 99-107; R. McL. WiLsoN,
Simon and Gnostic Origins, Les Actes des
Apôtres (BETL 48; ed. J. Kremer;
Gembloux/Leuven 1979) 485-491; M.
SMITH, The Account of Simon Magus in
Acts 8, H. A. Wolfson Jubilee Volumes vol.
2 (Jerusalem 1965) 735-749.
J. FOSSUM
SIN duaptia
I. The most general word for sin, and
the one most frequently used in the NT, is
` hamartia. It usually occurs in the plural; but
it also occurs a number of times in the sin-
gular, referring to the totality of sin, or sin-
ning as such—see John 1:29; 8:21.34; 9:41;
15:22; 16:8.9; ] John L8; 3:4.89; Rom
8:2.3.10; 14:23; 2 Cor 5:221; Heb 10:18.
There is a fluid transition between this use
of the singular and the notion of sin as an
active subject wielding power over human
beings. This usage is found in several texts;
but, in parücular, in Paul's Epistle to the
Romans chaps. 5-7. Personification is a
figure of speech capable of referring to dif-
ferent sorts of ‘being’ and degrees of ‘real-
ity’, ranging from little more than an image
or a metaphor to condensation to gods or
demons (see ROHSER 1987). Hence, the per-
sonified use of hamartia has to be discussed
here.
IL. Sir 21:2 admonishes “Flee from sin
as from a snake; for 3f you approach sin, it
wil] bite you. Its teeth are lion’s teeth, and
can destroy human lives”. Similarly, in Sir
27:10 sin 1s compared to a lion lying in wait
for its prey. Jas 1:15 describes desire as
giving birth to sin; and sin as giving birth to
death; whilst Heb 3:13 warns people not to
‘be hardened ‘by the deceitfulncss of sin’.
John 8:34 seems to go one step further when
it states that “everyone who commits sin is a
slave to sin"—equated in v 44 with being
‘from your father the devil’ (cf. 1 John
3:8.10). Jobn 8:34 links up with Paul's basic
statement in Rom 3:9 that all Jews and
Greeks are ‘under sin’: that is ‘under the
power of sin’ (cf. Gal 3:22; Rom 11:32). As
in John, this manifests itself in the fact that
all, in. fact, have sinned (Rom 3:23). Gal
2:17 emphasizes that —Christ could not
possibly be 'a servant of sin'. On the con-
trary, God made him who knew no sin 'to
be sin' (2 Cor 5:21); or, in other words, he
sent ‘his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh’ to condemn sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3;
see below).
III. In Rom 5-7 Paul describes the all-
pervading power and influence of sin. It
came into the world through the trans-
781
SIN
gression of one man, Adam, and through sin
came death. “Death spread to all, because all
have sinned” (Rom 5:12, a much discussed
passage). Again, being under the power of
sin and actual sinning are mentioned
together, Sin exercised dominion in death
(5:21)—but all this is mentioned because
Paul wants to bring the good news of ‘the
abundance of grace and the free gift of
righteousness’ in Christ (5:17). Grace, in
fact was meant ‘to exercise dominion
through righteousness, leading to eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord’(5:21).
Those who are buried with Christ in bap-
tism have died to sin and should therefore
sin no more (6:1-11). Hence believers
should 'not let sin exercise dominion' in
their lives (6:12), not again become 'slaves
to sin' (6:17.20). Notwithstanding their
share in the life of Christ (6:4.5.7.11.22-23)
and the fact that sin will have no dominion
over them because they are ‘not under the
law but under grace’ (6:14), those who live
in communion with Christ clearly still have
to be reminded of the ethical implications of
the new life granted to them.
In chap. 7 Paul again describes the power
of sin. Surprisingly, sin is aided by the law;
. “sin, seizing an opportunity in the com-
mandment (i.e. “thou shalt not covet”), pro-
duced in me all kinds of covetousness.
Apart from the law sin lies dead” (7:8, cf.
the entire section vv 7-13). Law itself is
spiritual, but human beings are ‘of the flesh,
sold (into slavery) under sin’ (7:14). They
are made captive to the law of sin that
dwells in their members (7:23) and quite
unable to obey the law of God. But God
“sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh; and, to deal with sin, he condemned
sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement
of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk
not according to the flesh but according to
the Spirit” (8:3-4). Those who live in com-
munion with Christ may live a new life, not
in the flesh but in the Spirit—still in the
body and therefore subject to suffering, as
well as to decay and to mortality, but in
good faith expecting the redemption of their
bodies, ‘the freedom of the glory of the
children of God’ (8:12-25, esp. vv 20-24).
At the final resurrection, at Christ's
parousia, death will be annihilated as the
last enemy (1 Cor 15:26, cf. vv 50-56).
A full discussion of Paul's understanding
of sin would require a detailed analysis of
his anthropology and soteriology. His daring
personification of sin has produced a picture
of an evil power bringing doom and death:
thus thwarting human efforts to perform
God’s commandments in order to live in
accordance with God's will. Yet always
actual human sinning remains in the picture,
and in that light we may also view Paul's
picture of sin as the personifcation of the
totality of human failure and resistance
against God, rebounding on humanity—its
fateful repercussions only to be undone by
God's redemptive work in Christ, as de-
scribed in Rom 8.
IV. Bibliography
G. RÓusER, Metaphorik und Personifikation
der Sünde (WUNT 2,25; Tübingen 1987); E.
P. SANDERS, Sin, Sinners (NT), ABD 6
(1992) 40-47.
M. DE JONGE
SIN -2, -29
|. Sin is the name of the Babylonian
moongod, attested as theophoric element in
Assyrian and Babylonian personal names. In
the Old Testament in the names Sanherib
(sanhérib), Sanballat (sanballat) and Shen-
azzar (Sen’assar).
Il. The name Sin (earlier Suen, Suin)
survived in the Aramaic speaking world as
the name of the moongod residing in Harran
(J. N. PostGaTE, RLA IV/2-3 [1973] 124-5;
Druvers 1980; TuBACH 1986; GREEN
1992). This cult, already attested at the
beginning of the second millennium in Mari,
was promoted by Nabonidus who gave Sin
epithets such as ‘Lord/King of the Gods’, or
even ‘God of Gods’ (P.-A. BEAULIEU, The
Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-
539 B.C. (New Haven and London 1989)
43-65). For this reason, the Aramaic name
of the god Mrlh’ (Marilahe, ‘Lord of the
Gods’) has been identified with Sin of
782
SIRION
Harran (GREEN 1992:67). Normally, the
name of the moongod was Sah(a)r among
the Aramaeans.
In Mesopotamia, the Sumerian and Baby-
lonian moongod, Nanna/Sin, was venerated
everywhere, but Ur remained the centre of
his cult. Nanna was born from an illicit
union of the Sumerian gods Enlil and Ninlil.
The name of the spouse of Sin, written
dNin.gal, was pronounced Nikkal (J.-M.
Duranb, NABU 1987/14). This name was
taken over as the name of the moongod’s
partner in the West-Semitic world: nki in an
Ugaritic myth (KTU 1.24), and in Aramaic
inscriptions (KAI 225:9, 226:9; cf. 222 A I
9).
Sîn as element in Akkadian personal
names written in an Aramaic context is ren-
dered once as Sn, in the name Sn'blt (cf
Biblical San-ballat), four times $n (Ma-
RAQTEN 1988:244, 248). In Aramaic names,
Sin is attested as Sn once, $ twice (Ma-
RAQTEN 1988:103, 101). In Akkadian syl-
labic writing the latter element appears as
Se, Se-e, Se-? in Aramaic personal names (S.
PARPOLA, OLP 16 [1985] 273 n 2 [& lit)).
It is striking that the name appears twice
as San- in a Hebrew context, in Sanherib
(Sennacherib) and Sanballat; in a Greek
context Sennachéribos (LXX, Josephus),
Sanacharibos ^ (Herodotus); ^ Sanaballat
(LXX), Sanaballetes (Josephus); see HALAT
718. The Aramaic Wisdom of Ahiqar has
both forms S/Sn’hrjb. The same develop-
ment to san- can be observed in the Hebrew
word for ‘night-blindness’, sanwérim, to be
derived from Akkadian Sin-lurma (and
variants) (M. STOL, JNES 45 [1986] 296-
297). Some Assyrian names of men and
women have the theophoric element 4Sa-a
(J. N. PosrGarE, /raq 32 [1970] 139).
Unrelated is perhaps the name of the moon
SSa-nu-ga-rujj (var. ITI) in the Ebla texts
(ARET 5 [1984] 24 no. 4 III 6, var. no. 1 III
12). Once, we find in Hebrew context Sen-,
in the name Sen-’assar, among the descend-
ants of David, | Chr 3:18 (see HALAT
1475).
III. Bibliography
H. J. W. Drivers, Cults and Beliefs at
Edessa (Leiden 1980) 122-145; T. M.
GREEN, 7he City of the Moon God. Re-
ligious Traditions of Harran (Leiden 1992);
M. MARAQTEN, Die semitischen Personen-
namen in den alt- und reichsaramáischen
Inschriften aus Vorderasien (Hildesheim/
Zürich/New York 1988) 63-64; A. SJÖBERG,
Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumeri-
schen Überlieferung (Stockholm 1960); J.
TuBAcH, /m Schatten des Sonnengottes. Der
Sonnenkult in Edessa, Harran und Hatra am
Vorabend der christlichen Mission (Wies-
baden 1986) 129-140.
M. STOL
SIRION 172
I. According to some of our sources
Mount Sirion/Siryon is part of the Hermon
massif. Deut 3:9 gives it as the name of the
mountain used by the Sidonians, but never-
theless the Amorite designation is Senir.
This variant form of the name corresponds
to the mountain Saniru being the refuge of
Haza’el in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser
II] (E. MICHEL, WO 1 [1947/1952] 265:6).
On the other hand the Hittite designation of
the Anti-Lebanon is Sariyana and the same
is true for Ug Sryn and Eg siw-r-i-n3. Ac-
cording to the Baal-Myth (KTU 1.4 vi:19.
21) Sirion produced famous cedar-wood.
Ezek 27:5 says that juniperwood from Sirion
was used by the Tyrians for the planking of
their ships. Therefore in Syriac Sarwajena is
the designation of juniperus oxycedrus
(BROCKELMANN, Lex. Syr. 807).
Though deified in extra-biblical sources,
Sirion is not mentioned as a deity in the
Bible.
Il. Among the gods listed in all treaties
between Hittite Kings and their Syrian vas-
sals Mount Sirion is invoked in the spelling
Sarijana/i or Sarisi3ija as a deified mountain
together with the Lebanon (Lablana) and
the unidentified mountain Pi3aisa: the treaty
between Suppiluliuma 1 and Tette from
NuhhasSe (E. WEIDNER, Politische Doku-
mente aus Kleinasien 68 [Leipzig 1923] 36-
37) and his treaty with Aziru of Amurru
(WEIDNER, ibid. 74 Rs.3-4; partly restored)
783
SISERA — SKYTHES
and the treaty of Tudhalija IV with
Shaushgamuwa of Amurru (C. KUHNE & H.
OTTEN, Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag {StBoT
16, Wiesbaden 1971) 20:18). In this context
the Anti-Lebanon is indicated and—like
many Hittite mountain-gods—it has divine
qualities. Beside this textual evidence there
exist no further hints of a deification of the
Anti-Lebanon (but cf. ^ Hermon), although
the sa-ri-a beside the Lebanon in the Old
Babylonian Gilgamesh fragment (T. BAUER,
Ein Fragment des Gilgameš Epos, JNES 16
(1957) 256 r.13) is the home of the demon
Huwawa.
HI. The Old Testament uses the name of
this mountain 1n similes only: in Ps 29:6 the
voice of the Lord makes "Lebanon and
Sirjo skip like a steer"; in Cant 4:8 the
bride shall "trip down from Amana's peak,
from the peak of Senir and Hermon, from
the dens of lions, from the hills of leop-
ards". There are no traces of any cult of
Sirion in OT sources.
JV. Bibliography
Y. YDEKA, Hermon, Sirion and Senir, Annual
of the Japanese Biblical Institute 4 (1978)
32-44; I. SINGER, Emeq Saron or Emeq
Siryon, ZDPV 104 (1988) 1-5.
W. RöLLIG
SISERA ROD ©
L The personal name X0% (Judg 4; 5;
] Sam 12:9; Ps 83:10) has generally been
interpreted as à non-Hebrew name (JPN 64).
The name has been related to the Luwian
personal name zi-za-ru-wa (HALAT 710;
SOGGIN 1981:63). GARBINI related Sisera to
the name of a Minoan deity (j)a-sa-sa-ra
(1978:17-21).
Ii. The name (j)a-sa-sa-ra appears in
some Minoan linear A inscriptions. It can be
interpreted as a divine name. According to
KTISTOPULOS (apud CARRATELLI 1976:125)
this deity can be identified with Xaoápa.
He is known in the myth of Keleos to be a
designation of +Zeus Kretogenes (NILSSON
1950:543.554).
IU. An identification of this deity with
the biblical Sisera suggests an interesting
interpretation of the episode in Judg 4-5. Tt
784
implies, however, that Sisera was the Philis-
tine general of the Canaanite ruler Jabin. It
underscores the tradition of the origin of the
Philistines from Kaphtor or the Aegaean
world. It also yields a construal of the Song
of Deborah on two levels: the earthly com-
bat between Israel and the Canaanites is
parallel to a heavenly strife between
—>Yahweh and a Canaanite deity. The el-
ements ‘stars’ and ‘rain’ could also be inter-
preted as survivals of the mythology of the
weather-god Sisera. They are, however, now
fighting against him (GARBINI 1978).
Against this interpretation it should be
noted that recent onomastic research has
shown that the name Siséra’ is Semitic
(SCHNEIDER 1992:192.260). This implies
that he can be interpreted as a Canaanite
general. A hidden meaning in the story—if
there is one—should more plausibly be
sought in a conflict between the sexes than
in a strife between male deities.
In the OT the name Sisera is also borne
by an Israelite who returned from the Baby-
lonian exile in Ezra 2:53; Neh 7:55.
IV. Bibliography
M. BaL, Murder and Difference. Gender,
Genre and Scholarship on Siserah's Death
(Bloomington 1988); G. P. CARRATELLL
XAIXAPA, La Parola del Passato 31 (1976)
123-128; G. GARBINI, Il cantico di Debora,
La Parola del Passato 33 (1978) 5-31; M.
P. NiLssoN, The Minoan-Mycenaean Relig-
ion (Lund 1950); T. SCHNEIDER, Asíatische
Personennamen in ágyptischen Quellen des
Neuen Reiches (OBO 114; Freiburg/Gót-
tingen 1992); J. A. SOGGIN, Judges. A Com-
mentary (London 1981).
B. BECKING
SKYTHES 2xv0n¢
3. Skythes (‘Skythian’) is the epony-
mous hero of the Skythians, an Indo-Euro-
pean people to the north of the Greek world.
Skythians themselves have a mythic quality,
occurring in 2-3-4 Macc and Col 3:11 as a
byword for barbarism. Otherwise the name
only occurs in the placename Skythopolis
(1-2 Macc).
I. For the standard Greek use of epony-
aN
S
B
SOIL
mous heroes to account for the beginnings
of a tribe, sec -*Thessalos. The Skythians
are a rather different case, as they are a non-
Greek tribe to whom Greeks credit the cre-
ation of an eponym on the Greck pattern.
The Skythians in fact belonged to the Indo-
Iranian branch of the Indo-Europeans and
lived across a wide area from north of the
Black Sea to the northerly parts of the
Persian Empire, where they are gencrally
known as Sdka in Persian and Sakai or
Skythai in Greek (possibly Ashkenaz in
Biblical Hebrew; see Gen 10:3, and HALAT
92). The Skythians may indeed have traced
their national identity back to a single man
(just as the Germans traced themselves back
to ‘Mannus’ the first man, Tacitus, Ger-
mania 2:3): Herodotos (4:5-6) tells a Skyth-
ian story of a first man called Targitaos and
his three sons Lipoxais, Harpoxais and
Kolaxais.
A (Black Sea) Greek myth transposes this
Native story so as to deliver an eponym,
Skythes, and is told in different versions by
Herodotos 4:9 and Diodoros 2:43. In Hero-
dotos, -*Heracles (often a convenient trans-
position of a native hero) is passing through
Skythia and lies with a snake-maiden in a
cave in order to retrieve horses for which he
is searching. Three children are begotten and
on maturity are tested to see if they can
handle Heracles’ bow and wear his belt.
Agathyrsos and Gelonos cannot and must
migrate elsewhere, but the youngest, Skythes,
succeeds. He is the ancestor of the Skythian
kings and the Skythians henceforth wear this
special sort of belt. In Diodoros' version, it
is —^'Zeus' not —'Heracles' who lies with
the snake-maiden and only Skythes is born
of the union. He now has two sons, Palos
and Napes, the eponyms of the Paloi and
Napoi tribes among the Skythians.
The Skythians were the remotest norther-
ly people known to Greeks in classical
times. Beyond them, according to Aristeas
of Prokonnesos (ca. 675 BCE), a source still
used by Herodotos (ca. 430/20 sce), lay
one-eyed Arimaspians who fought the
griffins for their gold and beyond the
Arimaspians only the blessed folk of >Apol-
lo, the Hyperboreans. Skythians were where
reality ran out and, whether truthfully or not,
were viewed as prone to barbaric habits
such as scalping enemies, drinking their
blood, and using their skulls as tankards, not
to mention cannabis sessions in wigwams
(Herodotos 4:64. 75).
III. Skythian savagery became a com-
monplace of classical literature (Cicero, 2
Verr. 5:150. Pis. $18; Pliny, NH 7:11) and
so of Greek writers of biblical texts. At 2
Macc 4:47 even Skythians might have had
more pity; an attempted lynching at 3 Macc
7:5 is what one might expect of savage
Skythians; and an example of flaying alive
at 4 Macc 10:7 is described as "Skythianing
off the skin". At Col 3:11, they are an
evocative proper name to figure next to 'bar-
barian' and 'slave'—they indeed often pro-
vided slaves for the civilised world (most
notably the Athenian civil guard).
The town known at 1 Macc 5:52 as
Baithsan (Bethsan) is referred to at 2 Macc
12:29-30 by its Greek name, Skythopolis
(‘city of the Skythians’). The origin of this
new name for the city is still an unresolved
issue.
IV. Bibliography
U. HOFer, Scythes, ALGRM iv (1909-15)
1077-1080; F. HuMBonG, Skythes, PW 8A
(1927) 693-694.
K. DowDEN
SOIL ANN
I. The Hebrew word "ádàmá, ‘(fertile)
soil, earth', occurs over 220 times in the
Bible. The term resembles the name of a
goddess called Adamma, Admu, or Adam-
materi, attested in cunciform texts as early
as the third millennium BCE. Assuming that
the etymology of Adamma is Semitic, the
name is most plausibly explained as ‘soil’ or
‘earth’. This meaning makes good sense
since the goddess in question is traditionally
regarded as the consort of Rasap (—Re-
sheph) the god of the underworld. In the
Hebrew Bible, *ddamd has been almost enti-
rely demythologized.
II. The earliests attestestations to the
goddess Adamma occur in the texts from
Ebla (ca. 2400 Bce). Whilst Adamma (da-
785
SOIL
dam-ma, 9a-da-ma) is the usual form of her
name, one also finds, with the marker of the
feminine gender, Adamtum (POMPONIO &
XxLLA 1997:10-15). In Sargonic texts (I. J.
GELB et al., OIP 42, 177b s.v. Su-AD.MU)
and in Old Babylonian texts from Mari the
name appears as Admu, both as a theophoric
element in personal names (H. Limet, Le
panthéon de Mari à l'époque des Sakkanaku,
Or 45 [1976] 88; ARMT 16 (1979] 258)
and as a theonym in economic texts (MARI
4 [1985) 530:14 [dnin ad-mu; the word nin,
‘lady’ is used in juxtaposition to feminine
divine names, see J.-M. Duranp, RA 74
[1980] 174] ; ARM 21 [1983] no. 333:33;
ARM 23 [1984] no. 46:5). Irrespective of
the grammatical gender of the name, how-
ever, the deity in question is always a god-
dess. A Hurrianized form of the name is
known from the Emar texts, where she is
called Adamma-ten (from Hur: teri, ‘front,
face’?, see A. TSUKIMOTO, ASJ 14 [1992}
299; D. E. FrEMmNG, The Installation of
Baal’s High Priestess at Emar [HSS 42;
Atlanta 1992] 75), which name is conceiva-
bly to be connected with Damater/-Deme-
ter. The festival of Adamma gave rise to a
month name in the Syrian calendars of Ebla
and Emar (M. E. COHEN, The Cultic Calen-
dars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda,
Maryland 1993] 33, 344). l l
Whilst in the texts from Ebla Adamma
does occur alone, she is usually mentioned
alongside Rasap, god of the underworld and
of deadly diseases, whose name survives in
the Bible as Resheph. In addition to the con-
struction dRasap (wa) “Adamma, ‘Rasap
(and) Adamma’, the Ebla texts also give
Rasap wa dAdammasu, "Rasap and his
Adammu', after the same model as the refe-
rence to ‘~Yahweb and his —Asherah’ in
the inscriptions form Kuntillet ^Ajrud and
Khirbet el-Qom. The conjugal link between
Adamma and Rasap finds confirmation in
the Leiden Magical Papyrus, an Egyptian
text from the New Kingdom. The text con-
jures a demon smn (Akk Samana?) by
various Egyptian and Semitic gods, among
the latter Ningal, Reshepb (rXpw) and his
consort Adamma (itwm, see A. MASSERT,
The Leiden Magical Papyrus ] 34341 345
[OMRO Supplement op de Nieuwe Reeks
34; Leiden 1954] 17: 1 343 Recto V 6-7). In
a text from Emar the goddess Adamma is
coupled with Nergal, the Babylonian god of
the underworld (Emar 465: 2” and 4°). It is
not excluded that the name of the god,
though written as ANE ERI, 1-GAL, was
pronounced Rasap. The first millennium god
list An-Anum identifies Admu as the spouse
of Nergal (W. G. Lampert, The Pantheon
of Mari, MARI 4 [1985] 530 n. 9). In Anat-
olia and Ugarit Adamma is also associated
with the kindred mother goddess Kubaba
(Cybele), see V. Haas, Geschichte der
Hethitischen Religion (Leiden 1994) 406.
407 and E. LAROCHE, JAOS 88 (1968) 149:
22.
Judging by a number of theophoric
names, the goddess Ada(m)ma or Ad(a)mu
was also known in Phoenicia. The Punic
names Cbd"dm and, to a lesser extent,
mlk^dm (F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the
Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (StP 8;
Rome 1972) 260) imply that Adam(u) is a
theonym. The Phoenician name **dmyr,
sometimes adduced in evidence, is of pro-
blematic attestation. CIS 109, the editio
princeps from 1881, reads PN bn [x]dmy.
M. Lipzsamski Handbuch der nordsemiti-
schen Epigraphik (Weimar 1898) 208, feels
at liberty to restore PN bn °dmylin], a rea-
ding taken over by G. BUCCELLATI, The
Amorites of the Ur III Period (Napels 1966)
130. The drawing in CIS does not allow this
restoration; Benz wisely did not include the
name in his anaysis of Phoenician and Punic
personal names. In KAI 30:4 O. Masson &
M. Sznycer, Recherches sur les Phéniciens
à Chypre (Genéve-Paris 1972) 19 propose to
translate “dm as a theonym, but the inscrip-
tion is too fragmentary to take this as evi-
dence.
The etymology of the name Adammia 1s
disputed. Most scholars consider it to be of
Semitic °DM- 'soil, earth’ (AspEsi 1996;
STIEGLITZ 1990: 81; M. Bonechi, Lexique
et idéologie royale à l'époque proto-synen-
ne, MARI 8 [1997] 508 [citing J.-M.
Durand), PoMPoNIO & XELLA 1997:15). A:
786
SOIL
ARCHI, on the other hand, regards Adamma
as a member of the ‘substrate’ pantheon of
Ebla; he suggests that the name has a Hur-
rian etymology (Divinités sémitiques et
divinités de substrat: Le cas d'IXpara et
d'Istar à Ebla, MARI 7 [1993] 72; AmncHi!,
Substrate: Some remarks on the formation
of the west Hurrian pantheon, Hittite and
other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in
Honour of Sedat Alp [H. Otten et al.; Anka-
ra 1992] 7, 10-11). W. FAUTH proposes an
etymology *Ada+tAma ‘father and mother’
(Glotta 45 [1967] 129-48), which has met
with little to no support. The interpretation
of Admu as a geographic name proposed by
J. J. M. Roserts (The Earliest Semitic
Pantheon [Baltimore 1972] 14) has proven
wrong in the light of new evidence. A sober
assessment of the data yields no argument to
depart from the majority opinion, which
identifies the name as Semitic.
III. The cult of the goddess Adamma
has a distant echo in the Bible in the person-
al name Obed-Edom (LXX Abdedom; 2
Sam 6:10-12//1 Chr 13:13-14; 15:25). The
man bearing this name is reported to have
lived in Gath of the Philistines. When this
geographical indication is taken seriously, it
becomes difficult to uphold that the anthro-
ponym in question is to be related to the
toponym —Edom, and that Obed-Edom
would be short for **bd qws "l(h)b*l ?dm,
'Servant of Qaus, the god/lord of Edom'
(pace KNAUF 1995:521). In view of the evi-
dence for the goddess Adamma or Ad(a)mu,
the element CYN is best interpreted as a
variant spelling of *?Adám(u) (note that the
theophoric element is spelled only once as
EVTS [2 Sam 6:10] and elsewhere as COS [2
Sam 6:11.12; 1 Chr 13:13-14; 15:25]). The
Punic name *bd?dm (BENz 1972:260) must
then be regarded as the exact equivalent of
Obed-Edom.
A number of scholars has suggested that
—Adam the first man would also somehow
be related to the deity Admu or Adammu
(G. BucceLtatl, The Amorites of the Ur-Ill
Period [Napels 1966] 130; C. H. Gorpon,
Notes on Proper Names in the Ebla Tablets,
Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-
Giving [ARES 1; ed. A. Archi; Rome 1988]
154). Recently J. C. pE MooR proposed the
same connection and argued for the existen-
ce of a Canaanite version of the biblical
story of Eden (J. C. be Moor, East of
Eden, ZAW 100 [1988] 105-11). There is lit-
tle to support this idea, especially since
Adamma or Ad(a)mu is the name of a god-
dess. More attractive is the proposal by
ASPESI (1996) according to whom traits of
the goddess Adamma are still perceptible in
biblical "Zdàmá, ‘soil, earth’. Biblical
"ádámá does appear as a kind of Mother
Earth, giving life to plants, animals, and
humankind (Gen 2:7.9.19; 3:23; cf. T. NOL-
DEKE, Mutter Erde und Verwandtes bei den
Semiten, ARW 8 [1905] 161-166). Whilst
such expressions as the *mouth' (Gen 4:11;
Num 16:30) and the ‘face’ (e.g. Gen 6:1) of
the earth need not imply an anthropomor-
phic personification, they might be conside-
red terminological remnants of a mythologi-
cal conception of the soil as a divine figure
(AsPEs1 1996:34). The interpretation of the
link between Yahweh and the soil (‘the soil
of Yahweh’, Isa 14:2; cf. Zech 9:16; 2 Chr
7:20) as a conjugal one is quite unlikely,
however, since outside the Bible Adamma is
always the consort of the god of the under-
world. It is possible to find faint traces of a
mythological background of °ddamd in
some biblical passages (e.g. Deut 7:13; Joel
1:10; Job 5:6-7), but in no text this is com-
pulsory. On the whole, biblical ?ádámá
appears to have been firmly demythologi-
zed.
IV. Bibliography
F. AsPEsi, Precedenti divini di *dámá, SEL
13 (1996) 33-40; A. KNAur, Edom, DDD!
(1995) 520-522; F. Pomponio & P. XELLA,
Les dieux d’Ebla (AOAT 245; Kevelaer &
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997); R. R. SriEGLITZ,
Ebla and the Gods of Canaan, Eblaitica:
Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite
Language 2 (ed. C. H. Gordon; Winona
Lake 1990) 79-89.
F. VAN KoPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
787
SON OF GOD
SON OF GOD
I. The title ‘Son of God’, ascribed to
Jesus in the NT, reflects a common ancient
Near Eastern notion according to which the
king could claim divine descent. The idea is
also found in the OT. In relation to Jesus,
the title eventually became associated with
such concepts as divinity and preexistence.
II. In the entire Near East, the king
could be called ‘Son of God’ or even ‘God’.
Pharaoh was the ‘Good God’ (Moret 1902:
296). The first of the five ‘great names’
which he received upon his enthronement
was ‘Horus’, an old title designating him as
the earthly manifestation of the falcon god
Horus, the ancient dynastic god of Egypt
(GARDINER 1957:72). His incamation was
assumed: “He descended from heaven and
was bom in Heliopolis” (ERMAN 1923:340).
The Semitic rulers of Akkad (ca. 2350-
2150 BCE) claimed divinity for themselves.
Thus, Naram-Sin styled himself ilu A-ga-de,
‘God of Akkad' (RADAU 1899:7). Follow-
ing the example of the Akkadian rulers, the
kings in the ensuing period of Sumerian
renaissance had their names prefixed by the
determinative for divinity (DHORME 1910:
170). They even enjoyed worship (ROMER
1969:146). Bursin called himself ‘the right-
ful God, the Sun of his country’ (RADAU
1900:199, 201). The old titulary continued
to apply to the later Semitic rulers. Thus,
Hammurabi was the ‘God’ (il) and ‘Sun’ of
his people (DHORME 1910:170), and his
name was occasionally prefixed by the
determinative for divinity (EDZARD 1965:
257-258).
The Syrian kings possibly claimed divin-
ity for themselves. Ezek 28:2.9 mocks the
king of Tyre (-*Melqart) for claiming to be
divine and occupying the throne of ’éléhim,
'God(I)'. Virgil (Aen. 1:729 with Servius’
note) and Silius [talicus (Pun. 1:86) state
that the kings of Tyre traced their descent to
Baal. The later Seleucid rulers of Syria
claimed to be theos, —'God(ID)'. Josephus
(Ant. 9.4.6) reports a worship of the de-
ceased rulers of Damascus in his day.
Even more common than the designation
‘God’ for the King, was the title ‘Son of
God’. From the Ist dynasty (ca. 3000 BCE),
the pharaohs were regarded as the ‘sons of
—]sis', and were represented as being
suckled by her and sitting on her lap. The
last of Pharaoh’s royal names was ‘Son of
—Re', which he bore from the 4th dynasty
(ca. 2500 BCE) onwards (GARDINER 1957:
74). The title indicated that he was the
physical offspring of the sun god, as is
shown in particular by the evidence from
Deir el-Bahri, where ~Amun-Re is repre-
sented as having united sexually with
Pharaoh’s mother (SETHE 1914:102-103).
In an inscription for Ramesses II, the god
Amun-Re is introduced as saying: “I am
your Father, who has engendered you as god
in order that you be king of Upper and
Lower Egypt on My throne” (ROEDER 1915:
158-159). Pharaoh ruled in the place of his
divine father. He obviously had to answer
for his father’s possessions with which he
had been entrusted.
Beginning with the Sumerian king
Mesilim of Kish, the Mesopotamian ruler
was seen as the ‘son’ or ‘child’ of his god
or goddess (SJOBERG 1972:87-112). The
king is said expressly to have been ‘bom’ of
the deity, and we should obviously under-
stand this sonship in physical terms. Abisare
of Larsa is said to be the ‘Pride of his physi-
cal Father’ (giri,.zal.a.a.ugu.na), the god
Enlil (SJOBERG 1972:96097). The male god
could also be said to have implanted his
seed into the womb of the king’s mother, a
goddess or a priestess representing her
(SJOBERG 1972:88, 93).
In the Ugaritic epic about Keret, the king
is called the ‘Son of El’, and it is implied
that, as one of the 'gods', he is supposed not
to die. This is "a projection of cultic termi-
nology" used to enhance the royal office and
person (GRAY 1964:66-67).
The enthronement was the definitive act
of begetting or deification in Egypt
(PREISIGKE 1920:13-14). The technical term
is smen, which corresponds to the verb in Ps
2:6, "I have set (násakti)) My king on
Zion, My holy hill". This is a parallel to
the ‘birth’ in the next verse. Thutmosis III
can say that he is God's "Son, whom He
commanded that should be upon His throne
and begat in uprightness of heart"
788
SON OF GOD
(BREASTED 1906:59). The magico-religious
birth occurs after the call to the throne.
In Mesopotamia, too, the divine birth of
the king was celebrated on the day of his
enthronement. In a description of the
enthronement of Shulgi, it is said: “The En-
priestess bore a good man, who had been
placed in her womb, Enlil, the Mighty
Shepherd, made the youth stand forth, a
son, Who is well suited for kingship and the
throne” (SJÖBERG 1972:104-105, with a
slight change). A description of Shulgi being
given the royal insignia follows. SJÓBERG
(1972:107) also refers to a word of Gudea to
the goddess Gatumdu: “My seed [i.e. the
seed of my Father} You have received; in
the sanctuary You have begotten me”.
III. The Israelite king could also be
called ’élohim, ‘God’ (Ps 45:6). Among the
five names of the royal child who is to sit
on David's throne, we find ^el gibbór,
'Mighty God' (Isa 9:6). It was more com-
mon to refer to the king in Israel-Judah as
the ‘Son of God’.
In the Nathan prophecy in 2 Sam 7, the
relationship between God and the Israelite-
Judaean ling (David's 'seed") is described
as a father-son relationship (v 14; cf. 1 Chr
17:13; 22:10; 28:6). In Ps 89:27-28, God is
‘the ‘Father’ of the king, his ‘firstborn’. The
king was ‘bom’ from God when he was
Anstalled, as is made clear by. the declar-
ations of —^Yahweh in two Psalms which
were used as liturgical texts at the enthrone-
"ment ceremony: "You are My Son; this day
. have begotten thee" (2:7); "In holy orna-
‘ment out of the womb of Dawn, I have
‘fathered thee as —Dew" (110:3; WIDEN-
; GREN 1976:186).
i The Nathan prophecy guarantees the per-
;petuity of the Davidic dynasty (2 Sam 7:16).
‘This promise gave rise to ‘messianic’ expec-
‘tations (Isa 7:14-17 [a prophecy based on
‘Egyptian and Canaanite oracles about the
‘birth of the royal child from the queen, a
‘tepresentative of the goddess}; 9:6-7 [an
“oracle showing influence from the Egyptian
‘oyal titulary in the five names of the child
Mhi 1s to occupy the Davidic throne]).
za Israel is also called God's ‘Son’ (Exod
4:20. 23; Jer 31:20; Hos 11:1; see also Jer
RLS
31:9). All the individuals of the people are
therefore God’s ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’, or
‘children’ (Deut 24:1; 32:5, 19; Isa 30:1;
43:6; 45:11; Bzek 16:20-21; Hos 2:1). This
usage of the name 'Son(s) of God desig-
nates Israel as God's chosen and protected
people. ‘Sons of God’ could also be used as
a designation of the heavenly hosts.
IV. In the NT, the title ‘Son of God’,
with the attendant implications, is found
more especially in connection with Jesus.
Jesus spoke of God as ‘Dad(dy)’, using the
diminutive form "abbá (Mark 14:36 [Gal 4:6
and Rom 8:15 show that this memory was
preserved]; cf. Luke 11:2), Matt 11:27 =
Luke 10:22, where Jesus says that ‘all
things” (= ‘all authority’ [Matt 28:18]) have
been delivered to him by his Father, the
only one who knows him and who is known
only by him and the ones to whom he
chooses to reveal him, is a strongly literary
passage and markedly different from other
passages telling us anything about the self-
consciousness of the historical Jesus. On the
basis of this universal authority, Jesus can
reveal the Father.
Mark 13:32 ("not even the angels, nor the
Son, but only the Father’ knows the last
day) teaches the full subordination of the
Son. But the intimate relationship between
‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ is stil) present
(the Son is closer to God than the angels).
There is a tension between this absolute
usage of ‘the Father’, which corresponds to
that of ‘the Son’, and the words of Jesus
about ‘your Father’. Mark 13:32 as well as
Matt 11:27 = Luke 10:22 is a clear Christo-
Jogical limitation of the Father name of
God.
In Matt 28:18-20, the commission of the
resurrected Jesus to the disciples to go and
baptize people “in the name of the Father
and the Son and the —Holy Spirit" follows
upon the word about all authority having
been given to the Son. The title ‘the Son’
has here found a new place in the baptismal
hturgy, and the association of ‘the Father’
and ‘the Son’ has been expanded into a for-
mula containing the names of all the three
persons in the divine economy.
In his earliest letter, Paul speaks of the
789
SON OF GOD
expectation of God’s “Son from heaven,
whom He [i.e. God] raised from the dead”
(1 Thess 1:10). It has been suggested that
this originally was a saying about the Son
of Man which Paul reinterpreted for his Hel-
lenistic community (FRIEDRICH 1965:502-
516). A merger of the messianic figure of
the Son of God and the eschatological Son
of Man is found in the account of the
process against Jesus, where the high priest
asks: “Are you the Christ [= Messiah], the
Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61). Jesus’
reply implies that he is the Son of Man who
will be seen “seated at the right of the
Power and coming with the clouds of
heaven”. The text takes ‘the Son of the
Blessed’, a phrase which contains a circum-
locution for the name of God, as a messianic
designation and explains the function of the
Messiah by reference to his enthronement
by the side of God and return as the
eschatological Son of Man.
Mark 14:62 describes Jesus as a heavenly
being with reference to Ps 110:1 and Dan
7:13 (and Ps 80:17 [Serrz 1973:481-485]?).
In Peter’s Pentecost sermon, Ps 110:1 is
cited with reference to the ascension of
Jesus (Acts 2:34-35). Being seated at the
right of God, he was made “both Lord and
Christ [= Messiah)” (v 36). During his life-
time, Jesus was only Messias designatus, “a
man attested to you by God with mighty
works and wonders and signs [...]" (v 22).
In Paul's speech in Pisidian Antioch, it is
Ps 2:7, the other enthronement text in the
OT, which is cited with reference to the
resurrection of Jesus (Acts 13:33). In the
beginning of Romans 1, Paul quotes an old
confession formula saying that Jesus “was
descended from David according to the
Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from
the dead [...]" (vv 3-4). During his life as a
Davidide, Jesus was Messias designatus; it
was first upon his ascension that he was
made the messianic ‘Son of God in power’.
The account of the transfiguration, ac-
cording to which Jesus was identified by a
heavenly voice as “My beloved Son” (Mark
9:7), may have been an original resurrection
story (BULTMANN 1957:278). However, it
may also be a text describing Jesus’ instal-
lation as the eschatological king (RIESEN-
FELD 1947:182-220, 223-225, 303-306) al-
ready during his human life. In either case,
the idea of an ascent to heaven is implied,
for the ‘high mountain’ (Mark 9:2) is a
well-known image of heaven to which the
king ascended and where he was enthroned
(Isa 14:13-14; Ezek 28:2, 12-16).
Jesus’ installation as the Son of God was
also pushed back to the beginning of his
earthly ministry in order to include this in
the rule promised to David. Coming out of
the waters of the -*Jordan, the heavens were
opened, the Spirit descended upon him in
the form of a -*dove, and a heavenly voice
said: "You are My beloved Son, with thee I
am well pleased" (Mark 1:11). Baptism or
ritual washing was part of the royal instal-
lation. Upon his accession to the throne,
Pharaoh was washed with waters out of
which the sun god was born. When Pharaoh
came forth begotten out of the water, the
sun god had to recognize him as his son
(BLACKMANN 1918:153-157). 1 Kgs 1:33-34
relates that Solomon was anointed king at
the well of Gihon; perhaps he was washed
as well as anointed. During his installation
as the eschatological high priest(-king), Levi
was washed with ‘clean water’ (7. Levi 8:5).
The unction, which belonged to the
Semitic enthronement ritual, conveyed the
Spirit of God (1 Sam 16:13). In Luke 4:18,
Jesus cites the beginning of the royal hymn
in Isa 61: “The Spirit of the Lorp is upon
me, for He has anointed me” (v 1). That this
refers to the baptism of Jesus is seen from
Peter's speech in Acts 10, where it is said
that the word of God went forth “after the
baptism which John preached: how God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Spirit and power” (vv 37-38).
The words of the heavenly voice recite
Isa 42:1 as well as Ps 2:7 (the latter text
being quoted verbatim in the parallel in
Luke 3:22 in Codex D [Bezae], some Itala
manuscripts, and many Fathers). In the for-
mer text, the beginning of the first of the
songs about the Suffering Servant of
Yahweh, God says: “Behold My Servant,
790
SON OF GOD
whom I uphold, My Chosen, in whom My
soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon
him". The Hebrew text reads ‘ebed, which
means ‘servant’, while the LXX has pais,
which means ‘son’ as well as ‘servant’.
Both the terms were royal titles (2 Sam
3:18; Ps 89:3; Ezek 34:23). In a text about
Ashurbanipal, the two titles are used in
parallelism (DHORME 1910:166-167). In the
OT, they are closely associated (2 Sam 7:4,
8; Ps 89:21, 27-28). In the description of the
righteous in Wis 2:12-20, divine sonship
and service are associated. In 7. Levi 4:2, it
is said that the patriarch will become God's
'Son' (Ayios) ‘Servant’ (therapén), and
‘Priest’. In 18:6, it is said that the heavens
will be opened, and a ‘fatherly voice’ will
sound when the Spint is given to Levi (cf.
T. Judah 24:2-3).
In quoting Isa 42:1, Matt 12:18 amplifies
‘Chosen’ with ‘Beloved’. The latter as well
as the former was a Near Eastern royal title
for the former (DHORME 1910:150-152; 2
Sam 21:6; Ps 89:4). Mesilim of Kish was
said to be the ‘Beloved Son of Ninhursag’
(dumu.ki.ág.dnin.bur.sag.a; SJÖBERG 1972:
87 [for further Mesopotamian evidence, see
DHORME 1910:164-166)). Pharaoh Thut-
mosis is the ‘Beloved of ~Hathor’ (GaRD-
INER 1957:72). Solomon the king is ‘loved’
by God (2 Sam 12;24; Neh 13:26). Targum
Ps 2:7 reads: "Beloved as a son is to his
father you are to Me".
The words that God is ‘well pleased’ with
the Son also have parallels in royal ideol-
ogy. At the installation of Hatshepsut, Re
introduces her to the divine assembly and
says: “Behold My daughter Hatshepsut;
May she live; I love her; I am well pleased
with her!” (SETHE 1914:113). The Targumic
versions of Isa 42:1 and 43:10 read that God
has found delight in the Messiah.
At an early stage, Jesus was even con-
ceived of as the preexistent Son who had
been sent by God into the world in order to
bring salvation to humankind (Gal 4:4-5;
Rom 8:3-4; cf. John 3:17; 1 John 4:9, 14).
SCHWEIZER (TDNT 8 [1972] 375) has ex-
plained this notion against the background
of Hellenistic Jewish ideas about God's
personified word (-Logos) and wisdom.
Now the divine Word is called God's 'Son'
by Philo, but is not said to have been sent
into the world, while Sophia (~Wisdom) in
Wis 9 is said to have been sent (the sending
of Sophia and the Spirit in vv 10 and 17
corresponds to that of the Son and the Spirit
in Gal 4:4-6), but is not the ‘Son’ of God.
In a fragment of the Prayer of Joseph, we
come across a representation of an angel by
the name of Israel, who is said to be a
‘ruling Spirit’, the 'Firstborn of every living
thing’, the ‘Archangel of the power of the
Lord', the *Chief Captain among the sons of
God', and the 'First of those who serve
before the Face of the Lord' (Or. Jo. 2:31).
That the angel is said to be the 'Firstborn of
every living thing’ derives from an exegesis
of Exod 4:22, where God says: "Israel is My
firstborn son". This verse could be referred
to the patriarch -*Jacob, who was given the
name Israel by God (Jub. 19:29; Exod R.
19:7; 3 Enoch 44:10). In the Prayer of
Joseph, the preexistent angel Israel, who is
the chief ‘among the sons of God', explicit-
ly identifies himself as having become mani-
fested in the patriarch: "I, Jacob, whom men
call Jacob, but whose name is Israel".
Philo also furnishes evidence for the idea
of the many-named intermediary in Hel-
lenistic Judaism. In one passage, he heaps
various cpithets upon the intermediary:
“God’s Firstborn, the Word, who holds the
eldership among the angels, their ruler as it
were. And many names are his, for he is
called ‘Beginning’, ‘Name of God’, His
‘Word’, ‘Man after His image’, and ‘He that
sees’, i.c. 'Israel'" (Conf. 146). In another
text, Wisdom (Sophia) is called 'Beginning',
‘Image’, and ‘Vision of God’ (Leg. All.
1:43). The intermediary is also ‘High Priest’
(Migr. 102; Fuga 108-118; Somn. 1:215;
2:183). The many-named intermediary is
also said to be God's 'Son': he is God's
"true Word and firstborn Son', who oversees
the heavenly bodies whose courses regulate
the life of the universe, “like a viceroy of a
great king” (Agr. 51); “the incorporeal Man,
who is no other than the divine Image, [is]
His eldest Son, whom He elsewhere calls
791
SON OF GOD
‘Firstborn’ and the ‘Begotten One'" (Conf.
62-63). Philo also calls the materia] world
God's 'younger son’, who can teach people
about God (Quod Deus 31-32; Ebr. 30;
Cher. 43-45). The ‘eldest and firstborn Son’
is the ‘Word’, which now is seen as the
spiritual world of ideas. In this particular
construal of the intermediary, a Platonic in-
fluence is seen at work, but there can be no
doubt that one of the facets of the Philonic
intermediary is an adaptation of a Jewish
angelic figure with many names, one of
which is ‘Son of God’. That the Christians
used the same model in representing the
saviour is shown by the originally synagogal
prayers which are embedded in the
Apostolic Constitutions, Books VII-VIIt, the
works of Justin Martyr (cf. below), and
Hermas, Sim. (FossuM 1992:131-132).
The idea of the preexistence of the Mess-
iah could find some support in the OT. Mic
5:2 states that the origin of the Ruler to
come is "from old, from ancient days"
(LXX: "from the beginning, from the days
of eternity"). Ps 89:28, which was applied to
the Messiah by R. Nathan (ca. 160 ce [Exod
R. 19:7]) says that God calls the king his
‘firstborn’. The LXX reads prétotokos,
which is similar to prdtogonos, an epithet
which both Philo and the Prayer of Joseph
bestow upon the preexistent intermediary
(cf. Col 1:15, where the ‘Son’ of God is
prótotokos).
According to Paul, God sent his Son in
order to set people free from slavery under
the elemental spirits of the universe (>Stoi-
cheia) and the Law (—Law) (Gal 4:3-5;
Rom 8:2-4). People were thereby made sons
of God by adoption and received the Spirit,
through which they could cry: “Abba!
Father!” (Gal 4:5-6; Rom 8:15). In the end,
they would be “conformed to the image of
His Son" (Rom 8:29). The specific act
through which the Son effected the salvation
was his death on the cross (Gal 2:20; Rom
8:2, 32 (see HENGEL 1976:7-15]).
The ütle 'Son of God' is a clue to the
identity of Jesus in the gospel of Mark. It is
found already in the first verse of the work
(accepting the reading of Codex Sinaiticus?,
792
B, D, etc.), which is matched at the end of
the Gospel by the exclamation of the Roman
centurion at the cross (15:39). Jesus is
solemnly declared to be the Son of God by a
heavenly voice at two crucial points in his
career, i.e. when he is installed as the Mess-
iah (1:11) and right after the confession of
Peter before the disciples that Jesus is the
Messiah (9:7).
The exclamation of the demons that Jesus
is the Son of God (3:11; 5:17) has another
derivation, for the Messiah was not expected
to expel demons. The appeal to the miracle-
working 'divine men' in the Greco-Roman
world would not seem to be of any avail,
because the exact title “Son of God’ does
not seem to have been applied to those
people. Now in the mouth of the demons,
the *Holy One of God' appears to be a
parallel title to that of the Son of God
(1:24). In Ps 89:5-7, ‘Holy Ones’ and ‘Sons
of God’ are parallel titles, designating the
members of God’s council. In Zech 14:5 (=
J Enoch 1:9; Jude 14) it is foretold that on
the Day of the Lorp, “God will come and
all the Holy Ones with Him”. Obviously, at
the turn of our era, both ‘Son(s) of God’ and
‘Holy One(s) of God’ were regarded as
angelic names.
Although the title of the Son of God
reached Mark from different sources, it is
clear that he attaches a unique significance
to it. The demons are adjured to be silent; so
are the disciples after the confession of
Peter. It is only through his death that the
deeper meaning of the divine sonship of
Jesus can be grasped (cf. 15:39).
In Matthew, it is not the demons but only
the disciples who proclaim that Jesus is the
Son of God (14:33; 16:16). As is shown by
Peter's confession, it is a title of the Mess-
iah (cf. 26:63). The title implies service of
God (3:17-4:10). Suffering is involved. The
leaders of the Jews mockingly ask why God
does not deliver Jesus from the cross, since
he claims to be the Son of God (27:43):
This reflects Wis 2:12-20, where the right-
eous, claiming to be the ‘Son’ and ‘Servant -
of God his ‘Father’, is oppressed, tortured:
and killed by the ungodly, who mock him
SON OF GOD
for believing that he will be vindicated in
the end by God. In the Sermon on the
Mount, the believers demonstrating God’s
will and love are promised the status as
God's ‘sons’ (5:10, 45 2 Luke 6:35).
Luke does not assign any significant role
to the title ‘Son of God’. It is an equivalent
to ‘the Christ’, the latter being preferred
above the former, as can be seen when com-
paring Luke’s text to the parallels in Mark
and Matthew (Luke 9:20; 22:67-70; 23:47).
In the Annunciation, Jesus is identified as
the Son of God and the heir to the throne of
David (1:32-33, 35). Here Hellenistic *di-
vine man’ and ruler ideology have been
merged with messianism, for virgin birth
was not predicated of the Messiah (in spite
of the fact that Isa 7:14 LXX reads ‘virgin’
where the MT has ‘young woman’). Now
the ‘divine men’ dnd the imperial ‘sons’ of
God were seen as the progeny of a god,
either by direct engendering or by a woman,
so there is no exact parallel to what is re-
Jated by Luke. However, we should consider
Plutarch’s report that the Egyptians believed
that the spirit of a god could work the begin-
nings of a new life in a woman (Numa 4).
John agrees with Paul that the purpose of
the sending of the preexistent Son of God
was his death for the salvation of human-
kind (3:16-17; 10:11; 11:51-52; 13; 15; 1
John 4:10). Like Paul (Gal 3:26), John
emphasizes faith as the condition for be-
coming God’s son or child (1:12). Again
like Paul, John holds that the Spirit is instru-
mental in this birth (3:5; 6:8).
In John, God is called ‘Father’ about. 120
times. Jesus is ‘(the) Son’/‘Son of God’ 27
times. The correlation Father/Son suggests
itself. The full title ‘Son of God’ is found
primarily in confession-like formulas (1:34,
49; 20:31; also in 1 Jobn 4:15; 5; 2 John 3).
While ‘Son of God’ is associated with ‘the
Father’ only twice (5:25; 10:36, ‘the Son’,
‘which is found 18 times, is virtually always
‘correlated with the idea of God as Father.
The intimacy between the Father and the
‘Son is thereby emphasized (1:18; 3:35-36;
9:19-26; 6:40; 8:35-36; 14:13; 17:10). The
‘Son does only what the Father wants him to
39
game
do; he is thus a true revelation of God.
The basic theme of Hebrews js the
“representative atoning suffering of the Son”
(HENGEL 1976:87), who is a preexistent
divine being standing above the angels. Old
notions about the Near Eastern priest-king
are revived in order to explain his work. In
contrast to the priest-king, however, Jesus
sacrificed himself (9:12, 25; 10:10). He then
took his seat at the right hand of God (1:2-3;
10:12-13). Denial of the Son of God by
those who have been purged by his death is
unforgivable (6:6; 10:29).
V. Bibliography
A. M. BLACKMANN, The House of the
Morning, JEA 5 (1918) 148-165; J. A.
BUHNER, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4.
Evangelium (WUNT 2, 2nd ser.; Tübingen
1977); R. BULTMANN, Geschichte der syn-
optischen Tradition (FRLANT 29; Gót-
tingen 19575); J. H. Breastep, Ancient
Records of Egypt 1 (Chicago 1906; reprinted
New York 1962); C. Cope, Gottessohn,
RAC 12 (1983) 19-58; P. DHORME, La reli-
gion assyro-babylonienne (Paris 1910); J.
DuponT, L’arriére-fond biblique du récit
des tentations de Jésus, NTS 3 (1956-1957)
287-304; D. O. EDZARD, Primäre Zentren
der Hochkultur, (Saeculum Weltgeschichte
l; Stuttgart 1965); A. ERMAN, Die Literatur
der Aegypter (Leipzig 1923); J. Fossum,
Son of God, ABD 6 (1992) 128-137; G.
FRrIEDRICH, Ein Tavuflied hellenistischer
Judenchristen, 7Z 21 (1965) 502-516; A.
GARDINER, Egyptian Grammar (London
19573); J. Gray, The Krt Text in the Litera-
ture of Ras Shamra (Leiden 19642); F.
HAHN, Christologische Hoheitstitel
(FRLANT 83; Góttingen 19642); J. Harris,
On the Name "Son of God" in Northern
Syria, ZNW 15 (1914) 108-113; M.
HENGEL, The Son of God (trans). J. Bow-
den; Philadelphia 1976); J. JEREMIAS, Abba
(Göttingen 1966); W. von Martirz, G.
FOHRER, E. Schweizer, E. Lonse & W.
SCHNEEMELCHER, vidc, TDNT 8 (1972)
334-397; A. Moret, Du caractère religieux
de la royauté pharaonique (Paris 1902); P.
Poxorn¢, Der Gottessohn, (ThStud 109;
Zürich 1971); F. PREISIGKE, Vom göttlichen
793
SONS OF (THE) GOD(s)
Fluidum nach ügyptischer Anschauung (Hei-
delberg 1920); H. Rapau, Early Babylon-
ian History (New York 1899); RADAU,
Early Babylonian History down to the End
of the Fourth Dynasty of Ur (New
York/London 1900); H. RIESENFELD, Jésus
transfiguré (ASNU 16; Uppsala 1947); G.
RoEDER, Urkunden zur Religion des alten
Ägypten (Religiöse Stimmen der Völker 4;
Jena 1915); W. H. P. Romer, The Religion
of Ancient Mesopotamia, Historia Religion-
um 1 (ed. C. J. Bleeker & G. Widengren;
Leiden 1969) 115-194; A. F. J. Serrz, The
Future Coming of the Son of Man, Studia
Evangelica 6 (Berlin 1973) 478-494; K.
SETHE, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie 4,1
(Leipzig 1914); Å. W. SJÖBERG, Die gött-
liche Abstammung der sumerisch-babylo-
nischen Herrscher, Orientalia Suecana 72
(1972) 88-112; C. H. TALBERT, The Myth
of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in
Mediterranean Antiquity, NTS 22 (1976)
418-439; G. WIDENGREN, Religionsphäno-
menologie (transl. R. Elgnowski; Berlin
1969); WiDENGREN, Psalm 110 und das
sakrale Kónigtum in Israel, Zur neueren
Psalmenforschung (ed. P. H. A. Neumann;
Wege der Forschung 192; Darmstadt 1976)
185-216.
J. Fossum
SONS OF (THE) GOD(S)
DTS) / OS / VD 71D
I. In several passages in the OT a group
of heavenly beings other than Yahweh is
referred to by the expressions béné 'elyón
“children of Elyon” (Ps 82:6) and béné "elim
(Ps 29:1; 89:7) or béné (hà) ?^2lóhtm (Gen
6:2.4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and originally Deut
32:8) “children of God”, “children of (the)
gods” or “divine beings”. The concept ap-
pears without the terminology in a few other
passages in the OT. Corresponding ‘Greek
expressions appear in the NT to characterize
the ultimate transformation of God’s people
into heavenly beings.
Of the cognate expressions referring to a
plurality of divine beings at Ugarit bn il is
more common than bn ilm. Bn il clearly
794
refers to "the children of El'—at least, in
one text El addresses the gods (ilm) as "my
children" (bny) (1.16 v:24). bn ilm is found
only once (KTU? 1.4 iii:14). Here it is pre-
ceded by phr "assembly", which elsewhere
is twice followed immediately by iln (ie,
“assembly of the gods"—or possibly
"assembly of EY" [the divine name plus
enclitic mj). The two expressions by jj
"children of E!" and phr ilm "assembly of
the gods" have perhaps been conflated in the
unique expression phr bn ilm. lt remains
uncertain, however, whether this is best ren-
dered “assembly of the children of EJ",
"assembly of the children of the gods", or
"assembly of the divine beings". The
simplest solution is to assume that bn ilm
was understood as an idiomatic periphrasis
for "the gods”, i.e. “the divine beings”. The
one occurrence of bn “Im in a Phoenician
text, kl dr bn *lm (KAI 26 A HI 19) is prob-
ably to be understood similarly: “the whole
circle of the divine beings”. A
In Hebrew it is arguable whether the plu-
ral form of the word for ‘god’ in the phrase
béné (ha)’élohim represents the plura} con-
cept, ‘gods’, or the singular ‘God’. That
upon reflection ancient Israelites might spe-
cify either a singular or a plural referent is
suggested by the occasional substitution of
elim (plural) or. ‘Elyén (singular) for the
ambiguous (hda)élohin. (However, some
would see behind the MT ’élim a singular
reference to the more specific old divine
name El with enclitic m).
If ’élohim had singular reference, the
expression béné "Zlóhím would correspond
most closely to the Ugaritic expression bn il.
The biblical identification of ’élohim with
Yahweh would suggest that the béné (ha)
'élóhim were not independent of, but essen-
tially related to, Israel’s god. This accords
with Yahweh’s occasional use of the first
person plural (see below). Although this
view is more appropnate to some contexts
than to others, it clearly lies behind the
LXX’s consistent translation of both (Ad)
"élóhim and °élim (!) in these phrases by
theou (or mou in Job 38:7, where God 18:
speaking). Other associations suggested oy.
SONS OF (THE) cop(s)
the term béné- (descent from or participation
in the nature of the following noun) might
be problematic for people emphasizing
Yahweh's uniqueness in the heavenly
sphere, or understanding Yahweh's court to
include the subjected gods of other nations.
Such people would have favoured a plural
reference for the second noun in béné (hà)
"élóhím (which would then have been the
forma] equivalent of the Ugaritic bn ilm).
This too would suit some contexts more
than others. Probably, however, the expres-
sion was an idiomatic term for ‘divine
beings’, as béné (ha) ’adam was for ‘human
beings’. Compare the parallelism of the two
expressions in the original text of Deut 32:8
and the painng of béné ha 'élóhim and
bànót hà "adàm in Gen 6:2 (see below; and
note the similar suggestion in the case of
Ugaritic bn ilm above) This being so,
Israelites would not normally have stopped
to think about the specific referent of the
second term in the phrase.
IJ. At Ugarit the ‘divine beings’ appear
in three of the traditional poems and in two
religious texts (as well as one fragmentary
context: KTU2 1.62:7). They are cited for
their immortality in the Tale of Aghat,
where they appear in parallelism with Baal:
having offered Aqhat immortality, Anat pro-
mises he wil] have as many years//months in
his life as Baal//“the divine beings” (XTU?
117 vi:28-29). It jis their ignorance that
occasions their mention in one of the shorter
Baal narratives—the incomplete line KTU?
1:10 i:3 speaks of something "that the divine
beings do not know”. (The mention of Anat
and Baal in the immediate [broken] context
suggests that these two may share the knowl-
edge denied to the bn il.) The following two
lines preserve the expressions parallel to bn
il: phr k(b)kbm and dr dt $mm "tbe assembly
of the Stars” and “the circle of the heavenly
Ones (lit. those of the heavens)”.
zThe gods are seen here as heavenly
beings, associated or even identified with
ithe stars. In the last passage the reference is
‘apparently to all the gods except those
Jamed, and that would appear to be true in
he first passage as well.
TENSES ‘or
TUE X
Collectives—such as phr and dr—are
used with all the remaining cases of bm il,
thus representing the gods as a collectivity.
In KTU? 1.4 ii:13-14 (in the main Baal
cycle) Baal complains that he has been spat
upon "in the assembly of the divine beings"
(btk phr bn ilm). (In a god list [KTU? 1.47:
29] and an offering list [KTU? 1.148:9) the
briefer phrase phr ilm “assembly of the
gods” is used.)
In the first three lines of KTU? 1.65 (a
text of disputed genre, that focuses on El
and a number of objects or attributes asso-
ciated with him) bn il is used three times: il
bn iU/dr bn il/mphrt bn il "El, the divine
beings/the circle of the divine beings/the
totality of the divine beings". While widely
regarded as a religious text, it has been
argued that this tablet may have been used
for a scribal exercise (M. DIETRICH, O.
LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, RS 4.474 = CTA
30—Schreibiibung oder religidse Text?, UF
7 [1975] 523-524). But even if this is so,
KTU? 1.40 shows that the model for the
phrases in question is a religious text. Simi-
lar expressions appear toward the end of
each of the five sections of this ritual text.
The full context reads: “May it (a sacrifice)
be borne to the Father of the divine beings,
may it be bome to the circle of the divine
beings, to the totality of the divine beings”.
The use of the expression “the father of the
divine beings” to refer to El tends to support
the suggestion above that the phrase trans-
lated literally “the children of EI” was al-
ready so idiomatic a term for the collectivity
of the gods that it no longer conveyed the
fatherhood. of El, but was simply a peri-
phrasis for "gods", i.e. "divine beings". This
would explain how bn il might be inter-
changed with bn ilm, both in effect referring
to the same collectivity. In any case, both
texts explicitly associate this collectivity
closely with El himself.
In literary texts from Ugarit then, the
term refers to the generality of gods: they
appear with Baal as a model of immortality,
and in different contexts are differentiated
from him by their insulting treatment of him
and by their ignorance of something that he
795
SONS OF (THE) cop(s)
(apparently) knows. Religious texts present
the bn il explicitly as a collectivity closely
associated with El.
At Karatepe king Azatiwada curses any-
one displacing his record, invoking “Baal-
shamem, El Creator of the Earth, the Ever-
lasting Sun and the whole circle of divine
beings”. Here the same collective (dr) is
used as in the religious texts from Ugarit,
and the expression seems to be used to refer
to all the gods beyond the three mentioned.
(Contrast the more circumscribed group, kl
"In qrt “all the gods of the city", mentioned
a few lines earlier: KA/ 26 A III 5.)
III. Béné ha’élohim appears in Gen 6:2.4;
Job 1:6; 2:1; and without the article in Job
38:7. Béné 'elim appears in Pss 29:1 and
89:7. The LXX and Qumran Literature sup-
port the earlier reading béné "élóhim for
MT's béné Yiírdà'él in Deut 32:8. Béné
*Elyón is used only in Ps 82:6.
In Gen 6:2.4 the béné hà ?élóhim, male
deities (not—generically—"children of the
gods") find bénét ha’adam, female humans,
attractive and take in marriage whomever
they choose. Yahweh is conspicuous by his
absence from these mythical events. His
speech in verse 3, while making clear that
humans have no possibility of immortality
through such divine connections, concerns
humanity alone and ignores the béné ha
'élóhim. It is clear that the author is sum-
marizing traditional mythical material about
divine-human unions as an illustration of the
disorder that prevailed immediately before
the flood. This is further linked by temporal
references (“in those days”, “of old”) with
traditions about the -*Gibborim and the
—Nephilim (v 4). The mythological char-
acter of these references leaves no doubt
that the divine beings in question are the
gods of traditional myth, known to us from
various Near Eastern cultures. (For divine-
human unions see e.g. KTU? 1.23, the two
versions of the Hattic myth of Illuyanka,
and the references to the hero's parentage in
the Epic of Gilgamesh, not to mention
Greek myths.) This traditional mythology is
granted a quasi-historical reality in the lapi-
dary portrayal of the cosmic disorder that
prevailed before the flood. But the reality
conceded to the gods is not related to the
reality of Yahweh. The gods have relations
with humans, but not with God. Assigned to
antediluvian times, they instantiate the dis-
order that motivated Yahweh's decision to
punish the world with the Deluge.
In the earliest recoverable version of Deut
32:8 the old high god, here —Elyon, is por-
trayed as allotting their territories to all the
peoples of the world: "When Elyon gave the
nations their possessions, divided up human-
Kind, he established the boundaries of the
peoples according to the number of the di-
vine beings" (reading bny "Ihym, as reflected
in the QL and LXX, for MT’s béné Yifra’él
Israelites”). According to this, the number
of gods is the basis for the number of
peoples and countries in the world. The final
phrase implies not only that there was an
identical number of gods, peoples and terri-
tories, but that each people received its god
as well as its territory (or each god received
his or her people and territory). As one of
the divine beings, Yahweh received Israel at
the hands of Elyon, as each of the other
gods received his or her people and land
from the same source. (Later the divine
being in charge of a particular nation is
called its far "-*prince, officer": Dan 10:
13.20-21.) This is an appropriate myth to
explain the contemporary situation as per-
ceived by the composer: as the Israelites
have one land and one god, so each other
nation has its land and its god. Similar
thinking appears in Judg 11:24, where
Yahweh's gift of territory to Israel serves as
an analogy for another nation's receipt of its
land from its god.
In other contexts the matching of people
and gods is even clearer, though at the same
time Yahweh displaces Elyon as the dis-
tributor of benefices (see Deut 4:19; the
gods are here “all the Host of Heaven"; cf.
further 29:25). The understanding of Elyon
as an epithet of Yahweh leads to the inter-
pretation of Deut 32:8 also as referring to
Yahweh's distribution of lands to peoples.
By its substitution of béné yifra’él for
bny ?lhym the MT later made the number of
796
SONS OF (THE) GOD(S)
the descendants of Israel the model for
Yahweh's distribution of peoples and lands
and eliminated the divine beings altogether
(cf. the substitution of mifpéhdt ‘ammim for
béné ’élim in the tricolon Ps 96:7-8a as
compared with Ps 29:1-2a—see below).
Ps 82 also envisages Yahweh as one of
the gods, though only for the sake of
making a radical distinction between him
and them. Here the gods appear in assembly,
and Yahweh now deals with them directly.
In vv 6-7 he says: “I thought, ‘You are gods
(’éléhim; ~God[s]), children of Elyon, all of
you’; but you will die like people, fall like
any holder of high office”. The “children of
Elyon” appear in parallelism with ’éléhim
“gods”, and are addressed while gathered in
the divine assembly" (v 1; Council).
The relationship of the divine beings to
Yahweh is much more fully developed here
than anywhere else. Yahweh charges them
with mismanaging the world (v 2) and calls
upon them to exercise just government (vv
3-4). They do not know the meaning of the
term and proceed in ignorance, while the
world in their charge begins to come apart.
Yahweh now rhetorically (ironically?) ad-
mits having thought that they were really
gods, but proclaims his present recognition
that they are mortal and doomed to fall from
their positions of responsibility.
Thus the heavenly beings are here again
the gods, generally believed to be the rulers
of the world. The psalm's purpose is to
expose their total failure as governors—
more specifically, to have Yahweh expose
that failure. For this purpose Yahweh is rhe-
torically portrayed as having formerly
shared general beliefs about the gods. But
Yahweh is also the one who exposes their
true nature and announces their demise, and
the one who in the last verse of the psalm is
acclaimed as their successor, governor of the
world and their heir to all the nations. Thus
Ps 82 rhetorically acknowledges the gods’
claims to be rulers of the nations, but does
so only to demonstrate their failure and the
justice of Yahweh's replacing them as ruler
of the world.
Thus in Gen 6:1-4 the divine beings are
portrayed in a reference to a traditional myth
(or myths), which is given a place in events
leading up to the deluge. Here they are rad-
ically differentiated and separated from
Yahweh. In Deut 32:8-9 the divine beings
appeared originally as Yahweh's peers, but
the text is reread and eventually rewritten to
make Yahweh the supreme, and then the
only, deity. In Ps 82 Yahweh again appears
as one of the divine beings, but only to
expose his peers as total failures and to dis-
place them as ruler of the world. In the
remaining cases, the divine beings appear as
Yahweh's court—his servants and wor-
shippers.
Before a discussion of these, reference
should be made to some other passages
which, while not using the specific term,
nevertheless seem to refer to these divine
beings as Yahweh's peers. In Gen 3:22
Yahweh says: “The human has become like
one of us”. Only two kinds of being are
envisaged here: divine and human. The
human has acquired one of the divine char-
acteristics (knowledge) and is threatening to
acquire another (immortality v 22b; cf. 11:6-
7). The phrase “one of us” clearly refers to
any one of the group of divine beings, of
whom Yahweh is primus inter pares. In the
priestly text, Gen 1:26, God again uses the
first person plural when proposing to make
humanity “in our image, according to our
likeness”. In this case, human beings are
modelled on the divine beings (among
whom God is again by implication supreme
and distinguished from the animal kingdom,
which they are to rule. (Cf. Ps 8:6, in which
'élóhim should perhaps be translated "gods"
rather than “God”.) Another use of the first
person plural by God in Isa 6:8 again sugge-
sts the presence of the divine beings, though
more specifically convened as a -*council
and with Yahweh more explicitly in charge.
To turn now to other uses of the phrase
"divine beings": in the two episodes in
heaven in the prologue to the book of Job
(Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7a) the béné ha@élohim
present themselves to Yahweh, the -*Satan
among them. Yahweh initiates a topic of
discussion, the §afdn makes a proposal, and
797
SONS OF (THE) coD(s)
Yahweh authorizes an action, carefully de-
limited. It is clear from these passages that
the divine beings in general customarily
came together at certain times to report to
Yahweh. This is modelled on the old divine
Council convening to make decisions, with
Yahweh here presiding as the high god.
While the dialogues between Yahweh and
the §dtan reveal the character of the latter
more than that of the group to which he
belongs, they generally reflect the degree of
initiative individual assembly members may
take as well as the primacy of the interests
and the final authority of the presiding
officer. (Cf. the council's discussion in the
vision report of Micaiah—1 Kgs 22:19b-22).
Two passages refer to the divine beings as a
heavenly group that recognizes and acknowl-
edges Yahweh's greatness. In the first
speech of Yahweh in the Job poem, Yahweh
asks Job where he was at creation, at the
time "when the moming stars rejoiced
together and all the béné ’élohim shouted for
joy” (Job 38:7). The parallelism of “stars”
and béné ’éléhim recalls the Ugaritic text
KTU? 1.10 i:3-4 (bn iV/phr kkbm “sons of
god//assembly of stars”). The traditional
understanding of such a juxtaposition cer-
tainly involved recognition of the identity of
stars and gods, but the context gives no indi-
cation of how precisely they were conceived
here, whether in the traditional way or in
terms of the physical heavens with their
stars (personified) and the mythological
heavens with their messengers and hosts
(Messenger; -*Host of heaven), as in Ps
148:1-3. In any case, Job 38:7 depicts both
groups as present at the foundation of the
earth (cf. Gen 1:26 above), rejoicing in
Yahweh's great achievement. Like the di-
vine assembly of the Babylonian Enüma
elis, their function is to give recognition and
praise to the creator god.
Ps 29 begins by calling upon the béné
'elim to attribute honour and strength to
Yahweh. Behind this lies the conception of
Yahweh's court. V. 9b spells out that
Yahweh is sitting in his heavenly
palace/temple receiving honour (cf. v 10,
where he is seated on the Flood as king
forever). The divine beings are here, as in
Job 38:7, an undifferentiated group whose
function is simply to give due acknowledge-
ment to Yahweh in recognition of his
powers and accomplishments. Nevertheless,
another psalmist is sufficiently uncomfort-
able with this expression to substitute
mispéhót *ammim in the otherwise identical
tricolon Ps 96:7-8a (cf. the history of Deut
32:8 above).
Ps 89:7 asks who is comparable with
Yahweh among the béné 'elím (parallel to
ba$iahaq "in the clouds"). The following
verse further distinguishes Yahweh as a god
feared in the Council of the Holy Ones
(Saints) and "among all those around
him". Again the heavenly court is in view,
and one of the terms by which its members
are referred to is béné ^élim. The poet's use
of this term to set off Yahweh's uniqueness
is echoed in Exod 15:11, in which the term
béné is lacking: "Who is like you among the
gods (ba’élim), Yahweh?” The LXX has
"holy ones" as the parallel term in the
second colon (See also s.v. Saints) The
comparison of the two verses shows the
essential identity of function of the two
terms and groups, namely to distinguish
Yahweh from all other divine beings.
All except one of the passages reviewed
so far have in view a group of divine beings
to varying degrees associated with Yahweh
and distinguished from humanity. The
exception is Gen 6:1-4, where on the one
hand the gods blur the line between divine
and human by mating with women, and on
the other the narrative does not acknowledge
any relationship between them and Yahweh.
By the last centuries BCE the dominant view
of divine beings among Jews was that they
were —angels, a lesser order of heavenly
beings at the one God's beck and call. It
was no longer necessary to assert God's
superiority over them or difference from
them, for they no longer partook of divinity.
When Jews of this period read the passages
commented on above they now understood
them to refer, not to divine beings, but to
angels. Thus beside the more literal huioi
theou “sons of God” the LXX uses the word
angeloi “angels”.
There is a single reference in the OT to
798
SONS OF (THE) GOD(S)
one of the. divine beings, which illustrates
this shift. In the story of the three Judeans
cast into the furnace, Nebuchadnezzar, on
looking into the furnace, sees four men, one
of whom resembles bar ’éldhin “a divine
being (lit. a son of gods)" (Dan 3:25). (This
is the singular of the Aramaic equivalent of
béné 'élohim.) In his own terms, Nebuchad-
nezzar might think of this as a god, but
when he further expresses himself on the
subject, he interprets the. phenomenon in
terms of the religion of the three Judeans—
and of the Jewish teller and hearers of the
story: after bringing the three out of the fur-
nace, he blesses their god “who sent his
messenger to save his servants ...” (3:28).
This “divine being” is thus a manifestation
of the traditional “angel of Yahweh”, a
member of the divine court, here as else-
where sent on an errand of mercy and de-
liverance. (The LXX already translates the
expression in 3:25 by angelos kyriou.)
The apocrypha and pseudepigrapha con-
ceive of the "children of God" as angels—
though the term is also used of faithful
Jews. These two uses are virtually conflated
in the eschatological expectations of some
texts, which see faithful Israel becoming
heavenly beings in God’s ultimate new
order.
; The NT adopts the idea and the term to
embrace the newly defined community of
God's people, and then also occasionally
applies it to the quasi-angelic nature and
status. of the faithful in the final transfor-
mation. This eschatalogical sense of the
terms “children of God" and "children of the
Most High” appears in three passages in the
‘gospels (cf. already Hos 2:1[Heb]/1:10
{Engl}). According to the seventh beatitude
in. Matthew, peacemakers will be called
huioi theou “children of God’ (Matt 5:9).
This is intended to suggest, not that the
‘beneficiaries of the peacemakers will think
‘of. them as angels, but that God will ulti-
mately call them his children, and therefore
diey will be such (cf. 1 John 3:1). In Luke's
Version of the Sermon on (or off) the
Mount, those who love their enemies will
deceive a great reward and become "children
Dr the Most High" (huioi Hypsistou; Luke
6:35). This is the only occurrence of this
expression in the NT, as Ps 82:6 is the only
occurrence in the OT. Here, as there, the
reference is to the same group as the "'child-
ren of God”. The most precise definition of
this eschatalogical reality appears in Luke
20:36, where Jesus says that those who
experience resurrection will be isangeloi
"the equivalent of angels" and Auioi theou
"children of God". This pair of expressions
places the resurrected in the same order of
being as angels, while distinguishing them
from that group—they are not angeloi but
isangeloi (cf. Mark 12:25 and Matt 22:30,
which use only the expression hés angeloi
"like angels").
Another pertinent distinction is made in 1
John 3:2: those addressed are now tekna
theou "children of God", i.e. angels, but will
in the end be like God (homoioi autdi), i.e.
divine beings. Here the traditional term
("children of God") is used to express the
angelic nature presently enjoyed, while the
traditional concept ("divine beings") is used
to refer to the divine character ultimately to
be assumed.
IV. Bibliography
B. BYRNE, “Sons of God"— "Seed of Abra-
ham". A Study of the ldea of Sonship of
God of All Christians in Paul against the
Jewish Background (AnBib 83; Rome,
1979); G. Cooker, The Sons of (the) God(s),
ZAW 76 (1964) 22-47; A. Cooper, Divine
Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,
RSP 3 (AnOr 51; ed. S. Rummel; Rome
1981) 371-500, esp. 431-441 [& lit]; J. L.
CUNCHILLOS YLARRI, Los bene ha’elohim
en Gen. 6, 1-4, Estudios Biblicos 28 (1969)
5-31; M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, “Jahwe
und seine Aschera” (UBL 9; Miinster 1992)
134-157 [& lit]; H. GESE, M. HÖFNER & K.
RUDOLPH, RAAM, 100-102; W. HERRMANN,
Die Göttersöhne, ZRGG 12 (1960) 242-251;
E. T. MurreN, The Divine Council in
Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature
(HSM 24; Chico, 1980); A. OHLER, Mytho-
logische Elemente im Alten Testament (Düs-
seldorf 1969) esp. 204-212; S. B. PARKER,
The Beginning of the Reign of God — Psalm
82 as Myth and Liturgy, RB 102 (1995)
532-559 ; M. Pore, El in the Ugaritic Texts
799
SON OF MAN
(VTSup 2; Leiden 1955) 48-49; W. ScHLIs-
SKE, Gdttersdhne und Gottessohn im Alten
Testament: Phasen der Entmythisierung im
Alten Testament (BWANT 97; Stuttgart
1973); H. WiNDISCH, Friedensbringer—Got-
tessöhne, ZNW 24 (1925) 240-260.
S. B. PARKER
SON OF MAN EC^N j2, CN 72, ó vig
toU dvOporov
I. Son of man is a typical Semitic
expression (‘son of...'- onc of the species
of) denoting an individual human being (Ps
8:4; Job 16:21). Paradoxically it comes to
refer, in Jewish texts, to a heavenly figure
who looks like a human being and, in New
Testament texts, to -*Jesus both in his
humanity and in his identity as the heavenly
figure described in the Jewish texts.
II. The earliest relevant text for the
non-generic use of ‘son of man’ is Dan
7:13-14. The chapter purports to be a vision
that -*Daniel received while in exile in
Babylon. In fact it derives from the Hel-
lenistic period, and its present form dates
from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes’
persecution of the Jews (167-164 BCE). The
focus of the vision alternates between the
carthly and heavenly realms. In the first half
of the chapter Daniel describes his vision
(vv 1-14). He sees four great beasts rising
out of the sca. The tenth horn of the last and
fiercest beast utters arrogant words. In
heaven the aged deity (‘the —>ancient of
days’) convenes a court that condemns the
beast, whose body is burned. At that point,
‘one like a son of man’ arrives on the clouds
of heaven and is given everlasting ‘sov-
ereignty, glory, and kingly power’.
The second half of the chapter interprets
the vision (vv 15-27). The four beasts repre-
sent four great kingdoms. The last of these
is the Macedonian, and the tenth and last of
its kings defies God by making war on
‘the holy ones of the Most High’, the
angelic patrons of Israel. The enthronement
of ‘one like a son of man’ means that kingly
power, sovereignty, the greatness of all the
kingdoms under heaven will be given to the
people of the holy ones of the ~Most High,
and this will last forever (v 27).
Not surprisingly, the origins of this vision
and the precise meaning of many of its
details are debated. The vision itself is wide-
ly recognized to have derived from ancient
Near Eastern myth, although the precise
provenance is debated. The closest parallel
is in Canaanite combat myths that describe
the triumph of >E! over the forces of chaos,
represented by Yamm (the -*sea). The inter-
action between the ancient deity and the
*one like a son of man' also finds a counter-
part in Canaanite myth, where El, depicted
as an old man, is succeeded by Baal, the
rider of the cloud chariot.
In its present form, the chapter presents
one of several visions in the Book of Daniel
that see in the reign of Antiochus a super-
natural clash between Israel’s God, or God’s
- angels, and the demonic forces embodied
in the Macedonian kingdom, and that antici-
pate the triumph of Israel and its God
(chaps. 8 and 10-12; cf. chap. 2). The ‘one
like a son of man’ is a high angel, perhaps
to be identified with —Michael (cf. 10:13.
21; 12:1). His human-like appearance is tra-
ditional (cf. Dan 9:21, 'the man Gabriel’,
há'i$ gabri'él), although it may be men-
tioned in 7:13 in order to contrast the figure
with the beasts. The literary break between
7:12 and 7:13 indicates that the 'one like a
son of man’ appears on the scene only after
judgment has been passed on thc last beast.
Thus, vv 13-14 do not ascribe judicial func-
tions to the ‘one like a son of man’ (contrast
12:1) but describe his enthronement after the
judgment, and the text emphasizes how he,
the heavenly entourage in general, and Israel
will exercise God’s everlasting sovereignty
over all the kingdoms on earth. A similar
notion of dual, heavenly/earthly dominion
(misrat/mmilt) appears in. IQM 17:6-8,
which identifies Michael as ‘the great angel’
who helps Israel and holds dominion among
the gods (]ym).
The second Jewish text to refer to a 'son
of man' is the Parables or Similitudes of
Enoch (/ Enoch 37-71), which date from
around the turn of the era. Here the 'son of
800
SON OF MAN
man’ is a heavenly figure, whose origins
predate creation but whose primary
functions are related to the end time.
Enoch’s portrait of the ‘son of man’
draws on three or four major strands of tra-
dition. Chapter 46 introduces him in a scene
that draws on Daniel 7:13 (cf. 46:1-3), and
chap. 47 reflects Dan 7:9-10. Once the one
“whose face was like the appearance of a
man and full of graciousness like one of the
holy angels” has been presented to God,
who “had a head of days like white wool”
(46:1), and to the reader, he is with some
frequency referred to as ‘this son of man’,
‘that son of man’, or ‘the son of man
who...'. The term appears not to be a formal
title, but a reference to a known human-like
figure.
The Deutero-Isaianic servant poems are
the second strand of tradition on which the
Parables draw. Especially noteworthy is /
Enoch 48, where the naming of 'that son of
man' is described in language taken from
Isaiah 49. Similarly, the great judgment
scene in / Enoch 62-63 has been inspired by
a traditional interpretation of Isaiah 52-53
which is also attested in Wis 5. The servant
tradition is also evident throughout the Par-
ables in the son of man's chief title, ‘the
Chosen One’, whose Deutero-Isaianic origin
is attested in J Enoch 49:3-4 (cf. Isa 42:1),
and quite possibly in the title ‘Righteous
One’ (/ Enoch 38:2; cf. Isa 53:11).
The third major strand of tradition in-
forming the Parable’s portrait is found in the
Davidic oracles of Isaiah and the royal
psalms (cf. 7 Enoch 48:8 ['kings of the
earth’], 10 with Ps 2:2; / Enoch 49:3-4a;
62:2-3 with Isa 11:1-5). The naming scene
in 7 Enoch 48 may indicate that Jewish
speculation about the figure of Wisdom has
also coloured the Enochic picture of this
heavenly figure. In 48:3-5 the hiddenness of
the ‘son of man’ is related to his existence
before creation (contrast Isa 49:2 and see
Prov 8:22-31 and Sir 24:1-6).
This remarkable conflation of traditions is
not completely surprising when one con-
siders the sources. Second Isaiah does not
expect a restoration of the Davidic dynasty
and invests the servant with qualities of the
Davidic king, climaxing his references to the
servant with a major scene of exaltation in
the presence of the kings and the nations
(52:12-15). Dan 7 describes the enthrone-
ment of one like a son of man, who receives
‘sovereignty’ (Soltan) and ‘kingly power’
(malká) 7:14. Nonetheless, the Enochic
conflation significantly transforms the indi-
vidual traditions. Expectations of a Davidic
restoration have been replaced by belief in
an enthroned heavenly deliverer who is
identified with the servant and the Danielic
one like a ‘son of man’. The ‘son of man’,
on the other hand, does not appear after the
judgment, but is enthroned in order to exe-
cute divine judgment. The servant tradition
is made focal, but the Chosen One is both
pre-existent to creation and a major eschato-
logical figure, with power to execute wide-
sweeping judgment. The major objects of
his judgment are the kings who, in Isa
52:13-15, are bystanders rather than the per-
secutors of the righteous. This last transfor-
mation is expressed in language drawn from
Isaiah 14 (cf. / Enoch 46:4-7), but corre-
sponds to the opposition of the kings of the
earth and the Lord's anointed one in Ps 2.
Thus the Parables feature a transcendent
saviour figure, called 'son of man', 'the
Chosen One’ and ‘the Righteous One’.
Seated on God’s throne of glory, he is in-
vested with judicial functions and serves
specifically as the eschatological champion
and vindicator of the persecuted ‘righteous
ones’ and ‘chosen ones’, gathering them into
community with himself and condemning
their enemies, ‘the kings and the mighty’
(chaps. 51, 62-63).
The Enochic conflation and transfor-
mation of traditions is attested, partly, in
other Jewish texts, although the term 'son of
man’ occurs in none of them. Chief among
these texts is 2 Esdr 11-13 and its descrip-
tions of the anointed onc and the man from
the sea, which are clearly beholden to
Daniel 7. Descriptions of a transcendental
anointed one in 2 Bar 29-30; 36-39, and 53-
74 may also derive from this stream of tra-
dition. Wis 2:4-5 is a special case. It fea-
801
SON OF MAN
tures the traditional interpretation of Isa 52-
53 found also in / Enoch 62-63 and makes
some use of Ps 2, though not identifying the
central figure of that psalm as a son of
David; however, it has no close connections
with Dan 7. The significance of Wisdom of
Solomon lies in the fact that the persecuted
righteous one has no transcendent vindicator
like the Chosen One in / Enoch 62-63;
rather, the tradition describes how, after
death, the righteous one himself is exalted
as judge of his enemies. The two options of
interpreting Second Isaiah, in the Parables
and Wisdom of Solomon, will reappear in
the NT.
II. ‘Son of man’ is a major, though not
widespread, NT title for Jesus. Its appear-
ance is limited to the four gospels, one ref-
erence in Acts (7:56), and Rev 1:13, and it
may be implied in Heb 2:6-9. Few topics in
NT studies have generated as much litera-
ture and controversy as the gospel's use of
'son of man'. Some of the disputed points
are the following: Do the gospels presup-
pose a Jewish tradition about a transcendent
figure called '(the) son of man'? Do the gos-
pels, which sometimes quote Dan 7, also
know the tradition in the Parables of Enoch?
Does 'son of man' sometimes mean human-
ity in general, or can it be a surrogate
expression for ‘me’? Did Jesus himself use
the term? If so, was he referring to another,
eschatological figure, or to himself? If the
latter, did he mean ‘this human’ or did he
imply his identity as the eschatological ‘son
of man’? Do certain Pauline passages reflect
knowledge of ‘son of man’ traditions at-
tested in the gospels? In addition, exegetes
debate the meaning or function of the term
in many passages. Consensus is notably
lacking in all of these matters of interpre-
tation. There is perhaps wide agreement
that, on a purely descriptive level, one may
classify ‘son of man’ sayings into three
groups, which describe or refer to, respect-
ively: the present, earthly activity of the son
of man; the suffering, death, and resurrec-
tion of Jesus the son of man; the future,
eschatological activity of the son of man.
These are at least a helpful way into the
texts, which can be treated here only briefly.
Four preliminary remarks need to be made.
1) The evidence suggests that by the tum
of the era, some Jewish apocalyptic circles
envisioned the existence of a heavenly
figure, sometimes referred to as ‘son of
man’, but often not. The Parables of Enoch,
2 Esdr, and 2 Baruch (and indirectly the
Wisdom of Solomon) indicate that this
figure was thought to have eschatological
judicial functions, which indicates a signifi-
cant change from the foundational text in
Dan 7 brought about by conflation with
other streams of Jewish tradition, notably
Davidic royal oracles and Deutero-Isaianic
servant texts. 2) The transformations in the
tradition, both in the ascription of judicial
functions not found in Dan 7 and in a con-
sciousness of the royal and servant tra-
ditions, are evident in many NT passages. 3)
For reasons that are not clear, ‘son of man’
becomes a dominant title, where it had not
been in the Jewish tradition, and Dan 7 is
quoted, even when the judicial interpretation
in Enoch, with its transformation of Daniel,
is present. 4) The absence of the title ‘son of
man’ in the Pauline corpus should not preju-
dice our search for ‘son of man’ traditions
that may be presented in connection with
another 'christological' title.
The Gospel of Mark, the earliest extant
Christian text with references to the son of
man, plays on the ambiguities in the para-
doxical use of the term mentioned above.
Son of man denotes Jesus in his humanity
and stands in contrast to ‘son of God’, the
gospel’s highest designation for him. At
times, however, the expression is ambiguous
and can also indicate the notion of a trans-
cendent son of man. In 2:1-12, Jesus the
man claims to have ‘on earth’ the ‘sov-
ercignty' (exousia) that Dan 7:14 (LXX) at-
tributes to the eschatological cloud-borne
‘one like a son of man’, although forgive-
ness of sins suggests the judicial function
not present in Daniel. Mark 14:61-62
exploits the ambiguity to the full. Asked if
he is the Messiah, the son of God, Jesus
responds that Caiaphas, who is about to con-
demn him, will see to his detriment the man
802
SON OF MAN
who stands before him, coming on the
clouds of heaven as the eschatological son
of man, seated at God's right hand as mess-
iah and judge (Ps 110:1; but also / Enoch
62:1). This juxtaposition of messiah and
‘son of man’ appears also in 8:29-31 and in
13:21-27. where he is the champion of the
chosen as in the Parables of Enoch. Morc-
over, 8:29-3]; 9:9; 9:31, and 10:33-34.45
refer to the suffering, death, and resurrection
of the 'son of man', employing a pattern of
persecution and vindication drawn from the
interpretation of the servant poems attested
also in Wis 5, where, different from /
Enoch 62-63, the central figure is the vindi-
cated one rather than the vindicator. Thus,
for Mark ‘son of man’ is a complex and
ambiguous code word that denotes Jesus’
humanity (the ordinary meaning of the
expression), Jesus’ identity as the eschato-
logical son of man and messiah, and his fate
in the role that Wisdom explicates for the
servant and the central figure in Ps 2: the
suffering and vindicated righteous one.
Q. the hypothetical document common to
Matthew and Luke (alongside Mark), con-
tained a number of sayings of Jesus regard-
ing the judicial functions of the son of man.
Especially noteworthy is Matt 24:26-27; 37-
39 / Luke 17:22-37, where the epiphany of
the ‘son of man’ is compared to the coming
of the flood. In / Enoch, the flood is the
prototype of the final judgment. It is poss-
ible that this saying represents genuine Jesus
tradition and that the ‘son of man’ is a
figure other than Jesus. In Matt 10:32-33 /
Luke 12:8-9 (cf. Mark 8:38), Jesus speaks of
human confession or denial of him and its
eschatological consequences. According to
Luke and Mark, the eschatological judicial
agent (whether judge or witness) is
identified as ‘the son of man’, while
Matthew explicitly identifies that figure as
Jesus (‘T’). If the original Q formulation was
referring to the ‘son of man’ as a figure dis-
tinct from Jesus, then the Matthean and the
Lukan/Markan options would parallel,
respectively, the forms of the tradition in /
Enoch 62-63 and in Wis 5.
The Gospel of Matthew has a special
interest in the eschaton, which is carried in
part by Q 'son of man' traditions. However,
Matthew's major addition to the corpus of
'son of man' texts is a description of the
judgment (25:31-46), that closely parallels /
Enoch 62-63. The 'son of man' is called
‘king’, reflecting the royal stream of tra-
dition. People are judged on the basis of
their actions toward ‘the least of these my
brothers’, which are, in fact, actions for or
against Jesus. The solidarity between the
heavenly one and his brothers and the cri-
terion of judgment corresponds to / Enoch
62:1, where the kings and the mighty are to
recognize in the Chosen One the chosen
ones whom they have persecuted.
Although Luke tends to dampen eschato-
logical expectations, a text like 18:1-8 warns
against complacency and indicates the son
of man as the eschatological vindicator who
can appear at any time. Taking a different
tack, Luke 22:69 radicalizes eschatology by
maintaining, as opposed to Mark 14:62, that
the ‘son of man’s’ enthronement is an
accomplished fact (see also Acts 7:56 and
cf. Matt 26:64).
Although the Fourth Gospel lacks many
of the obvious apocalyptic traits of the syn-
optic gospels, it reflects notions of the ‘son
of man’ that are at home in the synoptics
and antecedent Jewish tradition. The author
employs the term ‘exalt’ (Aypsoun) only
with reference to ‘the son of man’ and the
parallel term ‘glorify’ mainly in connection
with ‘Jesus’ and ‘the son of man’. However,
these terms, appropriate to the Jewish under-
standing of the eschatological son of man,
do not refer to a future event, but express
John’s understanding of Jesus’ death as
synonymous with his exaltation. John 13:31-
32 is remarkable because its language re-
calls Isa 53:12 and 49:3, thus reflecting the
servant tradition that is paired with ‘son of
man’ tradition in Jewish and synoptic texts.
John 5:27-29 echoes the language of Daniel
7:14 and states explicitly that the ‘son of
man’ has authority to execute judgment, as
he does in / Enoch.
Whether Paul knew synoptic 'son of
man’ traditions is a disputed point. A nega-
803
SOOTHSAYING SPIRIT — SOTER
tive answer is supported by the complete
absence of the term in the Pauline corpus.
This absence is not surprising since the
Semitic expression would have been mean-
ingless to Paul’s gentile audience. However,
two passages in | Thess indicate remarkable
verbal and conceptual parallels with synop-
tic ‘son of man’ traditions. In 4:15-17 Paul
appeals to ‘a word of the Lord’ and then
describes the parousia and resurrection in
language reminiscent of Mark 13:26-27 and
Matt 24:31. In 5:1-11 his discussion of the
day of the Lord recalls the Q passage in
Matt 24:43-44 // Luke 12:39-40, and some
of his vocabulary parallels the Lukan ending
to the synoptic apocalypse (Luke 21:34-36).
Paul's discussion of the parousia and resur-
rection in 1 Cor 15:23-28 may also reflect
'son of man' tradition. Its combination of
language found in Ps 110:1; Dan 7:14 and
Ps 8:7 is reminiscent of the conflation of Ps
110:1 and Dan 7:13 in Mark 14:62 and the
curious use of Ps 8:4-6 in Heb 2:6-9 with
reference to Jesus’ exaltation rather than
humanity’s dominion over creation. In sum-
mary, Paul’s expectations about Jesus’
parousia may well reflect tradition about
Jesus as eschatological son of man. More-
over, his statements about Jesus’ future
function as judge (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:16)
could also derive from that tradition. His use
of the titles Lord and Son (of God) in such
contexts can be explained as a mean of
communicating to his non-Jewish audience.
The Book of Revelation, an apocalypse
that parallels / Enoch in many respects,
attests knowledge of the conflated ‘son of
man’, messianic, and (probably) servant tra-
dition found in the Parables of Enoch and 4
Ezra, an apocalypse by a contemporary of
John. Jesus is introduced in Rev 1:7 with
imagery from Dan 7:14, and chapter 5
recasts Dan 7:13-14. After chap. 13 returns
to the imagery of Dan 7, Jesus, the opponent
of the great beast, is placed on Mount Zion
with his entourage marked by the name of
his ‘father’ (cf. Ps 2:6-7), and 19:11-21
reflects both Ps 2 and Isa 11, texts employed
in the Parables. References to Jesus as
— ‘lamb’ recall Isa 53:7.11.
IV. Bibliography
J. J. COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Vision of the
Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula 1977);
C. Cope, Neue Untersuchungen zum
Menschensohn-Problem, 7Rev 77 (1981)
354-371; J. R. DONAHUE, Recent Studies on
the Origin of “Son of Man” in the Gospels,
CBQ 48 (1986) 584-607 [& lit]; E. HAAG,
Der Menschensohn und die Heiligen (des)
Hóchsten. Eine literar-, form- und traditions-
geschichtliche Studie zu Daniel 7, The Book
of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed.
A. S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven
1993) 137-186; J. W. vaN HENTEN,
Antiochus IV as a Typhonic Figure in
Daniel 7, The Book of Daniel in the Light of
New Findings (ed. A. S. van der Woude;
BETL 106; Leuven 1993) 223-243; A. J. B.
Hicains, The Son of Man in the Teaching
of Jesus (SNTSMS 39, Cambridge 1980); H.
S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mes-
opotamian Background of the Enoch Figure
and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neu-
kirchen 1987) [& lit]; B. LINDARS, Jesus
Son of Man (London 1983); P. J. MOLONEY,
The Johannine Son of Man (Biblioteca di
scienze religiose 14, 2nd ed.; Rome 1978);
U. B. MOLLER, Messias und Menschensohn
in jiidischen Apokalypsen und in der Offen-
barung des Johannes (Studien zum Neucn
Testament 6; Giltersloh 1972); G. W. E.
NICKELSBURG, Son of Man, ABD 6 (1992)
137-150 [& lit; J. THeissoun, Der
auserwihlte Richter (SUNT 12; Gottingen
1975); A. V6GTLE, Die ‘Gretchenfrage’ des
Menschensohnproblems (QD 152; Frei-
burg/Basel/Wien 1994); W. O. WALKER, Jr.,
The Son of Man: Some Recent Develop-
ments, CBQ 45 (1983) 584-607 (& lit].
G. W. E. NICKELSBURG
SOOTHSAYING SPIRIT > SPIRIT OF
THE DEAD
SOPHIA ^ WISDOM
SOTER > SAVIOUR
804
SOURCE
SOURCE j)
I. Sources (Heb ‘én, ma‘dyan) have
great significance in the ancient Near East.
Often essential as a water-supply in arid
regions, sources could acquire the status of
holy places. As such they were either ident-
ified as gods or as divine dwelling-places.
Also in the Hebrew Bible, there are several
traces of a cult of sources and source deities.
II. Sources are revered in most cultures,
especially in arid regions. In the ancient
Near East, the more distant they are from
humid areas, the more important sources
become. In the desert, rich sources can offer
the possibility of oasis garden culture.
Moreover, sources (and even cisterns) are
traffic stations in the desert. Given their vital
importance, sources are often places of
cults. As such they receive offerings; cultic
meals which are partaken near sources must
be seen within this context. The equipment
of the sacred place corresponds to that of
other holy places (cf. 1 Kgs 1:9; Phoenician
coins seem to represent both massébd and
source together). Cultically important
sources on the periphery of the settled areas
are visited occasionally, either on the occa-
sion of a migration or in order to perform a
religious duty (visiting the spring Zamzam
in Mekka still belongs to the hagg of the
Muslims). According to later Arabic testi-
monies, such places are sometimes kept by
priests.
Sources belong to the elementary forces
of the universe (cf. Prov 8:34). Therefore,
together with comparable elements, they are
called as witnesses to treaties (Sefire: KA/
222). In a mythological text there is a god-
dess, who is the daughter of such elemen-
tary units (“daughter of Source and -*Stone,
daughter of -*Heaven and Ocean" KTU
1.100:2). As an elementary force, sources
have also cosmological significance. The
Ugaritic god El resides near the source ‘of
the two rivers’, viz. the rivers of the upper
and lower worlds which surround the earth.
It is not known for certain whether this
place was linked to a geographically ident-
ified cult. The possibility should not be
excluded, though, for we know sanctuaries
where the cosmological dimension of the
source was represented, e.g. at Hierapolis.
According to an ancient tradition (Lucian,
Dea syr. 13.33.48), Hierapolis is the place
where the waters of the -*flood disappeared.
The divine triad Zeus-Hadad, Hera-
Atargatis, and 'Semeion' (a symbol corre-
lated to Dionysos, Deukalion and Semira-
mis) are the gods of the place (-*Zeus,
—Hadad, ->Hera, —Atargatis). This semeion
is carried to the sea in a procession. Water
is drawn, carried back to Hierapolis, and
poured into the cultically revered cleft. The
symbolism is clear: flood and sea are repre-
sentations of the waters of chaos; the ritual
re-enacts the disappearance of the flood. The
source emerging from the cleft reminds the
onlookers of the fact that the primeval water
is still present in a subterranean area (cf.
also Ps 74:15, see EMERTON 1966). The
‘Serpent’s stone’ in 1 Kgs 1:9 (eben
hazzóhelet. translation uncertain!), possibly
to be related to the 'Jackal's well' (*én hat-
tannín) in Nch 2:13, could have received its
name on account of a similar symbolism.
Very often the holiness of sources re-
ceives an anthropomorphical interpretation.
The most prominent god of the oasis city
Palmyra, Yarhibol, personifies the source
and is represented in a massebad (J.
TEIXIDOR, The Pantheon of Palmyra [EPRO
79; Leiden 1979] 29-34). Mesopotamian
iconography contains representations of
gods holding vessels in their hands from
which water streams flow to the left and the
right (O. KEEL, Die Welt der altorienta-
lischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament
[Einsiedeln/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972] 166).
Thus the human’s drawing of water imitates
the divine power of the spring as it provides
the land with water. In cultic texts, the life-
giving source becomes a common metaphor
of the cultic language which transcends the
range of concrete experience.
III. In the Hebrew Bible, too, there is
unmistakable evidence of the religious
significance of sources. Sources were orig-
inally seen as deities, or as the abode of dei-
ties (cf. the toponym Baalath-beer, ‘Lady of
the Source’, Josh 19:8). That source deities
805
SPIRIT — SPIRIT OF THE DEAD
may be identified with other divine figures is
clearly seen from local names such as En-
shemesh (‘Source of the Sun[-god]’, Josh
15:7; 18:17) or Beer-elim (‘Source of the
gods’, Isa 15:8). Deities related to sources
are often subjects of mythology. In the OT
there are traditions from the nomadic milieu
which tell about ‘finding’ a source (Kadesh:
Exod 17:1-7; Num 20:8-13; Beersheba:
Exod 21:30; 26:32-33; Beerlahairoi (>El
roi; >Lahai-roi]); not localized: Gen 16; 21:
19; cf. also En-hakkore: Judg 15:18-19).
Such events are linked with the wanderings
of an ancestor who is considered to be the
founder of the sanctuary. A typical feature
of these stories is the role of the deity of the
source, acting as a saviour when things are
at their worst (Gen 16; Exod 17; Num 20;
Judg 15:15-19). These narratives hàve event-
ually become specifically Israelite traditions
(and the saviour god is now Yahweh).
Cults centering around sources are situ-
ated partly within the cultural centres, partly
on the periphery. Many sanctuaries of cities
and villages are located within close prox-
imity to a spring, e.g. the temple of Jerusa-
lem (spring Gihon on the flank of the south-
eastern hill). Rituals which belong to such
sources are almost completely unknown. We
can. assume, however, a rite of drawing
water (cf. the allusion in Isa 12:3). Original-
ly, this could have been a rite in case of
drought (in 1 Sam 7:6 the drawing of water
belongs to a ritual of fasting and lamenting).
Also the Mishnah knows this rite (Sukkah
4:9-10).
The cosmological aspect of sources is
expressed in various conceptions. In Gen 2
the beginning of creation is marked by a
source (éd, —Id) which flows in the
desert—the mode! of an oasis (the con-
nection with the four rivers is secondary).
However, this oasis is without reality—it is
very remote (both in time and space). It is
reminiscent of the source of the two rivers
in Uganrtic mythology, the abode of El. The
‘paradise’ is far away—-with respect to time
and space (gedem). lt represents a world
which in many regards is at the opposite of
the real world. Another aspect of such an
‘opposite reality’ appears in eschatological
texts. The temple source becomes a matter
of expectation in Ezek 47; sometimes it is
not possible to distinguish between the
expression of concrete eschatological hope
and the metaphorical use of the theme.
IV. Bibliography
T. Canaan, Haunted Springs and Water
Demons in Palestine, JPOS 1 (1920) 153.
170; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Re.
ligion To-Day (Chicago 1902) = Ursemi-
tische Religion im Volksleben des heutigen
Orients (Leipzig 1903); W. Daum, Ursemi-
tische Religion (Stuttgart 1985); J. A.
Emerton, “Spring and Torrent” in Psalm
LXXIV 15, Volume du Congrés, Genéve
1965 (V¥Sup 15; Leiden 1966) 122-133; P.
REYMOND, L'eau, sa vie et sa signification
dans l'Ancien Testament (VTSup 6; Leiden
1958); *J. SCHREINER, ‘én/md‘jan, TWAT 6
(1989) 48-56.
F. Storz
SPIRIT ^ HOLY SPIRIT
SPIRIT OF THE DEAD Zh
Y. The term ’6b is attested 17 times in
the OT (one reference, Job 32:19, is du-
bious), for the most parn followed by- the
term yiddéénf, (11 times) Though all
scholars agree that the term relates to necro-
mancy and to the conjuration and consulta-
tion of the spirits of the dead, its precise
meaning and its etymology are still dis-
puted.
JI. The term °db is interpreted in various
ways. Consistent with the translations of the
LXX (engastrimythos, ‘one who speaks
from the belly’), Vg (magus, ‘magician’)
and Luther (Warsager, ‘soothsayer’), the
term "ób is generally rendered ‘soothsayer’
or ‘magician’ in modern translations. On the
basis of Job 32:19, where "ób, to judge from
the context, designates a wine-skin, and with
an appeal to Ibn Ezra (Migraot Gedolot:
commentary on Lev 19:31), many scholars
assume it designates some sort of tubular
device with which the necromancer could
produce the voice of the spirit. "ób is sup-
806
SPIRIT OF THE DEAD
posed by some to designate the point of
contact between the present world and the
realm of the dead, cf. Gk bothros. Some
modern scholars (especially EBACH &
RÜTERSWÓRDEN 1977 and 1980) have taken
up this idea with further reference to Sum
ab, Hurr/Hit api and Akk apu, all of which
refer to an offering-pit into which offerings
to the chthonic deities and to the dead them-
selves were placed. Heb ’6b is often con-
nected semantically and etymologically with
these words (cf. Ges!8 22 s.v.).
In recent research, "ób is increasingly inter-
preted as a designation of the spirits of the
dead. The word might qualify the dead 're-
turning" (i.e. from the underworld), (French
revenant) on the basis of Ar "ába ‘return’
(cf. SCHMIDT 1994:151); as ‘hostile’ (a deri-
vation of the root ’yb ‘to be an enemy’); or
as ‘ancestral’. Advocates of the latter view
(Lusr 1974; TROPPER 1989) assume an ety-
mological connection between "ób and ?àb
‘father, ancestor’.
The meaning ‘ancestral spirit? for °6b is
based on a number of considerations. In the
ancient Orient, necromancy was part of the
Cult of the Ancestors, This essentially in-
volved the invocation and interrogation of
the dead patriarch from whom a family
could seek advice and assistance. Several
times: in the OT, the Heb term "àbót
‘fathers’, similar to °6bdr, designates dead
ancestors (cf. the Lat expression di parentes
‘divine ancestors’).
The following list of parallel terms shows
that ’6b signifies persons rather than objects:
yiddé‘ont ‘knowing (one) (occurs 11 times
following °6b; Wizard), métim ‘the
dead’, *ittim ‘ghosts’ (Isa 19:3), —'térapím
‘teraphim’, -—élohim ‘gods’ (Isa 8:19),
~elilim ‘false gods’ (Isa 19:3), > gillilim
‘idols’ and Siggiistm ‘abominations’ (2
Kings 23:24).
>b is a genuine Hebrew term which,
Strictly speaking, occurs in this form only in
the OT. There are expressions for the deified
ancestral spirits among the other Semitic
cultures of the ancient Orient which are
comparable to ’6b in both form and content.
Among them, Eblaite dingir-a-mu (XELLA
1983), OAkk ilaba and Ug ilib (LAMBERT
1981), each of which is composed of the
words for ‘god’ and ‘father’ and can best be
rendered ‘deified ancestor’. The role of the
Ugaritic ‘deity’ ilib, about whom we are
relatively well informed, is instructive when
considering Heb ?ób. We find ilib listed as
the recipient of offerings in numerous ritual
texts and sacrificial lists. He occurs mostly
at the top of the list, before the great gods of
Ugarit. We learn from the Aqhat epic (KTU
1.17 1:26, 44; 1.17 ii:16) that among a man’s
most important obligations is the cultic
veneration of his departed father’s spirit, i.e.
his ilib. Thus, from the perspective of relig-
ious phenomenology, the identification of
Ug ilib and Heb "Ób is quite probable. -
There is also a clearly observable seman-
tic affinity between the Heb term ’6b and
the designations for the spirits of the dead in
other languages and cultures, such as Ug
rpum - Phoen rp?m z Heb répa’im (-Re-
phaim) and Akk etemmu - Heb 'ittím (Isa
19:3). It is well known that both at Ugarit
and in Mesopotamia the spirits of the dead
were the object of cultic veneration. The
texts show that the spirits could be sum-
moned or sent back to the netherworld by
means of magical incantation. Especially the
text KTU 1.16] (invocation of the Rapiiima-
ancestors on the occasion of the death of
king Niqmaddu WY) is very informative
about invocations of the dead at Uganit.
There existed in Mesopotamia an entire
Series of incantations called gidim-hul =
etemmü lemnütu (Borrfno 1983), the object
of which was the expulsion of malign spirits
of the dead. There is a related series of
specifically necromantic ntuals to conjure
up the spirits of the dead so that the people
could 'see' them, could 'speak' with them
and, with their help, could *make a decision'
in difficult situations. Three texts of this sort
are already known (AfO 29/30, 8-10; AfO
29/30, 10-12; SBTU Y nr. 20); they have
been re-examined and interpreted by Scur-
LOCK (1988:103-124) and TROPPER (1989:
83-103). Unambiguous evidence of the inter-
rogation of the etemmu-spirits is found out-
side these ritual texts in an Old-Assyrian
807
SPIRIT OF THE DEAD
(TCL 4,5) and in a Neo-Assyrian (LAS 132)
letter. -
III. The term 'ób occurs 17 times in the
OT. These attestations are found in various
literary genres: 9 occurrences in narrative
literature (1 Sam, 2 Kings, 1-2 Chron); 4
occurrences in legal contexts (Lev and
Deut); 3 occurrences in Isa; | uncertain
occurrence in Job.
The majority of the occurrences (9 in all)
are in contexts which treat the cults of other
gods and idols. The term ’6b then generally
occurs in the plural and is invariably fol-
lowed by the parallel term yiddé‘6ni(m). It is
accompanied by expressions such as panda
'el *to apply oneself to (cultically)' (Lev 19:
31; 20:6), biqqé3 ?el 'to seek out’ (Lev 19:
31), dáras ’el ‘to have recourse to in order
to inquire of? (Isa 8:19; 19:3) and zdnd
'ahar ‘to whore after’ (Lev 20:6). Besides
these there are usages which indicate an
identification of the ’6bér with their physical
cultic representations, things capable of
being produced (‘dfdh 2 Kgs 21:6 // 2
Chron 33:6) and destroyed (hésfr 1 Sam
28:3; hikrit 1 Sam 28:9; bi‘ér 2 Kgs 23:24).
This vocabulary is characteristic of OT pro-
nouncements against idol worship, degra-
ding the numinous ’6b entities into mere
products of human artifice and thus to lif-
eless material. The production of cultic ima-
ges is equated with the introduction of cultic
idolatry, the destruction of these images
with the elimination of the idolatry. It is
typical of the perspective of the Deutero-
nomic History that the ‘good’ kings, like the
young Saul (1 Sam 28:3,9) and King Josiah
(2 Kgs 23:24), sought to eliminate the *6b-
cult, whereas the ‘evil’ kings like Manasseh
(2 Kgs 21:6) promoted the ’*6b-cult. The
equating of the ancestor cult and idol wors-
hip is a clear indication that the ancestors
were the object of cultic veneration by their
descendants. In accordance with the dictum
in Lev 19:31, anyone who followed the
practices of the ancestral cult was cultically
unclean (famé’).
Five occurrences of the term imply necro-
mancy and deal with the direct interrogation
of the dead. The term "ób occurs consistent-
ly in the singular in these cases and is fol-
Jowed but once by the term yiddé‘éni (also
singular). The verb Sd’al functions as a
terminus technicus for directing inquiry to
the ancestors (Deut 18:11; 1 Chron 10:13). 1
Sam 28:7 tells us that there were specialists
who invoked the dead; and, in the specific
case recorded in this passage, it was a
woman, the ba‘élat-’6b, ‘mistress of the
'ób'. This designation is analogous in form
and content to the Sumero-Akkadian name
for necromancers, the lid gidim.ma ‘man/
master of the spirit of the dead’ and 3a
etemmi '(master) of the spirit of the dead’
(MSL 12, 168:356; MSL 12, 226:148). The
existence of such a profession shows that
the invocation of a departed spirit was con-
sidered a dangerous undertaking, the success
of which required a knowledge of certain
rituals. According to 1 Sam 28:8, the necro-
mancer was able to divine ‘by the ’6b’
(qasam ba’6b). The statement is ambiguous
and could be understood to mean that the
ba'álat-?ób functioned as the medium of the
ghost, so that the voice of the dead sounded
through her.
Two occurrences of the term (ôb in the
singular) suggest fortune-telling. It is doubt-
ful that ?ób in these passages (which reflect
later conceptions) still signifies the spirit of
a dead individual rather than some sort of
unspecified soothsaying spirit. According to
Lev 20:27, there are people who have an 'ób
in them and thus serve as the medium for
the ?ób. Such people were considered capital
offenders in Israel and subject to death by
stoning. Note also the voice of the "ób (Isa
29:4, cf. also Isa 8:19), described as 'softly
whispering’ (spp) and ‘murmuring’ (hgh).
Hence the assumption that the phenomenon
of necromancy was transformed in the later
Old Testament period into mere fortune-tel-
ling by means of a medium: and thus lost its
connection with the ancestral cult. This
cleared the way for the equating of ’6b-divi-
nation with the divinatory activity of *ventri-
loquizing’, a phenomenon widespread in the
Hellenistic cultural sphere. Thus the trans-
lators of the LXX usually render the Heb
term "ób with the Gk word engastrimythos
808
STARS
‘one who speaks from his belly’.
One final, albeit uncertain, occurrence of
*ób is Job 32:19. ?6b occurs here in a com-
pletely different context, namely in connec-
tion with new wine. Consequently, most OT
lexicons isolate ’6b Job 31:19 as a separate
lexeme meaning ‘skin’ (e.g. Ges!? and
HALAT s.v.). The text is probably corrupt
here and we are justified in asking whether
the original reading was nó'dót 'skin' rather
than ’6bér. The word ’6b may have been a
secondary insertion, influenced by the
expression ritah bitn? ‘the spirit of my belly’
which occurs in the preceding verse. This
would further confirm the contention that
6b was understood in the later OT period as
the ‘soothsaying spirit’ (of one who speaks
from his belly).
In conclusion it may be said that the term
?6b in the OT primarily signified the deified
spirit of the ancestors, and subsequently the
cultic representation of the ancestor—the
ancestral image. In the stereotypical expres-
sion 'óbót wéyiddé *ónim the term in ques-
tion can metonymically designate the phe-
nomenon of the ancestor cult as such as well
as the necromantic practices it envolved.
Late attestations of the term show that "ób
came to be understood as a divinatory or
soothsaying spirit in general. Basically all of
the attested occurrences of the term (except
for Job 32:19) emphasize that the "ób-cult
and ’6b-divination were seen as incompat-
ible with monotheistic Yahwism. Such ac-
tivities were therefore considered ‘foreign’
in the sense of ‘Canaanite’ (Deut 18:9-12)
and thus punishable by death (Lev 20:27).
IV. The treatment of the term in LXX
and Vg indicates that the connection of the
'ób with the ancestral cult was no longer
known in the post-OT period. ?ób was
placed rather in the sphere of prohibited
divinatory and magical practices. The term
is no longer applied to the spirit in this
period, but rather to the soothsayer or ma-
gician himself (LXX: engastrimythos, ‘one
who speaks from the belly’; Vg: magus,
‘magician’; Luther: Warsager, ‘soothsayer’).
The expression ba‘dlat ’6b (1 Sam 28:7)
was consequently understood not as mean-
ing ‘necromancer’ but rather ‘magician’ or
‘witch’ (at least since Luther and Calvin).
The imposition of the death penalty on
spirit-mediums in Lev 20:27 had particularly
grave implications and was seen in the
Middle Ages as a call for and legitimation
of the persecution of individuals assumed to
be witches (for the history of interpretation
of "ób in the post-OT period, see RovuiL-
LARD & TROPPER 1987).
V. Bibliography
J. BorrÉRO, Les mons et l'au-delà dans le
rituels en accadien contre l'action des
‘revenants’, ZA 73 (1983) 153-203; J.
EBACH & U. RÜTERSWÜRDEN, Unterwelts-
beschwórung im Alten Testament, UF 9
(1977) 57-70 and UF 12 (1980), 205-220;
M. KLEINER, Saul in En-Dor. Wahrsagung
oder Totenbeschwörung (Erfurter Theologi-
sche Studien 66; Leipzig 1995) 57-134; W.
G. LAMBERT, Old Akkadian JLABA = Ug.
ILIB?, UF 13 (1981) 299-301; J. Lust, On
Wizards and Prophets, Studies on Prophecy
(VTSup 26; Leiden 1974) 133-142; H.
ROUILLARD & J. TROPPER, Vom kanaanisi-
chen Ahnenkult zur Zauberei, UF 19 (1987)
235-254; B. B. Scumipt, Israel's Benefi-
cient Dead. Ancestor Cult and Necromacy
in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition
(FAT 11; Tübingen 1994), 150-154; J. A.
SCURLOCK, Magical Means of Dealing with
Ghosts in Ancient Mesopotamia (Diss.,
Univ. of Chicago 1988); J. TROPPER, Nekro-
mantie. Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und
im Alten Testament (AOAT 223, Kevelaer
& Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989); P. XELLA, As-
pekte religiöser Vorstellungen in Syrien
nach den Ebla- und Ugarit-Texte, UF 15
(1983) 279-290.
J. TROPPER
STARS DDD
I. The Hebrew term kôkāb, kôkābîm
derives from the proto-Semitic root *KBKB,
meaning 'star' in the great majority of the
other Semitic languages (Ug Kbkb; Akk kak-
kabu;, Aram kékba’, kókabtà* [specifically of
Planet Venus]; Ar kawkab; Eth kokab). It is
attested 37 times in the Bible. In the NT two
809
STARS
Greek terms are used for 'star: dotnp,
attested 24 times, and Gotpov, attested 4
times. Stars were widely regarded as gods.
II. The stars, as created by God (Gen
1:16; Amos 5:8; Job 9:9; Ps 148:5; Wis
13:2), the work of his fingers (Ps 8:4),
belong to the totality of the world of man
and exercise their influence on it, in that
they rule -day and -*night (Gen 1:14-19;
Jer 31:35; Ps 136:7-9).
Particularly evident is the admiration of
man for the heavens and the multitude of
stars, whose number, known only to God
(Ps 147:4), is vast and uncountable: the des-
cendancy of -Abraham and Isaac is numer-
ous "as the stars in the heaven" (Gen 15:5;
22:17; 26:4; Exod 32:13); in Deut 1:10 the
people of Israel itself becomes "numerous as
the stars in the heaven"; sce also Deut
10:22; 28:62; Jer 33:22; Nah 3:16; Dan
3:36; Neh 9:23; 1 Chr 27:23; cf. Heb 11:12.
Their height above the —earth and their
brightness are also impressive (Job 25:5;
31:26). The starry sky is wonderful (Ps 148:
3; Bar 3:34-35; Sir 43:9; Wis 7:29) and it is
particularly splendid on a moonless night
(Gen 1:15); on the contrary, the darkening
of the stars is a sign of the approaching end
of human life (Eccl 12:2) or of coming dis-
tress (Isa 13:10; 34:4; Ezek 32:7-8; Joel
2:10; 3:4; 4:15; Amos 8:9; Matt 24:29;
Mark 13:25; Luke 21:25; Rev 8:12)
Shulamit’s beauty can be compared to the
beauty of the -*moon and the splendour of
the sun (~Shemesh, ->Helios; Cant 6:10).
The High Priest Simon is also compared to
the moon, the sun and the stars (Sir 50:6-7)
and Daniel predicts that “the sages will
shine as the splendour or the firmament;
those who will cause many to righteousness
will shine like stars for ever" (Dan 12:3; see
also Matt 13:4), In Matt 17:2 the face of
—Jesus during his transfiguration is com-
pared to a shining sun, as the face of the
-*Son of man in John's vision (Rev 1:16).
Stars have individual names, given by
God (Ps 147:4), and form a well-arranged
army, in which every star has its place (Isa
40:26; Jer 33:22). In the creation the
heavens form a hollow vault, a firmament
above the carth, and, resting on the waters,
describe a circle upon them (Job 26:10;
28:24; Prov 8:27; Sir 24:5). Therefore they
could be spoken of as a veil or a tent spread
out above thc earth (Isa 40:22; Ps 19:6),
across which stars move according to laws
strictly fixed and determined by their
Creator (Bar 3:34; Sir 43:10; Wis 7:19).
Stars, as heavenly beings (—Sons of the
Gods), are brighter than carthly beings, but
even among them some are more brilliant
than others, "for one star differs from an-
other star in splendour" (1 Cor 15:40-41).
The beauty of the firmament generated, even
in the most faithful Jews, a strong temp-
tation to worship the starry heavens, as
typified by Job 31:26-28 (WELLHAUSEN
1961:209-210), but in spite of the admir-
ation for the heavens, which according to
Wis 13:2 was originally due to the ignor-
ance of the true God, the religious cult of
stars associated with specific deities seems
to have almost totally disappeared from the
present text of the Bible: the cosmic forces,
Originally capable of exerting powers on
earth have been subjugated to God (Job 9:
7). their Creator (Job 9:9); the actual form
of the constellations gives testimony to
God's power (Job 38:31) and their brilliance
(Wis 13:3) and regular movements find their
origin in Him (Amos 5:8; Job 38:32-33); the
stars are merely lamps (-*lamp) of heaven,
"obedient in the service for which they are
sent" (Bar 6:59); compared to God even the
stars lose their brilliance (Job 25:5); see also
the praise rendered to God by all the cosmic
forces (Ps 148:1-5) and the Song of the
three Holy Children in Dan 3:62-63. Only
God, having a universal knowledge of the
rules of his creation, may use cosmic forces
to control the succession of the seasons, of
both time and weather and of man's day to
day life (see Job 38:33; Sir 43:1-10). To
stress God's power, his throne is imagined
as being above the stars (Job 22:12), where-
as the lower position of men is evidenced by
the assumption that they cannot reach the
stars (Obad 4). Only in this firmly mono-
theistic context is a personified wisdom
allowed to take part in the creational process
810
STARS
of the firmament (Prov 8:27): wisdom, as a
direct emanation of God, is therefore su-
perior to any star or constellation (Wis 7:
29).
However, it is difficult to deny the exist-
ence of astrological references in the Bible,
often hidden in the most ancient layers of
the text, revealing deified aspects of cosmic
phenomena as distinguished from mere
physical/natural elements (ZATELLI 1991:
93). Jer 14:22 presents an interesting pas-
sage in which heaven is considered by his
contemporaries as an astral deity instead of
a physical/natural entity, completely depen-
dent upon God's will. The prophet's con-
demnation of the heaven as a nullity reiter-
ates the authentic divinity and the
omnipotence of the God of Israel against the
background of the idolatrous cults per-
formed by the kings of Judah (-*Yehud). In
this context Sdmayim corresponds to the
syntagm séba’ has§amayin = —Host of
heaven, that appears 19 times in the Hebrew
OT (and once in Sir 43:9, where sabda’ alone
occurs meaning sébà^ hassámayim): in Deut,
in Kgs, in those prophets which immediately
precede the exile, in DtIsa (Isa 40:26; 45:12
sébá'üm alone means sébd’ hassamayim),
when idolatry is condemned, and in post-
exilic texts (Dan 8:10; Neh 9:6 [twice]; 2
Chr 18:18; 33:3-5 in the passages parallel to
| Kgs 22:19 and 2 Kgs 21:3-5; ZarELLI
1991:90).
These occurrences would attest that the
worship of the stars in Israel must have been
strong during periods of pagan contacts,
mostly under Mesopotamian political in-
fluence, already in the 8th century and later
on in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. Amos
5:26 deals with an idolatrous cult of
-Sakkuth and -*Kaiwan (in the LXX:
Moaox xat [...] ‘Patdav), ‘the stars of your
God’, where the two names are generally
related to the planet Saturn. The whole pas-
sage is quoted in Stephen's speech in Acts
7:43 (here "Patóáv appears in the variant
reading ‘Powod[v]), where the adoration of
the golden -*calf (Exod 32:1-24) is evident-
ly interpreted as well in connection with
astral worship, according to an exegesis
which has been developed in medieval
Judaism.
Among the causes of the fall of the
Northern. Kingdom, according to 2 Kgs
17:16, are the cults offered by king Hoshea
to “all the hosts of heaven”. In the Kingdom
of Judah, Manasseh would have been the
first king to introduce idolatrous cults, by
building altars to “all the hosts of heaven”
in the two inner courts of the Temple (2 Kgs
21:5; 2 Chr 33:5). King Josiah fought
against such practices: he burnt all the
objects kept in the Temple and associated to
astral cults, dismissed and killed the priests
who had been appointed to offer sacrifices
“to the sun, the moon, the constellations and
all the heavenly hosts"; he also forbade
ceremonial practices of sunworship insti-
tuted by the previous kings and destroyed
the altars built by Manasseh (2 Kgs 23:4-
5.11-12; but sec 2 Chr 33:15; 34:4; cf. also
Jer 8:2; 19:13).
However, astral cults were not entirely
uprooted; they are often mentioned in
prophetic texts. An example is Ezek 8:16,
where the worship of the sun is said to be
carried on in Jerusalem within the temple-
court during the sixth year of the captivity
of Jehoiachin (591 BCE). Particularly import-
ant as a private cult, and therefore not com-
pletely uprootable, was the worship of the
—Queen of Heaven, probably -*Ishtar vener-
ated as a celestial goddess (a syncretistic
deity incorporating West and East Semitic
characters), once interpreted by scholars as a
personification of the moon, more probably
of the planet Venus. This cult, performed
mainly by women (Jer 7:18; 44:17-26), after
the Babylonian invasion and the destruction
of the first Temple, persisted in Egypt
among Judean refugees. Star worship was
generally practised on house-tops, as in
Mesopotamian custom (Jer 19:13; 32:29;
Zeph 1:5).
Star worship is manifest even in super-
stitious forms of adoration: the symbolic act
of the kissing of the hand (Job 31:26) is a
clear reference to illicit practices of popular
astral devotion, still common in a period in
which astral cults should already have been
811
STARS
forbidden. Traces of magic and divination
associated with star cults, appearing to de-
rive from Mesopotamian practices, are poss-
ibly present in Gen 37:9, where —Joseph
has an astral dream, in Jos 10:12-13, which
can be interpreted as an incantation prayer
uttered in a context of astrological specu-
lation (ZATELLI 1991:89, 94), possibly in 1
Chr 12:33, where the children of Issachar
are spoken of as having “understanding of
the times in order to know what Israel ought
to do” and in Ps 121:6, where the negative
powers ‘of the stars will be kept afar by the
presence of the Lorp. An incantation for-
mula seems to be alluded to also in Job 3:9
in which conjurors are invoked to tum a
propitious day into an unpropitious one by
darkening the stars of the twilight.
Prophets strongly condemn astral wor-
ship, the latter being condemned as one of
the causes of the misfortunes of Israel: sce
Jer 10:2, where the author admonishes
people not to be terrified by the ’orér
haššāmayim, a syntagmatic expression mean-
ing ‘celestial phenomena’; Zeph 1:5. In Isa
47:13 Babylonian astrology is even mocked:
the. hóbéré $ümayim (the masters of the
heavenly course; LXX: dotpoAoyot) and the
hózim bakkókübim (the star-gazers) are
worthless. Star cults are condemned in Deut
4:19; 17:3. Exod 20:4 and Deut 5:8 forbid
making and worshipping any image of "any-
thing which is in heaven above", certainly
implying also the stars. The generic prohib-
ition to practice divination or magic in Lev
19:26 and Deut 18:10 was interpreted by
later rabbis as related to astrology (sec
B.Sanh. 65b-66a).
The dominant attitude of Jewish religious
thought is that the rules of the universe are a
divine prerogative and cannot be interpreted
by man, as shown in Job 38:33, where the
hapax legomenon term mistdr could be
translated ‘the power to decide the course of
the stars’, according to similar divine epi-
thets attested in Ugaritic religious literature
(ZATELLI 1991:97). The monotheistic prin-
ciple of the religion of Israel was in any
case an obstacle to the growth and the
expansion of the ‘Chaldean science’ (on the
word Chaldean as a synonym of astrologer,
sec Dan 2:2.4.5.10; 4:14; 5:7.11) and, in
spite of the great number of bé'alim (Baal)
never ceasing to exert influence in pre-exilic
Israel, the original conception of —> Yahweh
as a storm and skygod probably prevented
the worship of other star-gods (ZATELLI
1991:88); yet Yahwism and star worship
long coexisted, especially in popular forms
of veneration.
An interesting passage in Ps 89:6-9
shows the status of Yahweh among the sons
of the gods: in this context the sky (in the
sense of ‘divinity’) and the qéhal qédósim
(‘the congregation of the saints’, i.c. the
gods of an originally polythcistic pantheon)
praise the Lorp, fear Him and are thankful
for his extraordinary acts, his wonders:
Yahweh is ’él6hé séba’6t (‘God of hosts’),
the Almighty who rules over the skygods
and is a primus inter pares in their assem-
bly. Along the same lines another significant
parallelism is to be found in Job 15:15,
where Yahweh is again considered as a
primus inter pares among qédosim and
3ámayim, both of them to be interpreted as
ancient divinities. In the poctic contexts of
Judg 5:20 and Isa 14:12-13 we still find a
conception of deified stars, very closely
linked, particularly in the last case, to the
originally pan-Semitic belief of a ‘mount of
congregation in the side of the north’. It
seems that the Masoretic redactor of Deut
32:43 had deliberately avoided allusions to
other divinities: if we read the verse “Re-
joice, o nations, for his people" (according
to the LXX: "Heaven(s), rejoice with him
and may the sons of God adore him") we
should evidently assume that the text under-
went a radical change towards stronger
monotheistic principles. A similar situation
is to be found in Deut 32:8 where the MT
reads "according to the number of the child-
ren of Israel” (lémispar béné visra'el), while
in 4QDeut 32:8 we find: lémispar bóné él,
and the LXX translates "according to the
number of angels of God". Deut 32:8-9
could therefore be interpreted as a distinc-
tive rule of the inferior gods over the
nations, whereas Israel is reserved for
812
STARS
Yahweh (ZATELLE 1991:91-92). From this
verse and Deut 4:19-20 comes the belief,
which is discussed in B.Shab. 156b and fur-
ther on in the Middle Ages, that all the
nations would be astrally determined, except
for Israel. In the last instance of Deut 4:19 it
is remarkable that the gods no longer pos-
sess the other nations, but the nations them-
selves, having adopted a deviant course,
worship the stars. The God of Israel is no
longer a primus inter pares accompanied by
his entourage of skygods: He is the only
God, the others are false and the people of
Israel are warned lest they might erroneous-
ly worship the host of stars (or of angels)
instead of the true Divinity, the actual Cre-
ator of the stars.
The identification of personified stars
with angels of the heavenly hosts is well
accepted within a totally monotheistic relig-
ious systern: the stars stand in God's pres-
ence, to the right and the left of His throne
(1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18); they serve Him
(Ps 103:21; Neh 9:6); in Sir 43:8, 10 the
identification of stars with soldiers of an
army is particularly evident. See als Rev
1:20. At the head of the heavenly hosts
stands a — ‘Prince of the army’ (Josh 5:14-
15; Dan 8:11), probably the highest star and
the farthest from the earth, even if the actual
leader is God, to whom the starry army
belongs. From this conception derives the
syntagm “LORD/God of hosts’ (Yhwh/élohé
séba’6t) occurring in numerous biblical pas-
sages (-* Yahweh Zebaoth).
` The above mentioned passage of Job 25:5
is possibly to be compared to Job 15:15,
where the stars appear as deities, along with
the moon and the sky, al] of them belonging
to the entourage of the ‘holy ones’ of ‘El’.
Particular expressions denoting “the joy of
the stars” in singing to or praising their
Creator appear in Job 38:7 (in perfect paral-
lelism with the syntagm béné ’éléhim) and
in. Bar 3:34. In 11QTgJob 38:7, however,
the original image looses any polytheistic
‘meaning: “when the morning stars shone
together and all the angels of God shouted
together", Any allusion to star cults and to
other deities is here avoided. Once the dan-
ger of idolatry has been removed, the rela-
tion between God and the stars is only that
of the Creator with his creation (ZATELLI
1991:98).
In post-exilic religious thought, astral
cults ceased to be performed in an official
form, even if they were probably partially
preserved as private traditional practices,
and gave way to a form of non-religious
observation of stars which, influenced by
Hellenistic science, gradually became a form
of astrological and astronomical speculation,
which was later partly accepted by the rab-
binic tradition (see e.g. the lengthy dis-
cussions in B.Shab. 156a-b) mostly con-
nected with the determination of holy days
(see e.g. B.Suk. 28a). Observation of the
revolution of the heavenly bodies is re-
garded as a religious duty and such is the
interpretation of Deut 4:6 according to
B.Shab. 75a. Thus the observation and
understanding of heavenly phenomena be-
came a proper science, seen as a gift of God
to the wise man: in Wis 7:18-19 Solomon
prays to God in order to receive from Him
“an unerring knowledge (...) of the begin-
ning and end and middle of times, the alter-
nations of solstices and the changes of sea-
sons, the circuit of years and the positions of
stars”. Daniel, “whose light, understanding
and wisdom were equal to the gods’ wis-
dom” had been appointed chief of astrolo-
gers, Chaldeans and soothsayers by
Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 5:11). This verse pro-
bably alludes to the fact that the study of
Babylonian astral divination was common
among Jews during and after the exile;
however, Daniel himself claims the superio-
rity of God's power over any astrologer or
soothsayer in revealing mystenes (Dan
2:27), because God Himself is the giver of
all knowledge (Dan 1:17; cf. Wis 7:15-21).
In the pseudepigraphic books we find
contradictory views about astrology. 7
Enoch 8:3; Jub. 12:16-18; Sib. Or. I 220-
236 strongly condemn this discipline, prais-
ing men who, in the words of CHARLES-
WORTH (1987:933), "neither search the
mystical meaning of the movements of the
heavenly bodies nor are deceived by the pre-
813
STARS
dictions of Chaldean astrology”, insisting on
the necessity to worship only the true God.
Yet some passages in the Pseudepigrapha
show a relatively positive attitude towards
astrology, betraying stronger Hellenistic
influences (see e.g. 7 Enoch 72:1-37; 75:3; 2
Enoch 21:6; 30:3). Josephus Flavius writes
that astrology was popular among Jews in
his days and that misinterpretation of
heavenly signs was partly responsible for
the outbreak of the revolt against the
Romans (Bellum V] 5,289). Misinterpreta-
tion of celestial phenomena is a subject frc-
quently dealt with in haggadic and talmudic
literature (see e.g. Gen. Rabba 85:2; 87:4;
Exod. Rabba 1:18; B.Sanh. 101b): in these
cases as well the authors want to stress the
complete superiority of God's will and
power over any astrological speculation.
The later conception that the celestial
bodies are endowed with individual life,
consciousness and intelligence is a further
development of the observation of the
movement of the stars across the heavens
(sce e.g. Pss 19:6-7; 104:19; Job 31:26; Eccl
1:5; Sir 43:2-12), supported by the ancient
belief of the personification of stars (see e.g.
the above mentioned passage of Judg 5:20)
also related to Mesopotamian and Hellen-
istic astrological traditions. This view, “on
the boundary line of mythology and astron-
omy” (Legends V:35, 40, n.112), is per-
ceivable in the pseudepigraphic literature
(see esp. 1 Enoch 18:13-16; 41:5; cf. 1
Enoch 72-82) and in haggadic traditions.
However, in these cases too, the authors
stress the dependence of the individual na-
ture and will of the planets upon God's will
(see Sir 43:5), Whose decisions and laws are
unalterable: were these laws suddenly to be
abrogated, then the whole creation would
come to an end. Revolutions of the cosmic
order mark the final phase of the created
world in apocalyptic contexts (Isa 13:10; Jer
31:35-36; Ezek 32:7-8; Amos 8:9; Matt
24:29; Luke 21:25; Rev 6:13; 8:10.12; 9:1
[where the image of the fallen star is per-
sonified as Satan; see Isa 14:12; Luke
10:18]; cf. also Acts 27:20).
As a prophetic symbol the stars are men-
tioned in Dan 8-10 as an allusion to the
Jews who will succumb to Hellenistic pa-
ganism. In John's vision (Rev 1:16) seven
stars appear as the symbol of the seven
angels of the churches (Rev 1:20; 2:1; 3:1):
the passage shows an example of the pre-
viously mentioned association of the stars
with the angels which frequently occurs also
in later pseudepigraphic literature. Astral
symbolism is still to be found in Rev 12:1
and a mythological allusion may be seen in
Rev 12:4.
In Num 24:17 we observe in the proph-
ecy of Bileam an important clue to the sym-
bolic-divine and regal value which the stars
assume (ZATELLI 1991:93-94): messianic
interpretations of the verse appear in Tg.
Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. and the name Bar
Kochba (Aramaic: ‘Son of the Star’), given
to the famous leader of the rebellion against
the Romans in the 2nd cent. CE, has to be
understood in a messianic context (sec
B.Sanh. 97b). The star symbol reappears in
Mat 2:1-10 where, however, the star is not
identified with the Messiah (Christ), being
only an astrological phenomenon observed
by heathen astrologers and associated with
‘the birth of a great man. In Rev 22:16 Jesus
uses the image of the star referring to Him-
self: "I am the root and the offspring of
David, the bright and morning star" (see
also Rev 2:28 and 2 Pet 1:19 where the
Greek term 6000ópog is used).
III. Bibliography
A. ALTMANN, Astrology, EncJud III, 788-
795; E. Biscuorr, Babylonisches-Astrales
im Weltbilde des Thalmud und Midrasch
(Leipzig 1907); G. H. Box, Star, A Diction-
ary of Christ and the Gospels 2 (Edinburgh
1908) 674-676; C. F. BURNEY, Stars, Enc-
Bibl IV, 4779-4786; J. H. CHARLESWORTH,
Jewish Interest in Astrology during the Hel-
lenistic and Roman Period, ANRW II 20,2
(1987) 926-956; L. DEQUEKER, Les
gedósim du Ps. LXXXIX, ETL 39 (1963)
469-484; M. J. DRESDEN, Science, IDB,
236-244, esp. 243; E. O. James, The Wor-
Ship of the Sky-God (London 1963); P. JEN-
SEN, Astronomy, The Jewish Encyclopedia
II (London 1903) 245-251; M. LEHMAN,
New Light on Astrology in Qumran and the
Talmud, RQ 32 (1975) 599-602; B. O.
814
STOICHEIA
Lona, Astrology, /DBS. 76-78; L. Léw,
Die Astrologie in der biblischen, talmu-
dischen und nachtalmudischen Zeit, Ben
Chanania 6 (1863) 401-435; E. W. Maun-
DER, The Astrology of the Bible (London
1909); A. Roré, The Belief in Angels in
Israel in the First Temple Period in the light
of Biblical Traditions (Heb; Jerusalem
1969), English edition: The Belief in Angels
in the Bible and in Early Israel (Jerusalem
1979); G. SCHIAPARELLI, L’astronomia
nell'Antico Testamento (Milano 1903); M.
SELIGSOHN, Star-Worship, The Jewish Ency-
clopedia X1 (London 1905) 527-528; B.
SuLER, Astrologie, EncJud WI 577-591;
SULER, Astronomic, EncJud II 591-607; J.
WELLHAUSEN, Reste arabischen Heiden-
tums (Berlin 19613); I. ZATELLI, Astrology
and the Worship of the Stars in the Bible,
ZAW 103 (1991) 86-99 [& lit].
F. LELLI
STOICHEIA otoiyeia toù kóopov
I. Stoicheia tou kosmou has several
meanings. From the root stich-, meaning
row or rank, the singular stoicheion desig-
nates the shadow cast by the pole of a sun-
dial, a letter of the alphabet, the sound the
human voice makes as a basic element of
language, and an element as the fundamental
constituent of an object or entity. Most like-
ly derived from stoichos, the row or line in
which soldiers stand, the plural with the
addition ‘of the world’, stoicheia tou
kosmou means the basic components of the
world. The phrase is used three times in the
New Testament, Gal 4:3, Col 2:8 and 2:20.
II. Plato distinguished fire, air, water,
and earth as the components of particular
physical objects and, indeed, of the kosmos.
The combination and separation of the el-
ements constitutes the process of change
(Timaeus 48b and Sophist 252b). Plato
thought and wrote in a tradition of cosmo-
logical interests. Before him, Heraclitus had
conceptualized the coherence underlying all
existing things as a -*logos common to
everything (Frs. 6 and 50). The cosmic
arrangement is not simple, however, for it
consists of a unity or even identity of oppo-
sites—such as disease and health, life and
death, hunger and satiety, night and day—in
which each pair of opposites forms both a
unity and a plurality. Thus the opposition of
hot and cold forms the single entity of
temperature as well as the multiplicity of
winter and summer (Frs. 204, 206, and 207).
Change can be explained on the basis of
tension or ‘strife’ (eris) between the op-
posites which maintains a balance of the el-
ements in the universe. Heraclitus used
kosmos to show the orderly arrangement of
all the items in the world and fire (pur) to
denote the interactions between them. For
Heraclitus, then, the three terms logos,
kosmos, and eris are central to a cosmologi-
cal schema, with the /ogos not entirely dis-
tinct from deity, as the feature of the world
which links the various parts of the world
and directs change in an orderly and propor-
tional fashion (Fr. 207).
The concepts and terminology which
Heraclitus developed enabled him to con-
struct an account of change which was
philosophically and scientifically satisfying.
Nevertheless, it was inadequate because it
did not include a discussion of the things
which undergo change. To this topic Empe-
docles devoted considerable attention. In his
famous Fr. 6 he wrote about four roots
(rhizómata) of everything—bright -*Zeus,
life-bearing -*Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis
who causes moisture—which are described
in Fr. 17 as Fire, Earth, Air, and Water.
These four roots have always existed and
change is produced by their intermingling—
mixing together and separating from each
other—according to the two opposing
forces, Love and Strife. The four roots are
elemental in the sense of being the original
substances; they are original in the sense
that everything else in the world is derived
from them as compounds of the primary cl-
ements.
The cosmological motifs of Empedocles
were connected to his interest in moral and
religious issues. His rejection of bloodshed,
be it social as in warfare or religious as in
sacrifice, was fundamentally moral, because
the consequences of Strife or Hatred in-
cluded harm done to animals as well as
815
STOICHEIA
human beings and damage to the person
caught in the net of Hatred. The transmi-
grations of the spirit stained with blood
would endure for 30,000 years, including
time spent as plant, human, bird, and fish
(Fr. 117). Here, the cosmology of four pri-
mary elements also plays a role; because
spirits are expelled from the Air to the
Water, thence to the Earth and then to the
Sun, which in tum pushes them to the
Aither; all the elements receive such spirits
but loathe having them (Fr. 115).
In the Timaeus, Plato uses the word gené
for the four basic elements and stoicheia as
a basic constituent to describe how one el-
ement can change into another, e.g. as when
water hardens into earth or melts into air.
Any object in the world or any substance is
thus a compound of the four elements. Un-
like Empedocles’ theory, however, which
cannot account for how one root or element
can be transformed into another, Plato's
theory can explain how water can be heated
into air and condensed again into water. Yet
like Empedocles! theory, movement across
the elements is possible for the soul as it
suffers the consequences of ignorance and
bad deeds.
Aristotle as well as Plato stood. in a long
line of cosmological] speculation that focuses
on the elemental constitution of the world.
In Aristotle’s view, stated in De generatione
€t corruptione 329b, all substances are con-
sidered to be compounds of the four basic
elements, earth, water, air, and fire, and
possibly a fifth, aither. In a spirit reminis-
cent of Heraclitus' effort to explain change
with the concept of eris, Aristotle regarded
each of the four elements as a combination
of the four primary opposites: cold and hot;
dry and wet. Hence, earth is cold and dry;
water is wet and cold; air 1$ wet and hot;
and fire is dry and hot.
The Stoics, too, developed a complex
cosmology in which the elements of the uni-
verse played a major function. According to
Diogenes Laertius, 7:134-142, although the
world as we know it consists of a mixture of
the elements, the elements perish in the cos-
mic fire at the end of a world cycle. The
kosmos has a history which begins in fire,
changes to air, then to water, next into earth;
and finally returns to fire in a cosmic
conflagration. In this cosmology, the study
of the universe was accompanied by an in-
terest in the nature of human beings.
According to Epictetus 3.13-15, for
example, death, as a retum to the elements,
is not to be feared because it is a regular
feature of elemental change in which the
elements do not suffer; and Marcus Aurelius
4.32.3 describes death as a dissolution into
the elements. According to Plutarch, Fac.
Lun. 28, the various parts of the human
body are correJated to various elements of
the universe: the body comes from earth, the
mind from the sun; and the soul from the
moon. According to Diogenes Laertius, the
philosopher Chrysippus thought the kosmos
divine; the stars and the earth to be gods;
and the mind to be the supreme god who
inhabits the aither. Here, the stars and other
planetary bodies were also associated with
the elements of the kosmos. The Stoics
combined natural philosophy with a system
of morality in order to establish a way of
life in which adjusting the human being to
nature and its processes leads to happiness
through harmony with nature.
Two wnters of the first century BCE,
‘Cicero and Ovid, also utilized the concept of
‘elements of the universe’ in ways that are
consistent with the meanings assigned to the
term by earlier Greek philosophers. Cicero
thought that human beings are fashioned
from earth, water, fire, and air, with the soul
moving upward at death to the substance
resembling itself, its natural home, there to
remain forever (Tusculan Disputations }.
17-19). Ovid considered the kosmos to be
arranged according to an orderly structure of
the four basic elements; but, should strife
among them become too fierce, the universe
would be destroyed (Metamorphoses 1.32-
33 and 256-258). The orderly processes öf
change follow a sequence in which each el-
ement is derived from another: just as souls
traverse the elements on their way to their
home and reside in a number of bodies
along the way. In both cases, a connection
A
816
QN
eB
STOICHEIA
between the elements of the kosmos and the
planetary bodies was established.
Jewish as well as Greek and Latin writers
employed the concept of basic elements. In
4 Macc 12:13, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is
addressed as a man for whom the demands
of justice has planned an eternal fire; be-
cause he had tortured and maltreated other
humans “made of the same elements” as
himself. Philo describes the constitution of
the universe and the changes within it as
well as the parallels between humans and
the world by reference to the four basic el-
ements. He also links them to the ascent of
the soul to its ultimate destination in the
aither (Rer. Div. Her. 280-83).
III. The three passages in which the
phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou is used in the
New Testament have been the subject of
vigorous debate. Several possibilities have
emerged as the primary hermeneutical
options. Behind Paul’s argument in Ga-
latians lays the distinction between pre-
Christian slavery and the Christian freedom
of his readers. In the argument, two forms
of slavery are mentioned: the Jewish one
consisting of living under the yoke of the
Law; and the Gentile one of subjection to
the elements of the kosmos. To the Gentile
readers, Paul asserts that the desire to be
subject to the Law in the form of observing
the Jewish legal and ritual calendar is a
retum to their pagan situation when they
revered the elements as deities. So they are
now in bondage to beings that are not gods
(4:8). And it can be argued that the “el-
ements of the kosmos" are Jewish religious
observances which the Galatians found al-
luring; although Paul’s claim that mistaking
the elements for gods is doubtful if the el-
ements are only observances and regula-
tions. Given the predeliction of many people
in the Greco-Roman world for astral relig-
ious beliefs and practices, it could also be
argued that the elements are planetary or
other celestial bodies; or that the elements
refer to spiritual beings: such as angels or
demons who control earthly affairs and
determine human destiny; although nothing
in Paul's epistle requires either of these
interpretations. A more likely interpretation
is that Paul’s use of the “elements of the
kosmos” bears a meaning similar to its com-
mon meaning in the Greek philosophical tra-
dition—the basic constituents of the uni-
verse in which the soul may be trapped in
the elemental disharmony or the soul's
misdeeds, and from which it can be freed
through proper philosophical and religious
knowledge. Thus, as Empedocles wrote
about the power of the ‘elements’ and Philo
described them as forces, so Paul could
think of them as powers or, taken together,
as the power the kosmos holds over people,
even to the point of enslaving them to the
world.
The phrase 'elements of the kosmos' is
used twice in Col, at 2:8 and 2:20. It has
evoked diverse interpretations similar to
those given the passage in Galatians; al-
though the context of the two passages is
different and thus the meaning also varies.
The author of Colossians distinguished
philosophical traditions, characterized as
empty and deceitful, from the truth of
Christ, portrayed as the first-bom of cre-
ation and the fullness of God: as well as the
unity and purpose of the kosmos. From this
description, the author encouraged his
readers to avoid captivity to the ‘elements of
the kosmos' that human philosophy entails.
Instead, they should be mindful of their
spiritual circumcision or baptism in Christ,
which both forgives trespasses and raises
believers from the dead. The consequence of
dying to the elements with Christ he con-
cluded, is two-fold. The first is that believers
need not submit to regulations about food
and drink and other forms of abstinence or
observing festivals and rituals, thinking that
such observances would enable their souls
to rise with Christ or ascend to him after
death. The second is that they should set
their minds on Christ, who is at the right
hand of God. He has returned to his divine
origin, and has thus become the prototype
for Christian believers.
The ‘elements of the world’ bears some
relation to the teachings contained in the
“philosophy accordirg to human traditions"
817
STONE
of 2:8. The phrase ‘of the world’ suggests
that the issues at stake focus on the claims a
particular philosophical tradition made, al-
though the author’s argument suggests that
the content of the philosophy is the target of
attack. One possible content for the claims
would be that the ‘elements of the kosmos’
are the elemental spirits of the universe
(1:16; 2:10.15) whom Colossian philos-
ophers, following human thinking (1:18),
identified as the powers and rulers who
govern society or the angels (2:18). The
identification of the elements with powers or
angels as elemental spirits, however, may
point to Colossians who wanted to die to the
world and its rulers in order to achieve their
aim of seeking things that are above where
Christ is seated. The identification may
equally well point to the four basic consti-
tuents of the kosmos (2:20) to which the
Colossian Christians died with Christ: thus
demonstrating that living without the world
is as possible as living in the world.
IV. Bibliography
A. J. BANDSTRA, The Law and the Elements
of the World: an Exegetical Study in Aspects
of Paul's Teaching (Kampen 1964); F. F.
Bruce, "Called to Freedom": A Study in
Galatians, The New Testament Age: Essays
.in, Honor of Bo Reicke (Macon, GA 1984)
61-71; W. Burkert, ZTOIXEIA: Eine
semasiologische Studie, Philol 103 (1959)
167-197; B. REICKE, The Law and This
World According to Paul: Some Thoughts
Conceming Gal 4: 1-11, JBL 70 (1951) 259-
276; D. RusaAM, Neue Belege zu den
OTOLYELA 700 Kdopov, ZNW 83 (1992) 119-
125; E. SCHWEIZER, Slaves of the Elements
and Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and
Col 2:8, 18, 20, JBL 107 (1988) 455-468;
W. WINK, The “Elements of the Universe”
in Biblical and Scientific Perspective, Zygon
13 (1978) 225-248.
L. J. ALDERINK
STONE jA8
I. The word "bn occurs in all Semitic
languages, except Classical Arabic (COHEN
1970). It denotes natural stone. Veneration
of stones occurs in all religions of the
ancient world and is in fact attested in the
Near East up to present times. According to
the transmitted text of Gen 49:24 ‘Stone’
Cbn) was an epithet of >El as the God of
Israel. Also a toponym like Ebenezer sug-
gests that Eben is an old divine name. The
prophetic criticism against worship of stones
stands in stark contrast to the erection of
stones at holy sites by the patriarchs.
II. In the Ancient Near East veneration
of stones was very common. Quarried stones.
played an important role in Egyptian re-
ligion and various magical properties were
ascribed to different stones. In view of the
influence of Amun-Re worship on Canaan
during the New Kingdom it is interesting
that Amun-Re was sometimes represented in
aniconic form as a lump of stone (BISON DE
LA ROQUE 1925:50-53; WAINWRIGHT 1980;
METTINGER 1995:49-55). In Mesopotamia
worship of stones is not attested, but magi-
ca] properties were ascribed to several types
of stone and in the Sumerian mythological.
poem Lugal-e the god Ninurta, assisted by
certain animated ‘good’ stones, wages a
battle against certain ‘bad’ stones (VAN
Dux 1983). The Hurrites too had their
stone-demons (HAAS 1982:139-166), and
they too ascribed mysterious powers to
stones (HAAS 1982:167-183). In Ugarit
some texts mention an announcement (rgm)
and a whispering (Ihi) of stones (abnm),
paralleled by the speech of trees (KTU 1.3
iii:22-23; 1.82:43). Possibly this refers to
oracles obtained from stones and trees. In
any case the context excludes a metaphori-
cal meaning and so here too stones are seen
as animate beings. In KTU 1.100:1 a deified
stone (abn) is the father of the first animated
creature, the She-ass. Canaanite personal
names suggest that abnu was a divine ept-
thet: Amorite Ha-ab-ni-Jl ‘Il-is-my-Stone’,
Ab-nu-ra-pf ‘A-Stone-is-Rapi’, Tu-tar-ab-nu
"Thé-Stone-has-increased'. Ugaritic bn abn
‘Son-of-the-Stone’ (compare Jer 2:27);
Phoenician ’bnšmšă ‘The-Sun-is-a-Stone ,
Punic ?bnb'1 *Baal-is-a-Stone'. Compare also
the god Abaddir (from *bn’dr) mentioned
in Latin texts from Punic North Africa
(RIBICHINI 1985).
In Ugarit stone stelae were erected (nsb)
818
STONE
for the ancestors called ilib (^Tlib), ‘I]-who-
is-the-Father' because they were united with
I} after their death (KTU 1.15 v:16-17).
These stelae called skn are also attested in
Emar and possibly in Amos 5:26 (read sknt
for skwt, KonPEL 1990:576). They are pro-
bably identical to the biblical massébér
(from the root nsb) and the rows of erected
slabs of stone found at various sanctuaries
(Ugarit, Gezer, Tell Misa, Hazor) which
were probably connected with the cult of the
ancestral gods. This would not run counter
to the hypothesis that they represented local
deities (WEIPPERT 1988:236; but see the dis-
cussion in METTINGER 1995:143-191). At
least at Hazor an association of this type of
ancestral cult with the colt of >El is likely.
Veneration of stones connected with
saints continues up till present times. In
Palestinian folklore many legends are con-
nected with stones which in spite of Islam
sometimes receive offerings or still have an
oracular function (KRISS 1960-1962). Even
in official Islam the Black and Lucky Stones
at the east corner of the Ka‘ba continue to
have a religious function.
Wil. In Gen 49:24 —-Yahweh is called an
eben. Scholars hesitate whether both this
and the parallel epithet > ‘Shepherd’ can be
original (OLOFSSON 1990:94-95). Among
those who maintain MT' as the more difficult
reading some propose a different interpre-
tation (‘son’, ‘sons’, or ‘our father’). In view
of the comparative evidence this is unlikely.
Comparable epithets Hike Rock suggest
that originally there existed no opposition
whatsoever to this old Canaanite epithet.
The toponym Ebenezer (bn h‘zr ‘Stone-of-
the-Help, 1 Sam 4:1; 5:1) is explained as
applicable to Yahweh in 1 Sam 7:12. In any
case the use in Gen 49:24 is clearly meta-
phorical, even if the accompanying ‘Shep-
herd’ is a gloss.
. The epithet is not attested, however,
among Hebrew personal names, neither in
the OT, nor epigraphically. Whether or not
this testifies to early opposition cannot be
ascertained. Prophetic criticism against
Images of stone (Am 5:26 [Korper 1990:
376]; Isa 37:19; Jer 2:27; 3:9; Ezek 20:32)
unmistakeably led to the disuse of the epi-
thet. This in spite of the fact that the
patriarchs were said to have erected and
anointed stones at various holy sites where
they had met E] (Gen 28:18; 31:45-46;
35:14; see Bethel). Also stones were sup-
posed to be able to act as witnesses (Gen
31:46-47; Josh 24:27; 1 Sam 6:18 [read "bn
instead of ’b/}) and this function would seem
to presuppose that they could speak.
The old epithet is reversed when it is said
of Yahweh that he will become a stone that
causes men io stumble, and a rock that
makes them fall (Isa 8:14). According to
Hab 2:11 a stone will cry from the wall to
denounce injustice, but in 2:19 the idea that
a dumb stone could be animate is critized.
However, the crying stone is a metaphor; it
may be compared with the statement of
Eliphaz who says that the pious will have a
covenant with the stones of the field, i.e.
wil) live in harmony with nature (Job 5:23).
In the New Testament the stone-epithet is
applied to Christ who is described as the
stone which the builders rejected (Ps 118:
22, but the Hebrew meant the dejected sup-
plicant), but who becomes a comer-stone
(Matt 21:42, par.). In 1 Pet 2:7-8 this image-
ry is paralleled by Christ as the stone that
makes the unbelievers stumble (cf. Isa 8:14).
IV. Bibliography
F. Bison DE LA Rocquk, Rapport sur les
fouilles de Médamoud (Cairo 1925) 50-53;
G. BEER, Steinverehrung bei den Israeliten
(Berlin 1921); D. Conen, Dictionnaire des
racines sémitiques, Fasc. 1 (Paris 1970) 4; J.
van Duk, LUGAL UD ME-LAM-bi NIR-
GAL, 2 vols. (Leiden 1983); J. D. FOWLER,
Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient
Hebrew (ISOTSup 49; Sheffield 1988); V.
Haas, Hethitische, Berggótter und Hurri-
tische Steindámonen (Mainz 1982), A. S.
KaAPELRUD, "bn, TWAT 1 (1973) 50-53; M.
C. A. KORPEL, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugar-
itic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine
(UBL 8; Miinster 1990) 578-587; R. Kriss
& H. Kriss-Hemnricn, Volksglauben im
Bereich des Islam (Wiesbaden 1960-1962);
T. N. D. METTINGER, No Graven Image?
(Stockholm 1995); S. OLorssoN, God is my
Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and
Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint
819
STRONG DRINK
(Stockholm 1990); S. RiBiCHINI, La pietra
potente, Poenus advena (Romel985) 113-
125; G. A. WAINWRIGHT, Thc Aniconic
Form of Amon in the New Kingdom, ASAE
28 (1980) 175-189; G. A. WAINWRIGHT,
Some Aspects of Amun, JEA 20 (1934)
139-153; H. WEIPPERT, Paldstina in vorhel-
lenistischer Zeit (München 1988); P. XELLA,
L'elemento "BN nell’ onomastico fenico-
punica, UF 20 (1988) 387-392.
M. C. A. KoRPEL
STRONG DRINK “Dï
I. šēkār occurs 23 times in the Bible,
nearly always in conjunction with yayin
‘wine’, the two forming a kind of hendiadys
which means ‘an intoxicating wine’ (simi-
larly combined in Ugaritic, see RSP 1:209,
no, 248). Only in two cases does šēkār
occur alone: Num 28:7; Ps 69:13. The noun
Sékar is derived from šākar ‘to intoxicate,
become intoxicated” (see, e.g., 1 Sam 1:13-
14; Jer 25:27; 48:26; Prov 31:4-7).
Sekar denotes a strong and intoxicating
drink (thus also the LXX and Philo; and the
Tgs. to Num 6:3; 28:7: "old wine"; to Lev
10:9: mérawé ‘intoxicating drink’; others:
‘mixed wine’, ‘beer’) made probably of the
fruits of the vine (-*Gepen). Figs and pome-
granates, however, were also used for manu-
facturing wine. Based on Akk Sik(d)ru
‘beer’ (brewed from barley; but also from
dates), scholars (e.g. KELLERMANN 1977:48)
have suggested that biblical Sékar be ident-
ified as beer too. There is, however, no clear
evidence—archaeological (STERN 1976:678-
679) or otherwise—that OT Sékdr was
brewed from barley (but see Kellermann's
remarks).
SKR with the same basic meaning is a
common Semitic root (BDB 1016a; HALAT
13903). Note especially Akk 3ik(á)ru ‘beer’
(AHW 1232f), Sakaru ‘to become inebri-
ated, drunk’ (CAD S/1 157b), 3ákiru ‘habit-
ual drinker’, Sakartu ‘drunkenness’, Sakkarfi/
Sakkurtt ‘drunkard’, etc. (CAD s.v.). An agri-
cultural word, Sékar occurs in other lan-
guages as well, such as Greek cixepa, Latin
sicera, \talian c/sidro, Rumanian thighir,
and even English cider (K. LoKorscH, Ery-
mologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen
(germanischen, romanischen und slavischen)
Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs (Heidel-
berg 1927] no. 1787a).
As an alcoholic beverage, beer possessed
semi-divine status in ancient Near Eastem
conceptions (-*Tirash). Strong Drink was
purportedly used to elicit a divine oracle
(compare DuRAND 1982:43-50). In their
banquets, gods were thought to enjoy large
amounts of wine and beer.
There is no etymological connection be-
tween Heb Sékar and the Mesopotamian
deity dSukurru, the deified spear (see CAD
5/3, 234). Nor is there any evidence what-
soever suggesting that Sékdr was ever con-
sidered as possessing divine status in the
Hebrew Bible.
II. iik(d)ru ‘beer’ in ancient Mesopot-
amia was a very widespread drink, known in
all periods of history, and indulged in by all.
Beer was given to gods, imbibed and poured
in religious and magic rituals, used in medi-
cine, and enjoyed on every possible oc-
casion. Beer and bread were considered
essential daily staples and were called “the
life of the people/land" (CAD N/1 302f. 8).
In the Gilgamesh Epic, these are called
simat balàtim ‘that which fits life’, and in
another place beer is defined as Simti mati
*the rule, custom of the land' (Gilg. P iii
14), something that every civilized human
being is supposed to know and enjoy (ad-
dressed by the prostitute to the still-un-
civilized brute, Enkidu).
III. In the Bible, Sékar occurs in various
contexts, endowing it with both positive and
negative connotations.
Positively, it was not only valued as one
of the main ingredients for making a feast
happy and lively (e.g. Deut 14:26; Isa 24:7-
11; cf. Gen 43:34; Judg 9:13), but it was
also one of the ingredients of the daily
offering to God (Num 28:7; in Isa 65:11
strong drink [here mimsdak] is offered to
foreign gods [Gad and —Meni]). Accord-
ing to some texts, Sékar was one of the
necessities of life, on the same level as
bread, so that lacking it was something out
of the ordinary (e.g., Isa 24:7-13 and espe-
cially Deut 29:4-5)
820
SUKKOTH-BENOTH
Taken in excess, however, 3ékàár could
produce quite negative effects. The sage in
Proverbs warns that the border-line between
enjoying iékár and succumbing to its bad
effects is very thin (Prov 23:29-35, follow-
ing 27-28; cf. Hab 2:5: wine is treacher-
ous!). Such bad effects included inebriation,
unconsciousness (note that awakening
means becoming sober: Gen 9:24; cf. Ps
78:65), amnesia, the loss of ability to control
oneself and (in the case of leaders) to
govern properly (e.g. Isa 28:7; 29:9; Jer
51:57; Prov 31:4-9). Prov 20:1 sees a
measure of stupidity in inebriation, and
elsewhere a shameful scene of losing control
of one’s bodily functions (Isa 19:14; 28:7-8;
Jer 25:27; 48:26; cf. KTU 1.114 describing
drunken El—or someone clse—wallowing
in his own urine and filth) and placing one-
self in embarassing situations is depicted
(e.g., Gen 9:21; Lam 4:21; Hab 2:15-16).
An especially negative attitude toward
alcohol is detected in Eli's strong rebuke of
Hannah whom he considered drunk (1 Sam
1:13-14; according to the LXX Eli's servant
even asks Hannah to leave the sanctuary).
Eli's rebuke may be understood against the
background of the moral decline in the
shrine of Shiloh, especially his sons' mis-
deeds and licentious behaviour with female
worshipers (2:11-17.22-25). Hannah says in
her defence that she drank neither yayin nor
3ékár and asks that Eli not judge her to be a
bat béliyya'al (-*Belial).
Being a drunkard was thus tantamount to
being a social misfit, comparable with other
misfits such as idlers, belials, blasphemers,
régim, etc. As in the religious context where
a dichotomy is evident between the inside
sphere of cleanliness and the outside sphere
of uncleanliness, so here a dichotomy is also
evident between the inner and outer spheres
of society respectively with social misfits
and outcasts relegated to the latter. Being an
habitual drinker of Sékdr might cause one to
be rejected from society and considered an
outcast.
IV. Bibliography
J. M. DuRAND, In Vino Veritas, RA 76
(1982) 43-50; L. F. HARTMAN & A. L.
OPPENHEIM, On Beer and Brewing Tech-
niques in Ancient Mesopotamia (JAOS
Suppl. 10; Baltimore 1950); E. HUBER, Bier
und Bierbereitung in Babylonien, RLA 2
(1938) 25-28; D. KELLERMANN, Bier, BRL?
48-49; E. STERN, Sékar, Encyclopaedia Bibli-
ca Vol. 7 (Jerusalem 1976) 677-680 (Heb).
M. MALUL
SUKKOTH-BENOTH Mumio
I. Sukkoth-Benoth is a god said to have
been worshipped by the Babylonians who
were resettled in Samaria by an Assyrian king
(2 Kgs 17:30). These new "Samarians" may
have been transferred to the territory of the
former Israelite state either by Sennacherib
(ARAB 2.234, 339-341) or Ashurbanipal
(ARAB 2.791-798), both of whom fought in
southern Mesopotamia; cf. too, Ezra 4:9-10
(see BECKING 1992:95-97). Neither the double-
name of the god nor its individual compo-
nents is known from cuneiform sources.
II. Traditionally Benoth has been asso-
ciated with the goddess Zarpanitu, the con-
sort of Babylon’s chief deity Marduk; the
consonants of the second element in the MT
were assumed to be a corruption of that
deity’s name (STADE 1904:267; Gray 1970:
653-654). As for the element Sukkoth, it has
often been related to the word -*Sakkuth
which appears in a description of the trans-
port of images (Amos 5:26); it is supposed,
that the Hebrew transcribes the cunciform
ideogram %sa.kKUD, a Mesopotamian god
with a similar-sounding name (e. g. DRIVER
1958:16*; Worrr 1977:260-266). But the
correct reading of the god’s name is Madānu
(cf. W. W. HaLLo, HUCA 48 [1977] 15),
and the meaning of Sakkuth within the con-
text of the Amos passage is much disputed.
Others prefer a connection of Sukkoth with
Marduk, correcting MT and reconstructing
the Babylonian divine pair, Marduk and
Zarpanitu (STADE 1904:267; MONTGOMERY
& GEHMAN 1951:474). To translate the
name as a common noun “a place (‘booths’)
for prostitution or for worship of a Babylo-
nian goddess” (WISEMAN 1993:269; idem,
ISBE 4:469) is to misconstrue the context.
Assuming the integrity of the consonantal
text, however, the MT may be interpreted as
821
SUN — SYCOMORE
containing both a proper name and a com-
mon noun. The divine name Bánitu, "the cre-
atress", (cf. CAD B 95a) is attested in both
the Neo-Assyrian (TALLQvisT 1914:253a)
and the Neo-Babylonian (TALLQvist 1905:
232a/b) onomastica. The Assur Temple in
Nineveh housed a shrine to the goddess
Banitu (STT 88, III 6; cf. FRANKENA 1961:
207). As an epithet, Bànitu is applied to
-*]shtar of Nineveh (AKKGE 70-71), and the
name of the goddess Zarpanitu was popular-
ly etymologized as Zér-banitu, “the creatress
of sced/offspring" (AHW 1520a). Further-
more, a Nco-Assyrian literary text with ritu-
al allusions seems to associate Bànitu with
the god Ninurta (cf. DELLER 1983:142).
Worship of Bànitu seems to have spread
West and from there to Egypt; among the
Aramaeans residing in Egypt during the Per-
sian period, the goddess was worshipped at
a temple in her honour in Syene (BRESCIANI
& KAMIL 1966:No. 2:1,12; 3:1; cf. 1:7) and
in several personal names her name appears
as theophoric element, e.g. Mkbnt, Bntsr
(BRESCIAN! & KAMIL 1966:357-428; No.
4:8; 6:8). So far this goddess is unknown
from texts before the first-millenium BCE,
though earlier banitu appears as an epithet
of several goddesses; cf. e.g., the personal
name Amat-4Banitu on cylinder seal of the
mid-2nd millenium BC from Jordan (R.
TourNay, Un cylindre babylonien decou-
vert en Transjordanie, RB 74 (1967) 248-
254, esp. 248). Perhaps, then, what was orig-
inally a popular epithet for the mother
goddess was hypostasized (DELLER 1983:
142).
III. Banitu, therefore, is likely to be the
divine name in 2 Kgs 17:30; note that major
LXX traditions preserve a pronunciation of
the name as baineithei (B), benithei (A). As
to Sukkoth, unrelated as it is to any known
divine name, it may be a common noun;
perhaps meaning “aspect, image”, from skn/
sknt, attested in Ugaritic (LipiNski 1973:
202-204; M. C. A. KORPEL, A Rift in the
Clouds [UBL 8; Münster 1990] 576; on skn,
stela, see also Image). The proposed iden-
tification of Sukkoth-Benoth is, then, “the
image of Banit(u)”.
IV. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria: an His-
torical and Archaeological Study (Leiden
1992); E. Bresciant & M. Kamit, Le
lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli (Roma
1966); K. DELLER, STT 366: Deutungsver-
such 1982, Assur 3/4 (1983) 139-148; G. R.
DRivER, Geographical Problems, Archae-
ological, Historical and Geographical Stu-
dies dedicated to Professor Benjamin Mazar
on his Fiftieth Birthday (Erlsr 5; 1958) 16*-
20*; R. FRANKENA, New Materials for the
Takultu Ritual: Additions and Corrections,
BiOr 18 (1961) 199-201; J. Gray, J & I
Kings (2nd ed.; Philadelphia 1970); E.
Lipinskl, SKN et SGN dans le sémitique
occidental du nord, UF 5 (1973) 202-204; J.
T. MILIk, Les papyrus araméens d’ Hermou-
polis et les cultes syro-phéniciens, Bib 48
(1967), 546-584; J. A. MONTGOMERY & H.
S. GEHMAN, The Books of Kings (ICC;
Edinburgh 1951); B. STADE, The Books of
Kings (The Sacred Books of the Old Testa-
ment 9; Leipzig 1904); K. L. TALLQVIST,
Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Ge-
schüftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Samas-
sumukin bis Xerxes (Helsingfors 1905);
TALLevist, Assyrian Personal Names (Hel-
singsfors 1914); D. J. WISEMAN, l & 2
Kings (Tyndale Old Testament Commenta-
ries; Leicester 1993); H. W. Worrr, Joel
and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1977).
M. CoGAN
SUN —> HELIOS; SHEMESH
SYCOMORE nop
I. According to ALBRIGHT (1968:165)
the sycomore fig, Ficus sycomorus, was
deified in Palestine, as in Egypt. There is no
biblical evidence for such deification in
Palestine.
IH. The Egyptian name for sycomore is
Nht (LÄ VI, 113-114) The goddess
—Hathor in Memphis was worshipped as
mistress of the sycomore tree. In private
tombs from the 18th and 19th dynasty the
sycomore is represented by the goddess Nut.
III. HAP; the sycomore, is a common
822
SYCOMORE
tree in Palestine. The TOPO is a kind of fig
tree. Its fruits resemble figs, but are not as
palatable. According to 1 Kgs 10:27; 2 Chr
1:15; 9:27 Solomon made cedar as plentiful
in Jerusalem as the sycomore of the
Shephelah, and in his selfdescription Amos
calls himself ‘a dresser of sycomore trees’
(Amos 7:14). The sycomore tree is first of
all appreciated as timber tree (ZOHARY 1982:
68). 1 Chr 27:28 tells us that one of David’s
men was over the olive and sycomore trees
in the Shephelah. Compared with the cedar
tree used for Solomon's palace and temple,
the sycomore was less valuable, as is seen
from the boast in Isa 9:9 "the sycomores
have been cut down, but we will put cedars
in their place" (NIELSEN 1989:75). Note
finally that -*Yahweh's signs in Egypt (Ps
78:47) include destruction of the vines and
the sycomores with hail and frost, but no-
thing in the text suggests these trees should
be regarded as holy trees or deities.
Unlike the -*oak and the -*terebinth, the
sycomore is mentioned neither in connection
with holy places nor in connection with any
cultic activities in the OT. Albright's as-
sertion can therefore only be based on
Egyptian evidence.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan. A Historical Analysis of Two Con-
trasting Faiths (London 1968); G. DALMAN,
Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina I, 1-2 (Güters-
loh 1928); K. NIELSEN, There is Hope for a
Tree. The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (Shef-
field 1989); P. WELTEN, Baum, sakraler,
BRL?, 34-35; M. Zonary, Pflanzen der
Bibel. Vollstindiges Handbuch (Stuttgart
1982).
K. NIELSEN
823
TABOO C1
I. hérem occurs 29 times in the OT
(LOHFINK 1982:193-195, for distribution)
and has been variously translated ‘ban’,
‘excommunication’, ‘taboo’, ‘a consecrated
or contaminated object/person’. It appears in
Jewish Aramaic as hirm’, in Syriac as
herma’, and in Arabic as haram, meaning ‘a
consecrated and prohibited area’. (Note also
Arab harim ‘wife’, ‘harem’, Nabataean
mhrmh ‘sanctuary’, Sabaean mhrm ‘sanc-
tuary, temple’.) Grammatically, BREKEL-
MANS (1959:43-47) understood hérem to be
a noun expressing a quality, like qóde3 and
hól. Others see it as a concrete noun or one
expressing an action. However, idioms like
hàyá/fim/nàtan lehérem, as well as the
Hiphil form hehérim ‘to declare a person/
object as hérem' (cf. higdi§ ‘to declare
holy’; hisdiq ‘to declare just’, etc. Ges.!8
53c), would tend to support Brekelmans’
view: an object/person becomes a hérem by
assuming the quality of the state of hérem.
hérem is derived from the root HRM (51
occurrences in the OT, LOHFINK 1982:193),
a common Semitic root with the meaning
‘separate’, ‘forbid’, ‘consecrate’, and the
like (LOHFINK 1982:201-202; note Akk
harāmu ‘to separate’, from which harimtu
‘prostitute’, a woman set apart). Other sug-
gested derivatives include the personal name
Harim (e.g. Ezra 2:32, 39; Neh 3:11; 1 Chr
24:8; Mount -*Hermon ('sacred/banned
mountain’?); and the place name Hormah
(Josh 12:14; Num 14:45; 21:3; etc.), which
is based on a folk etymology.
Herem occurs as a deity outside the Bible
in theophoric names known from the Jewish
colony at Elephantine (e.g. Hrmnt, sce
Notu, JPN 129; BREKELMANS 1959:26).
Contrary to accepted scholarly opinion,
however, a god Herem-Bethel was never
worshipped by the Elephantine Jews. In the
relevant construction, Arm is not part of a
compound divine name, but a designation of
an inviolable piece of property such as
temple treasure, on which occasionally an
oath was sworn (cf. Matt 23:16-22; VAN
DER TOORN 1986).
II. A usage of HRM similar to that in the
OT occurs in the Mesha inscription where
King Mesha reports having conquered Nebo
and consecrated (hhrmth) its inhabitants to
the god Athtar-Cemosh (>Ashtoreth, Che-
mosh) (KAZ I 33:14-18; II 176-177; MAT-
TINGLY 1989:233-237), which signifies total
annihilation. Similar customs are attested in
ancient Rome. The Celts, for example,
would slay the defeated, pile up their goods
and dedicate them to the deity. Any person
daring to lay his hand on the spoil was put
to death (Diodorus 5:32; Caesar, De bello
Gallico 6:17; for other data see LOHFINK
1982:202-206, particularly his reference to
the interesting institution of devotio at
Rome, whereby executed criminals were
consecrated to the gods of the underworld).
A Mesopotamian concept reflecting the
basic characteristic of a taboo-object, some-
thing totally consecrated to the deity or
priest and for the usufruct of no other, is
that of asakkum (CAD A/2 326-327; Sum
kug-an, interpreted by Landsberger to mean
'consecrated to the god'; see in general
MALAMAT 1966). Violating the asakkum
was expressed in Akkadian by means of the
idiom asakkam akdlum ‘to eat the asakkum’
(CAD AN 327a bl'; note also the idioms
asakkam leqüm, $aráqum ‘to take/steal the
asakkum’, ibid. 2'). This idiom occurs, for
example, in legal documents among the
Schlufklauseln, the clauses which define the
sanction awaiting the violator of the agree-
ment signed in the contract. The party
violating the agreement is considered to
have "eaten the asakkum of the gods and/or
824
TABOO
the king”. Similarly it is said in other con-
texts that a person who refuses to abide by
the royal command or otherwise tries to
evade it has thereby “eaten the asakkum" of
the king: the crime is as serious as violating
a sacred taboo (MALAMAT 1966). The sacred
character of the asakkum is also reflected in
the oath by the asakkum of a certain god or
Xing, exactly as one would take an oath by
the life of the god/king.
Asakkum occurs also in Mari texts from
the 18th century BCE (MALAMAT 1966). In
order to prevent pillaging, the booty was
declared the asakkum of the god or king.
Looters were considered to have eaten the
asakkum and punished accordingly. Accord-
ing to the OT, the objects designated taboo
were consecrated either to God or to the
priests. At Mari, the asakkum could be con-
secrated not only to a god or a king, but also
to high-ranking officials, and sometimes
even to soldiers from the ranks. Anyone
confiscating any consecrated objects is said
to have eaten the asakkum.
III. In the OT, the concept of kérem has
three applications: hérem of an entire com-
munity, Aérem of an individual, and excom-
munication, ostracizing—-all of them derived
from the basic idea of separation and trans-
fer to an outside sphere. The third usage
(also called niddüy in the Talmud [H. H.
Coun, EncJud Vol 8.(1971) 350-352], from .
the verb niddá, attested also in the OT in the
meaning ‘to remove, expel’ [Isa 66:5; Amos
6:3]) is believed to be a late development
from the Second Temple period (Ezra 10:8)
and is fully attested in rabbinical literature
and later sources. In this usage the word
seems to have lost the nuance of conse-
cration. In earlier usages hérem denotes
opposed values: it may pertain to the holy
(Lev 27:28-29) or to the unholy, to impurity
(Deut 7:26; Isa 43:28). Either might prohibit
use or contact (cf. the familiar rabbinic
Statement “All Scripture defiles the hands”
[mYad. 3e; bShabb. 14a], an ambivalent
‘definition using a verb from the sphere of
‘Ampurity {tammé’] with reference to the
-Sanctity of Scripture).
^, The consecration of an inimical commu-
E
TREDIUM menn
nity to the deity signifies the extermination
of the enemy, either following a vow made
by the people (Num 21:1-3), or as a com-
mandment imposed upon the people, esp. as
regards the extermination of the seven
peoples of Canaan, the Midianites and
Amalekites (Deut 7:2; 20:16; 1 Sam 15:3-4;
cf. also Num 31). Originally this seems to
have meant the devotion of the enemy and
his possessions to a deity (Josh 6-7), but, in
the OT reconceptualization, ‘devotion’ be-
comes mere destruction of the enemy, while
the possessions—esp. metal (gold and sil-
ver) utensils—were taken as booty (Deut
2:34-35; 3:6-7; Josh 8:2.26-27; 10:28-11:
14). Sometimes virgins were spared and
taken by the victors (Num 31:17-18).
Declaring booty as an asakkum in Mari
was clearly an ad hoc measure taken by the
high officials to prevent uncontrolled pil-
lage, and it has been suggested that this is
similar to the hérem in the OT ìn those con-
texts where it Jooks like an ad hoc com-
mandment imposed for similar reasons
(MALAMAT 1966:45-46; GREENBERG 197]:
347-348). Thus Joshua announces the hérem
before the conquest of Jericho (Josh 6:16-
18, as also in the case of the Ai, 8:2, 26-27),
and Samuel issues a command regarding the
hérem to be imposed on the Amalekites (1
Sam 15:3). In both cases, it was intended to
prevent the people from laying hand on the
booty. There is a difference, however,
between the biblical hérem in the context of
war and the Mari usages of asakkum.
Whereas in the OT the hérem applies to the
enemy himself, at Mari the practice applies
only to the booty. One may accept
LOHFINK’s view (1982:205-206) that the
concept of herem in the OT is broader than
that of the asakkum at Mari. Moabite usage
and, further afield, that of the Celts, is
closer.
Lev 27:28-29 introduces the hérem of the
individual, which ts similar in conception to
that of the érem of an entire community. A
‘banned’ person is devoted to the deity and
put to death. His possessions are consecrated
to God or given to the priest exactly as
metal utensils were dedicated to God under
825
TABOO
the community hérem (Josh 6:19). Unlike
objects designated by vow (Lev 27:1-27),
nothing put under hérem may be sold, re-
deemed, or otherwise ransomed; it is “most
holy unto God” (Lev 27:28, evidently the
intention of Num 18:14 is the same).
The verb /idram and its cognate noun
hérem occur in the OT as synonyms of the
verb qdadas (usually in the Hiphil, meaning
‘to sanctify, consecrate’), as well as with
verbs denoting destruction, annihilation and
the like (bd, Smid, krt, etc. LONFINK 1982:
196-197). The two notions—consecration
and destruction—coalesce in certain con-
texts such as Josh 6-7; Mic 4:13; cf. Num
21:2-3; Judg 21:5. (For the ‘ambivalent’
nature of the taboo in general, see M.
DouG.as, Purity and Danger. An Analysis
of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo
[New York/London 1966]. The very fact
that the root HRM reflects two such apparent-
ly opposite notions leads one to the conclu-
sion that it denotes something beyond mere
destruction on the one hand, and consecra-
tion on the other. As regards destruction, the
action and intention (removal of the de-
stroyed objecUperson from the public sphere
and thc resultant prevention of contact with
it and/or enjoyment of it) are adequately sig-
nalled by any verb of destruction. The root
HRM, therefore, must introduce an additional
nuance not covered by the other verbs. As
regards consecration, one need only refer to
Lev 27 where a clear gradation seems to be
attested between mere consecration (vv 9-
10.14-27) and placing under the hérem (vv
28-29). The latter is designated as godes
qodá3im ‘exceedingly holy’, which is to be
understood as an attempt to address the par-
ticular nuance attaching to the root HRM.
On the basis of the available evidence,
one may define HRM as denoting the idea of
expulsion from the sphere of concern for
human society. An object placed under
hérem is destroyed in order to remove it
from the social and legal classificatory
sphere, that is, from the practical concern of
a given community. A similar fate is shared
by the spirit (~Etemmu) of a person de-
prived of due burial and cast as carrion to
beasts of prey. Such a spirit is driven to the
outside waste and lawless sphere where no
tule of civilization applies. Physical death
itself does not result in such a fate for the
spirit. That fate is determined by the kind of
death suffered and the deliberate prevention
of appropriate burial rites. Similarly, HRM
may be understood as denoting something
more than physical destruction. It probably
alluded to the manner of destruction and to
the treatment of the physical remains of the
enemy or criminal, as in the case of Achan
(LOHFINK 1982:198-200; STERN 1989:419)
By the same token, an object placed under
hérem in the sense of being consecrated to a
deity is also removed from the human
sphere to the divine.
A human, therefore, may not enjoy the
use of an object designated as hérem, for
this would transgress the limits between his
domain, with its protective socio-legal or-
ganization, and the outside non-classifica-
tory domain and cause disequilibrium to en-
croach upon the former. Should such misuse
occur, the perpetrator himself becomes con-
taminated by the object of the /iérem and
must be subjected to the same treatment as
that object in order to ward off the conse-
quent dangers to his community, as indeed
in the case of Achan noted above (Josh 6-7).
The notion of hérem, ‘taboo’, as outlined
above, belongs to an extensive array of con-
cepts pertaining to the general area of the
impure, abhorrent, defiled, rejected and
suchlike. Here, one may mention Heb 16‘éba
(related to hérem in Deut 7:26; 13:15-16;
20:17-18), piggûl, tebel and nébálá (see
-*Abominations), and in Akkadian, besides
asakkum, also ikkibu (commonly translated
"taboo', HALLO 1985; VAN DER TOORN
1985; KLEIN & SerATI 1988; note, however,
M. J. GELLER, Taboo in Mesopotamia, JCS
42 [1990] 218-220), anzillum (Sum usup),
all of which may be objects of the verb
akálu ‘to eat’ (see above); cf. OT “to eat the
qode$" (Lev 22:10.14.16). The semantic
field of /ieremn, therefore, includes the above
locutions, all denoting the general idea of
something to be separated and removed
from the life of the community. /érem,
826
TABOR
however, seems to be neutral in terms of
value, for it could signify (depending on
context) both positive (consecration) and
negative removal (destruction and defile-
ment).
IV. Bibliography
C. H. W. BREKELMANS, De herem in het
Oude Testament (Nijmegen 1959); M.
GREENBERG, Herem, EncJud 8 (1971) 344-
350; W. W. HALLO, Biblical Abominations
and Sumerian Taboos, JOR 76 (1985) 21-
40; J. KLEIN & Y. Serati, The Concept of
‘Abomination’ in Mesopotamian Literature
and the Bible, Beer-Sheva 3 (1988), 131-148
(Hebrew); *N. LOHFINK, CV hdram; O75
hérem, TWAT 3 (1982) 192-213 [& lit]; A.
MALAMAT, The Ban in Mari and in the
Bible, Biblical Essays 1966 (De Ou Testa-
mentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika;
Bloemfontein 1966) 40-49; G. L. MATTING-
LY, Moabite Religion, Studies in the Mesha
Inscription and Moab (ed. A. Dearman;
Atlanta 1989) 211-238; P. D. STERN, |!
Samuel 15. Towards an Ancient View of the
War-Herem, UF 21 (1989) 414-420; K. VAN
DER TOORN, Sin and Sanction in Israel and
Mesopotamia (Assen 1985) 41-44; VAN DER
Toorn, Herem-Bethel and Elephantine Oath
Procedure, ZAW 98 (1986) 282-285.
M. MALUL
TABOR Oafop, Tap. tò
'Itapopiov
I. Tabor is the name of a mountain in
Lower Galilee (1,700 ft above sea-level,
7km SE of Nazareth). It occurs three times
in Josh 19, in the descriptions of the bound-
aries of respectively the tribes of Zebulon,
Issachar and Naphthali, and is thus a point
where the three tribal territories met (vv. 12;
22; 34). Moses' blessing of Zebulon and
Issachar, which may date back to the heyday
of Jeroboam II’s reign, mentions “(the)
mountain" to which they call the peoples to
participate in rightful sacrifices (Deut 33:
18-19). In all likelihood, therefore, this is a
reference to the mountain which they had in
common and to a -*'Yahweh-cult. The
prophet Hoseah, whose activity started in
"an
the last years of Jeroboam II, scems likewise
to refer to a cult on the Tabor; but he does
so in a rather negative way. He speaks of a
“net” that had been spread there (5:1-3),
which probably implies that, by his time, the
cult had turned into idolatry, or had a non-
Yahwistic competitor.
The meaning of the name Tabor is un-
known. Jerome translates it in his onomastic
writings by "veniens lumen ” (PL 23,808) or
"veniat lux " (ibid. 828), clearly assuming it,
by popular etymology, to be the Hebrew
phrase WN NZD. As there was also an "Oak
of Tabor" farther to the South, in the tribal
area of Benjamin (1 Sam 10:3), a derivation
from “3 ‘to lie waste’ can be considered
because it would fit a mountain as well as a
place where a notable tree had been left to
stand. If, however, the name was an ab-
breviation of an original Itabor as in the
Greek "raffóptov (Hos 5:1) and perhaps
also in l'at0fop (as in Jos 19:22 B, with
ya- = N3 'to rise up’?), this could indicate
that the longer name was not understood: it
may even have been non-Semitic.
II. Apart from these two rather vague
OT allusions, nothing more is known about
the role which the mountain may have
played in religion. It has been supposed by
CoLre (1975), however, that the cult there
involved a Ba'al later known by the name of
Zevs ‘ItaBvpios. This deity was venerated
on Mt. Atabyrion (-ron; -ris) in Rhodes, and
also on a homonymous mountain at Akragas
in Sicily, which was a Rhodian colony.
Polybius, who mentions both cults (9, 27), is
also the only writer—apart from the much
later compiler Stephanus of Byzantium—to
refer to the Tabor in Galilee as 16
‘AtaBvpiov (5, 70) (with initial “A- instead
of 1-). He probably did so on the analogy of
the name of the Rhodian and Sicilian moun-
tains; but this does not, of course, justify the
conclusion that their specific Zeus was also
worshipped on the Tabor. As nothing is
known of or found in the mountain, LEwY's
assumption that it was named after fa-bu-ra,
‘metal worker’, an epithet of Tammuz, is
speculative (LEwv 1950-51).
III. In early Christianity, Mt. Tabor was
827
TAL — TAMMUZ
considered to have been the location of
Christ's transfiguration, contrary to the Gos-
pel of Mark, which places it in the neigh-
bourhood of Caesarea Philippi (8:27-9:2).
This tradition can be traced back to Cyril of
Jerusalem (348 - c. 386 CE), who speaks of
it in passing: “They (Moses and Elijah) were
with Him when He was transfigurated on
Mt. Thabor and told the disciples about the
end which He was to fulfil in Jerusalem”
(Catech. 12, 16). His contemporary Jerome
(348 - 420 ce) likewise mentions it only
casually when describing to Eustochium the
journcys made in the Near East by her
mother Paula: “She climbed Mt. Thabor on
which the Lord was transfigurated” (Epistle
108, 13). Both authors create the impression
that they are merely passing on what was a
current opinion in their days. It may well
date back to a much earlier time. It is
difficult to decide whether the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews also refers to the
transfiguration when it says: “Now my
mother, the Holy Spirit, took me (Jesus) by
one of my hairs and carried me to the great
mountain Thabor” (frg. 3 HENNECKE). The
translation to a high mountain reminds one
of the story of Jesus’ temptation (Matt 4:8;
Luke 4:5). The detail of the hair seems to
stem from Ezek 8:3 or from the story of Bel
and the Dragon 33-39, where Ezekiel and
Habakuk are said to have been translated in
a similar way.
IV Bibliography
C. Coupe, Tabor, KP 5 (1975) 479-480; O.
EissrELDT, Der Gott des Tabor und seine
Verbreitung, ARW 31 (1934) 14-4] - KS 2
(Tübingen 1963) 29-54; R. FRANKEL, Tabor,
ABD 6 (1992) 304-305; J. Lewy, Tabor
Tibar Atabyros, HUCA 23 (1950-51) 357-
386.
G. MUSSIES
TAL ~ DEW
TAMMUZ nen
I. Tammi is a deity of Mesopotamian
origin whose cult, according to a vision
reported in Ezek 8:14, was introduced into
the temple in Jerusalem, where women are
said to wail over the death of the god at the
north gate of the temple.
Heb Tammiiz derives from Sum Dumu-
zi. The Sumerian name means “the good
son”, or “the right son”. In Akkadian the
name is mostly written with the Sumerian
ideogram and pronounced Dumuzu, or
Duwuzu, Nco-Assyrian Dic'uzu or Düzu. The
month named after him was rendered as
Dw'uzu (MSL 5, 25:225). The late Akkadian
form is reflected in the Greek Daónos, to be
amended to Daózos, in Berossos (JACOBSEN
1939:73 n. 22).
II. In Sumerian mythology Dumuzi
appears first of all as the shepherd and as a
manifestation of all aspects of the life of the
herdsmen, as opposed to that of the farmers.
Contrary to what is often asserted, Dumuzi
was no vegetation deity. It is only insofar as
he borrowed certain features from amalga-
mation with Damu, originally an indepen-
dent deity and a true vegetation deity, that
Dumuzi can be said to have relations to the
vegetation deities.
Although the god did not belong to the
leading deities in any period of Mesopot-
amian history, Dumuzi has played a major
role in discussions of ancient Near Eastern
religion. This was a result of the ideas pro-
pounded by J. G. FRAZER in Adonis, Attis,
Osiris (1905). According to him Tammáz was
the prototype of the Dying God, whose annual
death and resurrection from the dead per-
sonified the yearly decay and revival of life.
He saw the god as fundamentally identical
with the deities known as -*Osiris in Egypt,
as Adon or ->Adonis among the Phoenicians
and the Grecks, and as Attis in Phrygia, and
their cult as a widespread phenomenon espe-
cially aimed at enacting the yearly cycle of
vegetable life. He considered Adon or
Adonis a mere title for the god whose real
name was Tammuz. This identification was
first suggested by Origen and is implied
already in the Vg of Ezek 8:14.
LANGDON (1914) developed the idea that
Tammuz was the son of Mother Earth, and
that his cult was a popular mystery religion
not related to the official cult of other
828
TAMMUZ
deities. According to him, not only a large
number of minor deities, but also -^Marduk,
Babylon's god himself, were aspects of the
young dying god. The idea that Marduk was
a dying and reviving deity later tumed out
to be based on a misunderstanding of an
Assyrian text (VON SoDEN, ZA 51 [1955]:
130-166). MOorTGAT, in a much criticized
study (Tammuz: der Unsterblichkeitsglaube
in der altorientalischen Bildkunst (Berlin
1949]), found the mystery cult, involving a
belief in the immortality of the soul,
reflected in a large number of objects of art.
WrTZEL (1935) considered Tammuz to be
the very divine male principle in vegetation,
while -*Ishtar was the corresponding female
counterpart, and according to him Tammuz
was no less than the main god of the Baby-
lonian pantheon.
In the studies mentioned above a number
of deities who shared certain characteristics
were uncritically thought to be 'aspects' or
‘Erscheinungsformen’ of the same deity.
Already in 1909 ZIMMERN (Der babyloni-
sche Gott Tamüz) had warned against this
lack of methodological stringency.
JacoBSEN's highly influential studies of
Dumuzi are based on the fundamental
assumption that the gods are "powers" in
natural phenomena (esp. 1961). He distin-
guishes between four forms of Dumuzi and
four corresponding manifestations in the
external world. These are: (1) Ama-ushum-
gal-anna; (2) Dumuzi of the Grain; (3)
Dumuzi the shepherd; and (4) Damu. He
interprets these as (1) the power in storable
dates; (2) the power in the Grain; (3), the
power in milk; and (4) the sap that rises in
trees and plants. JACOBSEN's concept of a
separate aspect of Dumuzi as particularly
related to Grain was inspired by agricultural
myths of other cultures (in particular the
rites of Ta'üz at Harran in the tenth century
CE), in which the grinding of the grain sym-
bolizes the slaughter of the god of the Grain.
The Mesopotamian evidence does not corro-
borate the assumption of the existence of a
special aspect of Dumuzi connected with
grain. Neither is there any need to see a
special connection between Dumuzi or
Ama-ushumgal-anna and products of the
date-palm (see below). Dumuzi's true nature
was always that of the shepherd, best illus-
trated in the contest between Dumuzi and
Enkimdu, in which Dumuzi competes with
his animal products against Enkimdu, the
farmer, who brings his farm products, in the
competition to win the goddess Inanna's
favours as husband.
A totally different approach was intro-
duced 1954 by FALKENSTEIN, who asserted
that in origin Dumuzi was no god, but a
human being who became deified. This idea
accords with the Sumerian King List iii 14-
20 (early second. millennium BCE), which
lists two rulers named Dumuzi. First,
“Dumuzi, the shepherd”, is said to have
been king of the antediluvian dynasty of
Badtibira, and, second, Dumuzi of Kuara, is
listed as king of Uruk and successor to the
well known legendary rulers Enmerkar and
Lugalbanda, and predecessor of Gilgamesh.
The latter is said to be a Su-pe$, a term
usually translated as “fisherman” (lit. “triple
hand" or "thriving hand"), but the conno-
tation of the term in this place is enig-
matic—Dumuzi is not normally associated
with fishing or hunting. Dumuzi is here
placed in a sequence of rulers, among whom
Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh were deified.
This coincides with information provided by
a historical inscription, according to which
the divine Dumuzi/Ama-ushumgal-anna as
well as Gilgamesh were divine protectors of
Utuhegal of Uruk who defeated the Gutians
(ca. 2300 BcE) Dumuzi as husband of
Inanna exemplifies the pattem of a mortal
ruler who became the husband of a goddess,
like Enmerkar and Inanna, Lugalbanda and
Ninsun. The idea was reflected in the
Sumerian myth ‘Dumuzi’s Dream’, line 206,
where Dumuzi asks the sun god for special
protection with the appeal "I am not a man,
I am the husband of a goddess". A. FAL-
KENSTEIN assumed that the historical person
Dumuzi lived only a short time prior to the
Early Dynastic period. He considered Ama-
ushumgal-anna to be a predecessor to
Dumuzi and the name of an actual ruler of
Badtibira (CRRA 3, 43-44).
829
TAMMUZ
With our present state of knowledge it
must be admitted that there is no way of
reaching back to any historical facts relating
to the alleged existence of a ruler Dumuzi in
the first half of the third millennium BCE,
and that the accuracy of the King List can-
not be trusted for this early period. Neither
is there any evidence that Dumuzi and Ama-
ushumgal-anna were ever two distinct dei-
ties. In later texts the two names interchange
at random. Archaeological evidence for the
alleged even earlier existence of Dumuzi,
such as attempts to interpret the so-called
Uruk vase (ca. 3000 BCE) as a representation
of the sacred marriage rite, in which a high
priest is depicted as Dumuzi encountering
Inanna (-Ishtar) cannot with certainty be
said to belong to this set of ideas.
The name Dumuzi is first attested as a
theophoric element in anthroponyms dating
from the Fara period (ca. 2500 BCE). It does
not appear in the earliest literary texts dating
from the same period, but early forms of the
name Ama-ushumgal-anna do occur, as
Ama-Ushumgal in god lists, and as Ama-
ushum, with the variant Ama-ushum-an,
“Ama-ushum of Heaven”, in a hymn from
Abü Salàbikh (OIP 99:278; duplicated in
Ebla, ARET 5:20.21). In this text the desig-
nation "Enlil's friend" is used of Ama-
ushum (OIP 99:278 III:11). This title recurs
in the mythology of the second millennium
BCE, and, although the precise implication is
unknown, it suggests that specific sets of
associations later related to Dumuzi’s mar-
riage do in fact reach back to the third mil-
lennium BCE.
The name Ama-ushumgal-anna itself has
been variously interpreted. JACOBSEN as-
sumed that in this case an(-na) means
“date”, and saw the name as referring to the
nature of the god as a deity of dates, but an-
na is here doubtless used in its normal
sense, “of heaven”, and there is no need to
see a special connection between this name
and dates. FALKENSTEIN understood the
name as “Die Mutter ist ein (oder der)
(Himmels)drache", and according to him
this was an anthroponym of a type charac-
teristic of the archaic texts from Ur (ca.
2700 sce). In the opinion of the present
writer the name means approximately "The
Lord (is a) Great Dragon of Heaven". ama
is thus used, not in its normal sense,
"mother", but as a unique archaic spelling
convention rendering en, “lord”, whose orig-
inal form was a(n)me(n), cf. the spelling
en-me-uSumeal-an-na in a Seleucid text
published by VAN Duk (UVB 18 [1962] 43-
52). The name recurs in litanies dating from
the Old Babylonian period in enumerations
of early rulers identified with Dumuzi,
whose death was bewailed. A hint at the
true connotation of the name can perhaps be
found in a hymn (Old Babylonian period)
that describes how Dumuzi/Ama-ushumgal-
anna rises like the sunlight over the moun-
tains and is reborn every month like the
moon on the sky (CT 36, 33-34; cf. also CT
58, 14:48-51). The realm of the dead was
generally thought to be the underworld, but
there is some evidence of an alternative
stream of tradition, according to which an
apotheosis in heaven took place. In the
Akkadian myth of Adapa, Dumuzi and
Ningišzida appear as gatekeepers of heaven,
contrary to the prevailing picture according
to which the dead encountered Dumuzi in
the netherworld.
From the Fara period (middle of the third
millennium BCE) through the Old Babylon-
ian period (first half of the second millen-
- nium BCE) only two major temples for
Dumuzi, one in Badtibira and one in Girsu,
are attested. The temple in Badtibira was
built in the pre-Sargonic period (ca. 2400
BCE) by Enmetena of Lagash for Lugal-
Emush, a local name for Dumuzi, and for
the goddess Inanna. The temple is also at-
tested in the Old Babylonian period. The
Girsu temple is well documented in the Ur
III period (ca. 2100 BCE). There is also some
evidence of the cult of Dumuzi in Fara,
Adab, Nippur, and Ur. There may have been
a major cult centre for Dumuzi in Uruk, but
practically no documents pertaining to its
cult have been found. A local form of
Dumuzi in the Lagash area was called
Lugal-Urukar. A deity called Dumuzi-Abzu
in the nearby Kinunirsha apparently became
830
TAMMUZ
confused with Dumuzi, but was in fact a
goddess in origin, and not identical with
Dumuzi. With the exception of a cella in
Assur, no Dumuzi temple later than the Old
Babylonian period is known (cf. KUTSCHER
1990).
In the Ur III period a festival named “the
festival of Dumuzi" was celebrated in
Umma and the nearby Ki-dingir, in the
twelfth month of the loca] calendar, that is,
in spring (March), whereas in Lagash the
Dumuzi festival took place in the sixth
month (late summer). A single reference to
“Dumuzi going to the priest(ess)”, as wel] as
two lists of expenditures for Dumuzi’s wed-
ding gifts have been interpreted as evidence
for the celebration of the sacred marriage
rite in Umma (JACOBSEN 1975:78 n. 6). A
significant feature of the cult was the jour-
ney of the (statue of the) god visiting neigh-
bouring cities. The local Dumuzi of Uruk is
known to have visited Ki-dinger and Apisal.
In the Lagash area, Dumuzi and two other
deities journeyed by boat for three days and
nights to visit local fields and orchards.
The few details known about the early
cult of Dumuzi thus suggest that Dumuzi
was related to the goddess Inanna at a very
early time, and that the cult was usually a
joyous spring festival in which his marriage
with Inanna was celebrated. It is possible
that the other aspect of Dumuzi’s cult, the
wailing over his death, also goes back to the
third millennium BCE, but there is no direct
evidence for this. Official documents per-
taining to wailing rites for Dumuzi are first
attested in Mari (Old Babylonian period),
where a large quantity of grain for female
moumers (ARM 9 no. 175) as well as the
cleansing of the statues of Ishtar and
Dumuzi are attested. The rite took place in
the fourth month. This accords with evi-
dence of the first millennium BCE, according
to which the wailing for Dumuzi took place
in the fourth (or fifth) month, that is, in mid
summer (cf. KUTSCHER 1990:40). It is there-
fore likely that the festival that took place in
Ur II! Lagash in the sixth month of the local
calender (summer) was also one of mourn-
Ing rites, but this cannot be verified. The so-
called Edin-na (ü-sag-gá ritual, hitherto
thought to be a spring ritual of fertility, is
known by.now to have been performed at
the time of the harvest, and was connected
with Dumuzi's disappearance or "seizure", a
term often used for his death (CT 58, 15 no.
21). This does not necessarily mean that
Dumuzi was a vegetation god. His disap-
pearance rather symbolized the time when
the hot season made the dry land completely
barren, and coincided with the seasonal ter-
mination of the milk production of the
sheepfold.
The largest group of literary texts pertain-
ing to Dumuzi are Sumerian compositions
dating from the Isin-Larsa or Old Babylon-
ian periods (ca. 1800-1600 BcE). These form
four groups. (1) Mythological texts, mainly
referring to Dumuzi’s death; (2) Pastoral
poetry and love songs, mainly referring to
Dumuzi’s marriage to Imanna; (3) Er.
shemma compositions, i.e., brief songs
mainly lamenting Dumuzi’s disappearance
and death, with allusions to myths. A few
er-shemma’s are joyous or humorous pas-
toral compositions; (4) Other lamentations,
in particular Old Babylonian forerunners to
the very repetitive so-called balag composi-
tions (liturgical lamentations), of which a
number relate to Dumuzi. These are mainly
known from the first millennium BCE. and
include a large corpus from the Seleucid
period.
A relatively large number of the Sumer-
ian literary compositions relating to Dumuzi
are unique or nearly so, i.e., nò or few
duplicates have been found. Many are docu-
mented ovtside the literary standard reper-
toire of the Sumerian schools of Nippur and
Ur. A relatively large proportion of the texts
is written in the so-called emesal dialect,
mainly spoken by women, and there are
relatively many examples of syllabically
written texts, such as transmit the sound pat-
tern of texts that apparently were sung by
people who no longer understood them
fully. The literature and the cult connected
with Dumuzi obviously developed under
less restraint by official standardization, and
had more popular appeal than that pertaining
831
TAMMUZ
to the cult centres of the major gods. That
the female point of view is strong accords
well with the information given by the
Bible, according to which Dumuzi was
bewailed by women.
The relative instability of the tradition
reflects the local character of the cult, which
in many or most cases was performed with
no relation to a specific temple. Academic
compilation and standardization of the
Dumuzi literature started in the late Old
Babylonian period. In the Jengthy balag
compositions various types of literary tra-
dition were compiled to form an apparent
unity. The first millennium version of the
Edin-na dá-sag-gá ritual is such a literary
compilation, and one cannot rely on it as a
source for the reconstruction of the full
sequence of events of the original ritual. Jt is
in these texts that Dumuzi borrowed features
pertaining to vegetation deities, such as
Damu and Ningishzida. Only in this specific
context was Dumuzi’s death connected with
the disappearing and reviving vegetation.
The bunals of a number of rulers of the Ur
TH and first [sin dynasties are enumerated in
the text. These rulers were apparently
thought to be reincarnations of Dumuzi.
In Sumerian mythology, Dumuzi is the
son of Duttur, the divine mother sheep. His
_Sister, Geshtinanna, is always depicted as
‘faithful and Joyal to the point of self-denial.
His father, Enki, plays no role in this capac-
ity in the texts.
There is evidence that a few rulers of the
Ur III and first Isin dynasties saw them-
selves as performing Dumuzi's role in cele-
brations of the sacred marriage nte with
Inanna. According to a hymn of Iddindagan
of Isin, this rite took place on New Year’s
day in Isin. However, the sacred aspect of
the Sumerian love songs has been rather
overrated. Some of the songs represent ordi-
nary love songs and the wedding ceremonies
of the upper social classes, in which the
human roles of the bride and the bridegroom
are assigned to Inanna and Dumuzi. Reading
such songs as information pertaining direct-
ly to deities may lead to misinterpretation.
The true reference is to human lovers, who,
in this literary environment, were tradition-
ally represented by Inanna and Dumuzi, the
divine pair of young lovers par excellence.
Other love songs clearly belong to the court,
but even a well known love song of king
Shusin is in reality no more than an ordinary
love song, in which the name of the king
could stand for the name of any lover
(ALSTER 1985).
In the sacred wedding ceremonies the
bridegroom was solemnly selected, some-
times during a verbal contest. Then the rhe-
torical question was raised, who was going
to “plough” Inanna’s vulva. The marriage
was consummated when Inanna answered
"the man of my heart", and the audience
confirmed the choice with a song (ALSTER
1992). The sacred marriage rite was a rite
with social implications: ie. its emphasis
was upon marriage relations and sexual pro-
ductivity. The mention of sprouting grain
and flax in such a context 1s a literary com-
monplace that points to the king as respons-
ible for the well-being of the country in a
general sense, rather than to a fertility rite
relating to vegetable life. The performance
of the sacred marriage rite ceased in the Old
Babylonian period, when it started to pro-
voke polemic attitudes. This trend culmi-
nated in the 6th tablet of the Ninevite Gilga-
mesh epic, where Ishtar is blamed for
having instituted annual lamentation for
Dumuzi. In the first millennium BCE the
bewailing of Dumuzi’s death became the
climax of his cult, His joumey tọ the nether-
world became symbolic of exorcistic rituals
aiming at the removal of everything evi.
How the two aspects of Dumuzi’s cult,
his joyous wedding to Inanna, and the
bewailing of his untimely death, came to be
combined in one person, is an interesting
question. That the former tradition came
from Uruk, and the latter from Badtibira (cf.
FALKENSTEIN, CRRA 3:59; T. JACOBSEN,
JNES 12 [1953] 162-163), is not really a
fully-convincing explanation. Throughout
the tradition, Dumuzi’s death is described as
the “seizure” by the gendarmes of the under-
world. According to the Sumerian myth
Inanna’s Descent, Dumuzi was captured by
832
TAMMUZ
gendarmes after Inanna had gone down to
the netherworld, and was obliged to provide
a substitute on her retur to the world of the
living. Dumuzi was chosen because, unlike
two other deities in Inanna’s entourage, he
had sat on her throne and enjoyed himself
with music instead of performing the
mourning rites during her absence. The
myth tells further that Dumuzi's sister,
Geshtinanna, offered herself as a substitute
every half year, so that Dumuzi and his
sister could return one after the other in an
eternal cycle. Dumuzi’s unhappy fate is here
used as a warning to those who did not par-
ticipate in the mourning rites for Inanna.
The theme was resumed later in the so-
called Uruama-irabi-Jaments (Vorx 1989).
. This explanation is to be seen as a later
literary rationalization, and contradicts most
of the literary tradition, according to which
Inanna positively was depicted as innocent
in Dumuzi’s death, participated in the search
for him, and begged Enlil to revive him.
According to a hymn to Inanna-Ninegalla,
the mourning rites took place when Inanna,
as the descending — Venus star, met Dumuzi
in the netherworld.
Another explanation, that Dumuzi, as the
mortal husband of a goddess, had to die in
order to restore the balance between the
divine and the human, should be discarded
as founded on a misinterpretation of a
Sumerian hymn (SRT 31, see SEFATI 1990).
Rather, the origin of this aspect of the
Dumuzi cult seems to be a traditional
mourning rite in which women could have
expressed their sympathy for any young
man who had disappeared or, like Adonis,
died too young to have a family. As was the
case with the love poetry, Dumuzi could be
seen as the prototype of any sympathetic
young man, whose lonely life in the desert
was in fact constantly exposed to dangers.
The mouming rites performed in sympathy
with the deceased were accompanied by
self-demolation of the body, tearing out hair,
etc., but such extremes as self-castration as
the culmination of a wild orgiastic feast, as
known in the cult of Attis, is not attested in
connection with Dumuzi (ALSTER 1983).
The question whether or not Dumuzi rose
from the realms of the dead is perhaps best
answered with the claim that since this was
not celebrated in a cultic festival, it did not
play any significant role in the literature. In
the Akkadian myth Ishtar’s Descent to the
Underworld, it 1s clearly stated that Dumuzi
"came up", but this does not refer to the
resurrection of the god to the realms of the
living. What 1s meant is Dumuzi’s partici-
pation in a ritual, in which the spirits of the
dead were invoked and manifested them-
selves for a short time.
In the Neo-Assyrian period the cult of
Dumuzi culminated with the so-called "dis-
play" (taklimtu) of the dead body of the god,
or perhaps rather of his grave goods (J. A.
ScuRLocx, NABU 1991, 3). The term was
copied in Greek deiktérion, found in a
paryrus listing expenditures for an Adonis
festival (SToL 1988:127).
II. The vision reported in Ezek 8:14 is
followed by another, according to which the
prophet saw men worshipping the sun
(2Shemesh) at the entrance to the temple
itself (Ezek 8:16). These are to be seen as
extremely strong examples of Babylonian
influence on the cult of Israel. There is no
other evidence of the cult of Tammuz in the
OT, but the type of cult may have been
similar to thc cult of -Hadad Rimmon
referred to in Zech 12:11, a god for whom
ritual laments were performed in the plain of
Megiddo, and to the cult of Hemdat nasím
‘the beloved of the women’ (Dan 11:37).
IV. Bibliography
B. ALSTER, Dumuzi’s Dream (Mesopotamia
1; Copenhagen 1972); ALSTER, The Mythol-
ogy of Mourning, ASJ 5 (1983) 1-16;
ALSTER, Sumerian love songs, RA 79 (1985)
127-159; ALSTER, The Manchester Tammuz,
ASJ 14 (1992) 1-46; J. Botréro & S. N.
KRAMER, Lorsque les dieux faisaient
l'homme (Paris 1989); A. FALKENSTEIN,
Tammüz, CRRA 3 (1954) 41-65; W.
FARBER, Beschwórungsrituale an Istar und
Dumuzi. (AKademie der Wissenschaften und
der Literatur; Wiesbaden 1977); O. R.
GURNEY, Tammuz reconsidered: Some
recent developments, JSS 7 (1962) 147-160;
833
TANNIN
T. JACOBSEN, The Sumerian King List (AS
11; Chicago 1939); JACOBSEN, Toward the
image of Tammuz, HR 1 (1961) 189-213,
repr. in: Toward the Image of Tammuz and
other essays on Mesopotamian History and
Culture (ed. W. L. Moran; Cambridge,
Mass. 1970) 73-101; JACOBSEN, Religious
drama in ancient Mesopotamia, Unity and
Diversity (ed. 'H. Goedicke et al.; Baltimore
1975) 65-97; JAcOBSEN, The name Dumuzi,
JQR 76/1 (1985) 41-45; JACOBSEN, The
Harps that once ... Sumerian Poetry in
Translation (New Haven and London 1987)
1-84; S. N. KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage
Rite (London 1969); R. KurscHER, The Cult
of Dumuzi/Tammuz, in: Bar-Han Studies in
Assyriology dedicated to P. Artz (ed. J.
Klein & A. Skaist; Ramat Gan 1990) 29-44;
S. LANGDON, Tammuz and Ishtar (Oxford
1914); Y. SEFATI, An oath of chastity in a
Sumerian love song (SRT 31)?, Bar-Ilan
Studies in Assyriology dedicated to P. Artzi
(ed. J. Klein & A. Skaist; Ramat Gan 1990)
45-63; M. Stor, Greek DEIKTHRION,
Funerary Symbols and Religion. Essays
dedicated to Professor Heerma van Voss
(ed. J. H. Kamstra, H. Milde & K. Wagien-
donk; Kampen 1988) 127-128; K. Vouk,
Die Balag-Komposition Uru Am-ma-ir-ra-bi.
(FAOS 18; Stuttgart. 1989); M. WITZEL,
Tammuz-Liturgien und Verwandtes (AnOr
10; Roma 1935).
B. ALSTER
TANNIN PIN
Y. Tannin occurs in the OT in reference
to a sea monster subdued or slain by
—+Yahweh (whether as a proper name or as
a common noun meaning "sea monster" or
"dragon" is unclear). The term is found also
in the sense of "serpent" and (arguably)
“crocodile”; further, it appears five times in
the plural (tanninim) with the meaning “sea
monsters/dragons” or “snakes”.
The etymology of Tannin is uncertain.
BDB suggests a derivation from TNN-I,
perhaps to be linked with TNH-II ("recount,
rehearse”) as “lament, i.e. howl”, although
this appears to work much better with tan
(“jackal”) than with tannin. HALAT admits
uncertainty in choosing between a primitive
noun and a derivation from a root tnn, also a
possible source for tan, but meaning “to
stretch oneself" (which would be more
clearly connected with animals of the sort
tannin describes, rather than "howl"), as
suggested already by J. First (Hebrdaisches
und Chalddisches Schul-Wórterbuch [Leip-
zig 1842) 637) More recently, AARTUN
(Neue Beitrage zum ugaritschen Lexikon.
(If, UF 17 [1986] 38-39) has revived the
proposal of AISTLEITNER, that Tannin is
derived from a geminate root TNN, “to
smoke, ascension of smoke”, leading to the
Ugaritic “the dragon, (sea)monster, snake
(stretching out/moving forward like
smoke)”. The suggestion of H. Lewy may
be noted in passing, that fannin may have
found its way into Greek as thunnos (“tuna
fish”; Dutch: tonijn) (Semitische Fremd-
wórter im Griechischen [Berlin 1895] 15).
Related to the issue of etymology is the
question of the history of the form, tannin.
A Ugaritic polyglot text writes the word as
tu-un-na-nu = /tunnanu/ or Aunnanu/ (Ugar-
itica V [1968] 137:1:8, pp. 240-241). J.
HUEHNERGARD suggests that “the word is
probably a D verbal adjective in origin, al-
though the etymology remains obscure”
(Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcrip-
tion (HSS 32; Cambridge 1987] 72). The
change in vocalization from Ugaritic tun-
nanu to Hebrew tannín may be according to
the development guttal > gattil known from
Arabic, or it may have happened by analogy
(or even confusion) with tan (“jackal”), as
evidenced by the occurrence of tannin in
Lam 4:3 for tannim (“jackals”) and the
reverse in Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 for "dragon"
(or "crocodile") (so LoEWENSTAMM 1975:
22).
Tannin and cognate forms thereof also
appear in the Qumran scrolls, Jewish and
Epyptian Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic and
Ethiopic, but all are Jate enough not to con-
tribute independently to the foregoing dis-
cussion (and all except the Egyptian Aram-
aic appear to be dependent on the OT [so
HALAT)).
834
TANNIN
II. In addition to the occurrence in the
polyglot syllabary, noted above, tnn is found
eight times in the Ugaritic corpus (R. E.
WHITAKER, A Concordance of the Ugaritic
Literature [Cambridge 1972] 619). Twice it
is apparently part of a personal name (KTU
4.35:13 and 4.103:42). The other occur-
rences are in mythological texts. Three link
Tunnanu with the great sea monster(s) de-
feated by -—Anat (KTU 1.3 iii:40 and 1.
83:8) or, apparently. --Baal (KTU 1.82:1),
while the remaining three are in fragmentary
contexts (KTU 1.16 v:31,32, where tnn is
apparently mentioned in connection with
something created by -*El to assist the
ailing King Keret) or subject to disputed
interpretation (KTU 1.6 vi:51, where J. C. L.
GiBSON would read "In the sea are Arsh and
the dragon” {Canaanite Myths and Legends
(Edinburgh 1977) 81], while K. AARTUN has
"On the day of the kindling and the as-
cension of the smoke" [UF 17 (1986) 38-
39)). As for the monster's appearance, KTU
1.83:8 may suggest that Tunnanu had a
double tail, while the syllabary text indicates
an equation with the ideogram for "snake"
(MUS = séru).
Two issues concerning the Ugaritic evi-
dence have generated some debate. The first
is suggested by the reference to "sea mon-
ster(s)" in the preceding paragraph: are inn,
lin and ym separate monsters or different
names/epithets for the same being? COOPER
(1981:424-425) summarizes the proposed
alternatives, eventually leaning toward
LOEWENSTAMM's suggestion "that at Ugarit,
as in the OT, there are divergent adaptations
of the battle tradition". Secondly, there has
been some philological uncertainty regard-
ing the verb which Anat uses to describe her
subduing Tunnanu (istbin in KTU 1.3 iii:40;
lšbm in KTU 1.83:8). C. Virolleaud's pro-
posal of "muzzle", based on Arabic šabama
has been defended by S. LOEWENSTAMM
and others, but attacked by J. Barr. In
response, LOEWENSTAMM holds out for
some manner of “tie, bind”, but concedes
that “the exact nature of the fettering device
applied defies closer description”.
III. The Biblical references to Tannin can
be considered in four groups (building on
the analysis of Day 1985). First are those
occurrences which link Tannin to creation.
Most obviously this includes Gen 1:21, in
which God creates the tanninim on the fifth
day. Ever since the pionecring work of
GUNKEL (1921), scholarly opinion has com-
monly held that the OT's story of the cre-
ation was constructed in deliberate distinc-
tion from that of Mesopotamia (as represented
by Enuma Elish), in which the creator god
fashions the cosmos from the slain corpse of
a sea monster (Tiamat); by this reading
Israel was saying that the great sea monsters
were merely a part of the created order.
More recently, Day (1985) has proposed
that Israel’s story is set in contradistinction
to a yet-unknown Canaanite creation myth,
to which allusions may be seen in the Ugar-
itic references to the slaying of the sea mon-
ster(s) by Anat or Baal. Whatever the cul-
tural foil, it is clear that the OT's reference
in this instance is not to any cosmic, mytho-
logical enemy. (Similarly, Ps 148:7 calls
upon the ftanninim, as part of the created
order, to join in the praise of Yahweh.)
With other references to Tannin in the
context of creation it is not so easy to deter-
mine whether we have to do with a mythical
being or demythologized symbol (again,
regardless of whether one reads Tannin as
proper name or as common noun). Thus,
both Job 7:12 and Ps 74:13 refer to Tannin
(or its plural in the latter verse) together
with (or perhaps in apposition to) the Sea
and/or -*Leviathan, as those whom God
once subdued and now keeps in check (Job)
or slew in the course of creation (Ps 74).
A second group of references reflects a
linkage with some historical enemy of
Israel, especially Egypt. Thus, while Isa 51:
9 might be categorized with the first group
(linking Tannin with creation), were it taken
out of context, the primary reference is
shown by the following verse to be the de-
liverance at the Red Sea. (To say this is, of
course, not to deny a secondary allusion to
creation or Yahweh's victory over primor-
dial chaos, however conceptualized.)
Three other references are unquestionably
835
TARTAK
to historical figures. Twice in his oracles
against Egypt, Ezekiel addresses the pharaoh
as Tannin (reading tannin for MT tannim
with Gunkel and most subsequent commen-
tators): 29:3 and 32:2. What has been de-
bated in these verses is whether the prophet
has in mind the supernatural sea monster/
dragon of other references to Tannin (so
GUNKEL 1921:71-77) or a natural (or super-
natural) crocodile, as G. FonmEn and others
argue, citing the presence of the crocodiles
in the Nile, the simile of the pharaoh as
“like a crocodile” in a hymn of Thutmoses
HI, and the alleged depiction of Leviathan
as a crocodile in Job 40:25-41:26 (ET 41:1-
34) (Ezekiel (HAT; Tübingen 1955] 166).
Thirdly, Jeremiah compares Nebuchadnezzar
of Babylon to Tannin, in having “swallowed
me [Zion] like the tannin” (51:34). Finally,
we may note GUNKEL’s proposal of yet
another confusion in the MT of tannim
(‘jackals’) for tannin: Ps 44:20 (1921:70-
71). If he is correct, the reference is presum-
ably to some historical oppressor nation;
Day proposes Babylon, Egypt and Assyria
as candidates (1985:113).
A third category of references to Tannin
is represented by Isa 27:1: Tannin as the
eschatological enemy of God, to be slain “on
that day”. As in Isa 51:9 (where Tannin is
- juxtaposed with Rahab), this verse places the
monster/dragon in parallel with Leviathan, so
that one cannot be entirely sure how many
figures are involved. Of greater moment is
the attempt by O. EISSFELDT (Baal Zaphon,
Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israe-
liten durch das Meer [Halle 1932] 29-30) to
see in this verse an eschatological extension
of those passages which contained thinly
veiled references to historical figures as
monsters: in the case in point he sees Tan-
nin as Egypt and Leviathan as Syria. As is
so often true with apocalyptic (or proto-apoca-
lyptic) writing, it is difficult to be certain
about historical referents (if any); what
seems far more sure is that Leviathan/Tannin
in this passage (along with the serpent of
Genesis 3 and the fourth beast of Daniel 7)
supplied much of the background for the
great dragon of Revelation 12-13 in the NT.
Fourthly, there are passages in which zan-
nin(im) appears to refer to natura] serpents:
Exod 7:9-10.12; Deut 32:33; Ps 91:13. Even
here, however, at least jn the instance of the
occurrences in Exodus and Psalms, WAKE-
MAN would see mythical overtones (1973:
77-79).
Finally, there is one passage which is
difficult to place in the above schema: a
place name for a spring near Jerusalem in
Neh 2:13, ‘én hattannin.
What emerges from a review of the OT
references is the portrait of a sea monster
(or dragon) who served in various texts as a
personification of chaos or those evil, his-
torical forces opposed to Yahweh and his
people. While the Tannin of the OT shares
much in common with Tunnanu, as known
from a handful of Ugaritic texts, we simply
cannot be certain to what extent most uses
of the Biblica) term points to a demythol-
ogized symbol versus a "living myth". Cer-
tainly, as DAY suggests in his helpful discus-
sion (1985:187-189), "even for some of those
for whom it was living [myth] Israelite
monotheism had transformed it out of all
recognition.”
IV. Bibliography
A. Cooprr, Divine Names and Epithets in
the Uparitic Texts, RSP 3:425-428 (& lit];
*Y.. DAy, God's Conflict with the Dragon
and the Sea (Cambridge Oriental Publica-
tions 35; Cambridge 1985) [& lit; H.
GUNKEL, Schépfung und Chaos in Ureeit
und Endzeit (Göttingen 1921); S. LOEWEN-
STAMM, Anat's Victory over the Tunnanu,
JSS 20 (1975) 27; M. K. WAXEMAN, God's
Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical
Imagery (Leiden 1973).
G. C. HEIDER
TARTAK pmm
I. Tartak is one of two gods (the other
—Nibhaz) worshipped by the Avvites whom
the Assyrians settled in Samaria, some time
after the city’s fall (2 Kgs 17:24.31). A god
by this name is unknown in extra-biblical
sources. In addition, the location of Avva 18
uncertain.
836
TEHOM — TEN SEPHIROT
II. Two identifications of Tartak, both
problematic, have been suggested. The first
associates the Avvites with Elam. Avva is
taken to be identical with the town Ama on
the Uqnu River on the Babylonian-Elamite
border, occupied by Aramean tribes (ZADOK
1976:120, BECKING 1992:98). The transfer
of Avvites to Samaria might have occurred
as early as the days of Sargon who fought
and captured Ama in 710 BCE; or as late as
Ashurbanipal, who defeated the Elamites in
that same area in 646 BCE; compare the
claim made by some of the Samanans,
including those from Susa, of their arrival in
Samaria during Ashurbanipal's reign (Ezra
4:9-10). In this case, Tartak would then be
an Elamite deity. His name was found in the
God list CT 25,24, where the Elamite gods
dibnahaza and SDakdadra seem to reflect
the Biblical pair, Nibhaz and Tartak men-
tioned in 2 Kgs 17:31 (HOMMEL 1912); the
transposed form of the name 9Dakdadra was
read in the Naram-Sin treaty as 9Dirtak
(HOMMEL 1926), which seemed even closer
to the Hebrew transcription. But, though the
name 4Dirtak is now apparently to be read
WSiagum (dir = si + a; tak = Sum; cf. HINZ
1967:74), the Elamite provenance of the god
is still favoured by some (e.g. DRIVER 1958:
19*).
A second possibility is the identification
of Tartak with -*Atargatis. If the town Avva
is associated with the town of Hamath in
northern Syria (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24), then the
settlers in Samaria might have been Aram-
eans; several sites in the region of Hamath
are suggested for the town's location (cf.
MONTGOMERY & GEHMAN 1951:472; GRAY
1970:651). The god name Tartak is taken to
refer, then, to the Syrian fertility goddess,
known from Greek texts as ‘Atargate/
—'Atargatis; the Hebrew form trtq derives
from a dissimilated and metathesized form
of an Aramaic original (cf. SANDA 1912:2.
230-231; MONTGOMERY 1914:78; Mont-
GOMERY & GEHMAN 1951:474; Gray 1970:
654), attested on coins and inscriptions as
‘trtwh; tr (RONZEVALLE 1940:28-42).
Besides these difficult linguistic transpo-
sitions, the supposed attestation of Atargatis
among the Samarians would make this the
earliest evidence for worship of the goddess,
preceding the classical references by many
centuries.
Given the chronological and geographical
considerations surveyed, there is nothing to
recommend taking ‘the way (drk) of Beer-
sheba’ (Amos 8:14) as a ‘garbled reference’
to Tartak (Fulco, ABD 1.487).
III. Bibliography
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria (SHANE
2; Leiden 1992); G. R. Driver, Geographi-
cal Problems, Archaeological, Historical
and Geographical Studies dedicated to Pro-
fessor Benjamin Mazar on his Fiftieth Birth-
day (Erlsr 5; 1958) 16*-20*; J. GRAY, / & Il
Kings (2nd ed.; Philadelphia 1970); W.
HiNZ, Elams Vertrag mit Narám-Sin von
Akade, ZA 58 (1967) 66-96; F. HOMMEL,
Die Gotter Nibhaz und Tanak. 2 Kon.
17.31, OLZ 15 (1912) 118; HomMeEL, Die
Elamitische Gótter-Siebenheit in CT 25,24,
Paul Haupt Anniversary Volume (Baltimore
& Leipzig 1926) 159-168; J. A. Mont-
GOMERY, Tartak, JBL 33 (1914) 78; J. A.
MONTGOMERY & H. S. GEHMAN, The Books
of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh 1951); S. RoNzrE-
VALLE, Les monnaies de la dynastie de
*Abd-Hadad et les cultes de Hierapolis-
Bambycé, Mélanges de l'Université Saint
Joseph Beyrouth 23 (1940) 28-42; A. SANDA,
Die Bücher der Kónige (Münster 1912); R.
ZADOK, Geographical and Onomastic Notes,
JANES 8 (1976) 113-126.
M. CoGAN
TEHOM -* TIAMAT
TEN SEPHIROT Mwao “On
I. The term ‘ten sephirot' first appears
in Sepher Yetzirah (Book of Creation), a
third or fourth century CE cosmological and
cosmogonic treatise, where it refers to the
ten primordial numbers or utterances by
God on which creation is based (cf. Gen
1:1-2:3). In later Kabbalistic literature
beginning in the late twelfth and thirteenth
centuries (e.g., Sepher ha-Bahir [Book of
Brilliance]; Sepher ha-Zohar [Book of
837
TEN SEPHIROT
Splendour]), the term refers to the ten ema-
nations or abstract qualities of God by
which the infinite God is known and mani-
fested in the finite world. An attempt has
been made to trace the Ten Sephirot to Mes-
opotamian literature based upon the analogy
of the Assyrian sacred tree and the Sefirotic
tree of Kabbalistic literature (PARPOLA
1993).
II. The term ‘eSer sépirét does not appe-
ar in biblical Hebrew at all. The noun sépird
(plural, sépirét) is derived from the Hebrew
verb root SPR, ‘to count, recount, relate’, but
it first appears only in Rabbinic Hebrew
where it refers generally to ‘counting’, ‘wri-
ting’, or ‘recording’. The root SPR stands as
the basis of the nouns séper, ‘book’, sdper,
‘scribe’, sépar, ‘census’, mispar, ‘number,
recounting, tale’, and sépéra, ‘number’, in
biblical Hebrew. In Piel conjugations, the
root can mean ‘to report’ (Gen 24:66; Num
13:27) or ‘to make known, announce’, espe-
cially in reference to qualities or acts of God
(Exod 9:16; Isa 43:21; Ps 19:2; 96:3; 145:6),
which may facilitate the later usage of the
root in relation to the qualities or emana-
tions of God. The root is attested in Akka-
dian as the verb Saparu, ‘to send, write’, and
in Ethiopic, ‘to measure’; Syriac and Arabic,
‘to relate, write’; and Old South Arabic
where sfrt means ‘measurement’. The noun
sépira in Rabbinic literature is commonly
employed as a technical term for the fifty-
day period of the ‘counting of the Omer
(Barley sheaf)’ from the festival of Pesah
(Passover) until the festival of Shavuot
(Weeks, Pentecost; cf. Lev 23:15-16). It
relates assonantally to sappir, ‘sapphire’,
which would compare the radiance of God
to sapphire, and to the Greek sphaira, ‘sphe-
re’, which would compare the emanations of
God to the elemental spheres of the universe
in Greck thought.
III. The concept of the Ten Sephirot
developed in the context of the esoteric
Jewish mystical tradition from the period of
late antiquity through the Middle Ages and
beyond. Ancient Jewish mysticism includes
two basic components: ma‘afeh merkabé,
‘the work of the chariot’, which relates
visionary experiences of God after the
model of Ezekiel 1: and ma‘Gfeh bére^tit,
‘the work of creation’, which focuses on
understanding the principles of creation as
articulated in Genesis 1:1-2:3. According to
the Mishnah (mHagigah 2:1), anyone who
undertakes such study and practice must be
fully righteous and knowledgeable in Jewish
tradition. Figures such as Rabbi Akiba,
Moses, or Abraham are frequently identified
as those qualified to undertake such study.
Sepher Yetzirah is the first book in which
the term Ten Sephirot appears. It is an ex-
ample of ma‘“afeh bére°sit, or ‘the work of
creation’, from the early Rabbinic period
(3rd-4th centuries CE), which attempts to
probe the text of Genesis 1:1-2:3 in order to
elucidate the principles by which God cre-
ated the universe. Sepher Yetzirah focuses
on speech as the fundamental creative force
in the universe, and ascribes such creative
power both to God and to human beings.
Talmudic tradition indicates that Sepher
Yetzirah could be used by the righteous to
create human beings and other creatures
(bSanhedrin 65b). The book begins by iden-
tifying ‘the thirty-two wonderful paths of
wisdom’ by which God created the universe,
including the ten sephirot and the twenty-
two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The
twenty-two letters of the alphabet comprise
the basic components of words, and words
comprise the basic components of speech in
general. The ten sephirot correspond to the
ten utterances by God that appear in Genesis
1:1-2:3 by which creation is accomplished
(Gen 1:3a. 6a. 9a. 11a. 14-15a. 20. 24a. 26.
28. 29; i.e., every instance in which, ‘and
God said’, introduces a statement; cf. mAbot
5:1 which states that the world was created
by ten utterances and bMenahot 29b which
states that it was created by the letters of the
alphabet). They are labelled ‘eser sépîrôt
bélimá, ‘the ten intangible sephirot',
employing the uncertain term bélimd, ‘no-
thingness', from Job 26:7. The name “/hym,
‘God’, appears thirty-two times in Gen 1:1-
2:3.
Sepher Yetzirah employs a pun on the
root spr to relate these thirty-two paths of
838
TEN SEPHIROT
wisdom to the principal dimensions of the
universe, by ‘border/fboundary’ (bésapeér),
‘letter’ (wéseper), and *number' (wésippür),
i.e., the universe is created by a combination
of physical and moral boundaries, letters
which comprise words, and numbers which
establish measurements. It points to the
manifestation of the ten sephirot in the ten
fingers and ten toes of the human body in
order to distinguish between the creative
power of speech (mill, *word') and sexuali-
ty (mild, ‘circumcised penis’). Whereas God
creates through speech, human beings create
through sexual reproduction. Humans must
leam. to master speech and the ten sephirot
in order to attain the creative power of God.
The book outlines two hundred and thirty-
one possible combinations of twenty-two
Hebrew letters as a basis for understanding
the production of all words.
Sepher Yetzirah identifies the ten sephirot
with the principle dimensions or boundaries
of the universe: first and last (temporal
boundaries); good and evil (moral bounda-
ries); and height and depth, east and west,
north and south (physical boundaries). It
divides the alphabet into three principle
categories: the three mothers (Aleph, Shin,
Mem); the seven doubles (Beth, Gimmel,
Daleth, Kaph, Pe, Taw, Resh); and the twel-
ve simple letters (He, Waw, Zayin, Heth,
Teth, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samekh, Ayin,
Tzade, Qoph) in order to demonstrate how
the letters can be combined with the ten se-
phirot in order to produce the various dimen-
sions of creation. The ‘three mothers’ repre-
sent the fundamental elements of atr, water,
and fire, the basic sounds of speech (aspira-
ted ‘ah’, sibilant hissing, and labial ‘mmm’),
the structure of the universe (heaven/fire,
air, and water/earth), and the major dimen-
Sions of space, time, and morality. When
combined with the seven double letters, the
‘mothers’ and the sephirot produce the
seven planets, the seven days of the week,
and the seven orifices in the human body.
When combined with the twelve simple let-
ters, they produce the twelve constellations,
the twelve months of the year, and the twel-
ve organs of the human body. Each letter of
the alphabet is ‘tied with a crown’ to speci-
fic phenomena, i.e, a planet, a month, an
orifice, an organ, etc., and their combina-
tions are used to illustrate exponential multi-
plication. At the end of the book, Abraham
is identified as one who understood these
principles as indicated by Gen 12:5, ‘the
souls they made at Haran’, and thereby
received his covenant with God.
The ten sephirot appear once again in the
Sepher ha-Bahir, ‘the Book of Brilliance’,
one of the earliest works of kabbalistic lite-
rature. The book was written in the late
twelfth century CE in Provence, northern
Spain, or southern France. [t is heavily
dependent upon the writings of the mid-
twelfth century philosopher Abraham bar
Hayya of Barcelona, Sepher Yetzirah, the
now lost Sepher Raza Rabba (fragments of
which are preserved in the writings of the
twelfth-thirteenth century Hasidei Ashkenaz
of the Rhineland), and unknown Gnostic
sources that probably came from the east as
a result of the Crusades. The book draws its
name from Job 37:21, ‘and now, they have
not seen light, bright (bahir) it is in the
clouds’. It is written in midrashic form and
ascribed to the Tannaitic sage Nehuniah ben
ha-Qanah, who appears only sporadically in
the Mishnah but who is the principal figure
in the mystic circle presented in the Heikha-
lot Rabbati. Other figures include the fic-
tional Rabbi Amora or Amorai and Rabbi
Rebumai or Rabmai.
Sepher ha-Bahir presents the first syste-
matic arrangement and detailed discussion
of the ten sephirot as qualities or emanations
of God. The discussion begins in the latter
part of the work with the question, ‘what are
these ten utterances?’ (cf. Gen 1:1-2:3;
mAbot 5:1). It then describes the ten sephi-
rot in varying degrees of detail. Fundamen-
tal to the discussion is the view that the
world is basically dualistic, i.e., it is divided
into masculine and feminine components
that must interact with each other. It also
employs the symbol of the tree (cf. esp. Isa
11; Ezek 47) that grows upside down with
its roots in the heavens and its uppermost
branches or ‘fullness’ and ‘glory’ in the
839
TEN SEPHIROT
earth. The roots and branches of the tree are
all intertwined and connected as the divine
essence ‘flows’ through ‘channels’ from one
sephirah to another.
The first three sephirot are distinguished
from the ‘lower’ seven, because creation
was accomplished by ten utterances but it
was manifested in seven days. The first
three are therefore hidden, and comprise
aspects of God’s thought and the means by
which human beings might ‘hear’ God (cf.
Hab 3:2). The first sephirah is identified as
Keter Elyon, ‘the supreme crown’, which
suggests that the author of Sepher ha-Bahir
understood the divine essence of the ‘spirit
of the living God’ from Sepher Yetzirah to
be embodied in the imagery of the crowns
used to describe the manifestations of the
sephirot. Keter Elyon therefore expresses the
primordial divine idea or pure thought from
which all creation proceeds. The second
sephirah is Hokhmah, -'wisdom', which
God created at the very outset according to
Prov 8:22. Wisdom is identified with both
the primordial ^ Torah and water in aggadic
tradition, so that Hokhmah becomés both
Torah and the source from which the sephi-
rotic tree is watered. The third sephirah,
Binah, ‘understanding’, is identified as ‘the
root of the tree’ and ‘the mother of the
‘world’; 3.e.; the’ source of the seven ‘iower’
sephirot. Binah also symbolizes the ‘world
to come’.
The seven lower sephirot are treated
separately from the three initial sephirot, and
they are generally considered as equals
among themselves. Various images are
applied to them, such as the seven voices of
God in Psalm 29, the seven days of the
week, the seven gardens of the king, and
most importantly the seven holy forms of
God by which God created human beings in
the divine image. Apparently drawing on
concepts from the earlier Shi‘ur Qomah,
which measures the ‘body’ of God or the
Shekhinah (presence of God), they are
equated with the seven limbs of the terres-
trial and primordial human being, ‘What are
the seven of which it is said (Gen 1:27): ‘He
said to him: we count as one the circumci-
sion and the wife of a man; his two hands-
three; and his torso-five; his two Jegs-seven,
and to them correspond the powers in
heaven’. (Bahir, sec. 55). The powers in
heaven are the heavenly archetypes, such as
the six directions of space with the Temple
in the center, from which the heavenly
world draws sustenance. Sepher ha-Bahir
tends to treat sephirot 4-6 as a trio 1n which
the first two are balanced by the third. Thus,
4 and 5 are identified as God's night and left
hands respectively, and 6 is the “Throne of
Glory’. Alternatively, 4 and 5 are identified
as hesed, ‘grace’ (a quality of Abraham) and
din, ‘judgment’, or pahad, ‘fear’ (a quality
of Isaac), and balanced by "emet, ‘truth’ (a
quality of Jacob). They are later identified
with the angels —Michael and -Gabriel
(sephirah 5 is called gébiird, ‘power’, at this
point) with Uriel as the balance. The distinc-
tive identities of the last sephirot are not
entirely clear, although they are influenced
by sexual imagery. Sephirah 7 is commonly
symbolized by nghteousness, the foundation
of the world and the soul, the Sabbath, and
the phallus. It is identified in section 104 as
‘the east of the world’, a designation for the
source of semen (cf. Isa 43:5, ‘I will bring
your seed from the east, J wil) gather you
from of the west"). Sephirah 8 seems to be
identified with the feminine principles of the
Shabbat and the Shekhinah 1n the west (cf.
bBaba Batra 25a, ‘the Shekhinah is in the
west’), although it is sometimes equated
with Sephirah 7 perhaps based on the notion
that male and female become ‘one flesh’
(Gen 2:24). Sephirah 9 and 10 are someti-
mes identified as the two wheels of the divi-
ne chariot or the two legs of the human
being. Alternatively, Sephirah 9 is equated
with 7 as the phallus, and Sephirah 10 is
equated with the feminine Shekhinah. Their
union completes the sephirot and manifests
the presence of God in the community of
Israel.
The classical understanding of the ten
sephirot appears in the Sepher ha-Zohar
(Book of Splendour), which includes a mys-
tic commentary on the Torah and several
other treatises ascribed to the second century
840
TEN SEPHIROT
Tannaitic Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. Accor-
ding to Talmudic tradition, Shimon bar
Yohai was forced to hide together with his
son during the Roman persecutions at the
time of the Bar Kochba revolt. They are said
to have hidden in a cave for thirteen years,
subsisting on the fruit of a carob tree, as
Shimon revealed the secrets of heaven to his
son (bShabbat 33b). In fact, the Zohar was
written largely by a Castillian kabbalist,
Moses ben Shem Tob de Leon, in the late
thirteenth century, and quickly established
itself as the primary expression of kabbalis-
tic thought.
The Zohar generally employs symbols
and images, c.g. lights, colours, levels,
roots, garments of the King, crowns of the
King, ctc., to convey its understanding of
the sephirot. Nevertheless, it presupposes a
much more highly developed and systemati-
zed understanding of the ten sephirot than
Sepher ha-Bahir. Again, it employs the
image of the sephirotic tree growing upside
down or the primordial human being (Adam
Qadmon). Human beings are created in the
image of God (Gen 1:27), and the ten sephi-
rot function together as the divine original
of God’s image to produce the human soul.
Building upon the organization of the Bahir,
the sephirot in the Zohar are grouped in
three triads, each of which employs two
opposite characteristics that are generated or
balanced by a third. In this manner, the
Zohar conveys the relativity of the ideal
divine emanations in human experience. The
three triads embody the mental, moral, and
material dimensions of God, the human
being, and creation at large.
The three mental sephirot are identified
with the head of Adam Qadmon. They begin
with the Ein Sof, ‘the infinite’, which is
equivalent to the Keter Elyon, ‘Supreme
Crown’. This expresses the infinite nature of
God as the source of pure thought and
being. It is also designated as Razon, ‘Will’,
and Ayin, ‘Nothingness’, to express its
simultaneous simplicity and complexity as
all is united in the one. Ein Sof gives rise to
the complementary Hokhmah, ‘Wisdom’,
and Binah, ‘Understanding’. Hokhmah is
also called the ‘Beginning’ (ré°5ir, cf. Gen
1:1; Prov 8:22) and provides the plan or
conception of all being. Binah is the Divine
Mother who gives birth to the seven lower
sephirot and thereby tums the conception of
Hokhmah into earthly reality.
The moral aspects of the sephirotic sys-
tem are expressed through the two opposite
sephirot, Hesed, ‘Love’, and Din, ‘Judg-
ment’, which are identified respectively with
the right and left hands of Adam Qadmon.
Hesed, also known as Gedullah, ‘Greatness’,
expresses the absolute capacity to reward or
to give without restriction (cf. 1 Chr 29:11
for the names of sephirot 4-8). Din, also
known as Gevurah, ‘Power’, expresses the
absolute capacity to take, limit, or punish.
Neither can function alone as they can only
be understood in relation to each other. Con-
sequently, Tip’eret, ‘Beauty’, constitutes the
balance between them in order to hold their
potentially disruptive power in check.
Tip'eret is also known as Rahamim, ‘Mercy,
Compassion', and is identified with thc
torso of Adam Qadmon.
The material sephirot once again employ
two opposites balanced by a third. Nezab,
"Endurance', constitutes the male principle
of physical reality, and Hod, ‘Majesty’, con-
stitutes the feminine principle. The two form
the right and left legs of Adam Qadmon
respectively. Nezah expresses dynamism or
change in the material world, whereas Hod
expresses constancy. Again, neither can
exist independently as each can only be
understood in relation to its opposite. Yesod,
‘Foundation’, therefore constitutes the
balance between them. Yesod, a develop-
ment from the Bahir’s seventh sephirah,
represents the phallus as the procreative
force of the world. Yesod is also called
‘Righteous’ (cf. Prov 10:25, ‘the righteous is
the foundation of the world’).
When the first nine sephirot are balanced
and function harmoniously, Tip’eret unites
with Shekhinah through Yesod as an expres-
sion of cosmic (and human) marriage. She-
khinah, ‘the Presence of God’, is the tenth
sephirah. It is also known as Malkuth,
‘Kingdom’, and it is identified with Keneset
84]
TEN SEPHIROT
Yisrael, ‘the community of Israel’, Through
knowledge and practice, human beings
experience the reality of Shekhinah, which
embodies the other sephirot, within themsel-
ves. Subsequent traditions in Jewish mysti-
cism, such as Lurianic Kabbalah and the
Hasidic movement, further develop and
apply the sephirotic system of the Zohar.
IV. Scholars have long recognized very
clear parallels between Jewish mysucism
and various aspects of Gnosticism, Neo-Pla-
tonic thought, and Neo-Aristotelian thought.
It is also clear that various aspects in Jewish
mysticism draw upon motifs from ancient
Near Eastern cultures, e.g., the analogies
between the seven heavenly palaces of the
Merkavah mystic’s ascent and the seven
Jevels of heaven in Mesopotamian cosmolo-
gy, the angels who guard each of the palaces
and the gods who guard the Jevels of
heaven, the mutual interests in astronomy
and numerology, and the emphasis on the
creative aspects of speech in Kabbalah and
in Egyptian cosmogonic texts.
Recent discussion of the relationship
between Jewish mysticism and ancient Near
Eastern tradition focuses on the potential
analogy between the sephirotic tree of Kab-
balah and the Mesopotamian sacred tree. In
Assyrian iconography, the Mesopotamian
tree represents the divine world order, and
the figure of the king frequently stands in
place of the tree to represent the realization
of the divine order in humanity. The king
therefore maintains divine world order and
must be recognized as the ideal or perfect
man in the cosmos. Insofar as the sephirotic
tree likewise represents the ideal divine
world order that is manifested in the human
being, PARPOLA (1993) suggests that the
sephirotic tree finds its antecedents in the
Mesopotamian tree. Both trees share a simi-
lar structure, with a trunk in the middle that
balances paired branches to the right and
left.
There is no known model of the Mesopo-
tamian tree that correlates divine powers and
numbers in a manner analogous to that of
the sephirotic tree. Nevertheless, Parpola
argues that it is possible to reconstruct such
a model by employing the names, powers,
and mystic numbers of the Assyrian gods in
place of the ten sephirot. He makes the fol-
lowing equations between Mesopotamian
gods and the sephirot: ~Anu (1), the chief
sky god with Keter Elyon; Ea (60), the god
of wisdom, with Hokhmah; —Sin (30), the
. moon god attributed with wise counsel, with
Binah; —Marduk (50; or Enlil), the ruling
god of Babylon, with Hesed (understood as
‘Mercy’); Shamash (20), the moon god of
justice, with Din; —Ishtar (15), the goddess
of love and war, with Tip'eret; ^Nabu (40;
or Ninurta), the god of victory, with Nezah;
-*Adad (10; or Gira or Nusku), the god of
storm, with Hod; —Nergal (14), the god of
the underworld, with Yesod; and the Assy-
nan king, who stands as the link between
the divine and human realms, with Malkuth.
Mummu (0), the god of consciousness, is
equated with the enigmatic additional seph-
irah Da^at (Knowledge), which first appears
following Hokhmah and Binah in some thir-
teenth century texts, but only reaches its full
potential in later movements, such as Luba-
vitcher Hasidism where Hokhmah, Binab,
and Da‘at (HaBaD) together symbolize the
intellectual side of Hasidic spirituality.
Parpola notes that when the gods are
arranged in the sequence of the sephirotic
trce, with Anu (1), Mummun (0), Ishtar (15),
and Nergal (14) as the trunk; Sin (30), Sha-
mash (20), and Adad (10) as the left bran-
ches, and Ea (60), Marduk (50), and Nabu
(40) as the right branches, a remarkable
mathematical symmetry results. The mystic
numbers of -the gods assigned to the trunk
total thirty, the median number of the sexa-
gesimal system. This would suggest balance
or equilibrium at the center of the system,
much like that of the sephirotic tree. When
the mystic numbers of the gods assigned to
the left branches are subtracted from those
of the right, they likewise yield thirty. When
all the mystic numbers of al] of the gods are
combined, they yield three hundred and
sixty, the number of days in the Assyrian
cultic year and the circumference of the uni-
verse expressed in degrees.
Parpola’s proposal is tantalizing, but there
842
TERAH
are problems that remain unresolved. The
assignment of mystic numbers to the Meso-
potamian gods and goddesses is not well
understood, and varies considerably in the
tradition. Ea, for example, has three num-
bers: 40, 50, and 60; Shamash has two num-
bers: 10 and 20. Similar variations appear
for the other gods as well. The storm god
Adad hardly equates wath the serene Hod in
the sephirotic system, although héd is used
to describe YHWH’s majesty in fire and
storm in Isa 30:30. Fundamentally, the
absence of clear attestation in Mesopota-
mian literature of such a tree equated with
the deities and their numbers renders this
hypothesis speculative at best.
V. Bibliography
D. R. BLUMENTHAL, Understanding Jewish
Mysticism: a Source Reader. The Merkabah
Tradition and the Zoharic Tradition (New
York 1978); J. Dan, The Early Kabbalah
(New York 1986); I. GRUENWALD, A Preli-
minary Critical Edition of Sefer Yezira,
Israel Oriental Studies 1 (1971) 132-177;
M. IDEL, Kabbalah: New Perspectives
(New Haven 1988); A. LIVINGSTONE, Mys-
tical and Mythological Explanatory Works
of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars
(Oxford 1986); R. MARGALIOT, ed., ‘Or ha-
Ganuz (Jerusalem 1951; edition of Sepher
ha-Bahir);. MarGarioT, -ed., Sefer ha-Zohar
(3 vols.; Jerusalem 1964), D. C. MATT,
Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment (New
York 1983); S. PARPOLA, The Assyrian Tree
of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish
Monotheism and Greek Philosophy, JNES
52 (1993) 161-208; G. ScHoLeM, Kabbalah
(New York 1978; a collection of Scholem’s
articles from the Encyclopaedia Judaica);
SCHOLEM, Major Trends in Jewish Mysti-
cism (New York 1961); SCHOLEM, Ursprung
und Anfünge der Kabbala (Berlin 1962; ET:
Origins of the Kabbalah [Philadelphia and
Princeton. 1987]; ScHOLEM, trans, Das
Buch Bahir (Leipzig 1923); H. SPERLING &
M. Simon, trans., The Zohar (London 1931-
34); K. STENRING, trans., The Book of For-
mation: Sepher Yetzirah (New York 1970).
M. A. SWEENEY
TERAH MN
I Jn biblical tradition, Ferah is the son
of Nahor and the father of Abram, Nahor,
and Haran (Gen 11:24-27). Originally from
Ur, where he worshipped gods other than
Yahweh (Josh 24:2), Terah died in Haran
where he had settled after his migration
from Ur (Gen 11:31-32). Attempts have
been made to connect Terah with a deity
Trh supposedly mentioned in Ugaritic texts,
and with the moon-god Teri or Ilteri; such
identifications have now by and large been
abandoned.
II. Soon after the discovery of the alpha-
betic texts of Ras Shamra, the figure of
Terah was connected with a god whose
name was read itrh or trh (C. VIROLLEAUD,
La naissance des dieux gracieux et beaux,
Syria 14 [1933] 149 and n. 1). Virolleaud's
suggestion was accepted by a fair number of
scholars (e.g. LEwy 1934; R. DUSSAUD, Les
découvertes de Ras Shamra et l'Ancien Tes-
lament [Pans 1937} 81), until GORDON
showed that itrh and trh were not personal
names but finite forms of the verb trh, ‘to
pay the marriage price’ (1938; see also
ALBRIGHT 1938).
To be distinguished from the association
with the phantom deity trà 15 the hypothesis
of a connection between Terah and the
‘moon-god Ten or Ilteri; this Aramaic god is
known from theophoric personal names
from the Persian period (B. LANDSBERGER
& T. Bauer, Zu neuveróffentlichten
Geschichtsquellen der Zeit von Assarhaddon
bis Nabonid, ZA 37 [1927] 92 n. 4). He is
once mentioned in the Verse Account of
Nabonidus (Col. v 11) as the god who
grants nightly visions (for the text see S.
SmitH, Babylonian Historical Texts [London
1924] 27-97) Considering Nabonidus’
devotion to the moon-god one would expect
Ilteri to be a lunar deity; this he is indeed, as
his name goes back to a combination of il +
*Sahr > *Iltahri > Ilteri (R. ZADOK, On
West Semites in Babylonian During the
Chaldean | and | Achaemenian | Periods
[Jerusalem 1977] 42). (On Sahar as the
Aramaic equivalent of Babylonian Sin see
H. DonnER & W. ROLLIG, KAI IT [1964]
211 ad no. 202B 24).
843
TERAPHIM
IIX. For various reasons, attempts to find
a Semitic god behind the figure of Terah are
not much in favour today. The various dei-
ties proposed have either vanished on closer
analysis of the texts, or are phonologically
unrelated to Hebrew terah. Teri (or Ilteri)
cannot very well be linked with Terah, as
this would imply a metathesis of the k.
Also, the search for a divine. model for
Terah is to be seen as part of the more
general tendency among biblical scholars at
the end of the 19th and the beginning of the
20th centuries to regard the Israelite
patriarchs (as well as the wives of the
patriarchs) as demythologized gods; Eduard
Meyer, Bemhard Luther, and Julius Lewy
are representative of this tendency. The cur-
rent trend in interpretation is different.
Patriarchal names are more fruitfully related
to the Amorite onomasticon, and the human
nature of their bearers is not in doubt. The
name of Terah is perhaps to be connected
with Akk furdhu, ‘ibex, mountain goat’
(AHW 1372; cf. JoDoN 1938).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Was the Patriarch Terah a
Canaanite Moon-God?, BASOR 71 (1938)
35-40; C. H. GORDON, TRH, TN and NKR in
the Ras Shamra tablets, JBL 57 (1938) 407-
410; J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens et
F Ancien Testament; RHR 110 (1934) 45; P.
JoUON, Trois noms de personnages bibli-
ques à la lumiére des textes d'Ugarit (Ras
Shamra): nan, DDW, DNN, Bibl 19 (1938)
280-281.
K. VAN DER TOORN
TERAPHM vann
I. The word tërāpîm is found 15 times
in the Hebrew Bible, occurring only in the
plural even when it denotes one image (1
Sam 19:13, 16; cf. À. R. JonNsow, The
Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel [Cardiff
1962] 32 n. 3, who suggests that some
forms of the plural may be occurrences of
the singular with mimation). For the most
part the Septuagint translators chose to
simply transliterate the term, yet on occasion
they associated it with idols (eiddlon;
—Gillulim) or a carved image (glyptos).
There is even some attempt to connect it to
healing (HoFFNER 1968:6] n. 2). The Tar-
gumic material usually renders térdpim by
salmdnayya’, ‘images’, or déma’in, ‘figures’,
although Tanhüma Wayyésé 12 understands
that the rérdpim are so called “because they
are works of tórep ('filth")".
Scholars have proposed numerous etymol-
ogies for 1érdpim, yet it 1s rare that any of
them has met with widespread acceptance,
The degree to which etymologies help us
understand the true nature and function of the
térapim has also been questioned (VAN DER
Toorn 1990:204; cf. LORETZ 1992:137-139),
Of the numerous etymologies suggested
for térdpim the following are the most com-
mon. 1) Térápim is to be understood as
either a tapris- or tapras- form of the root
RP’, ‘to heaY (cf. DE Warp 1977:5-6;
RouiLLARD & TropreR 1987:357-361;
TROPPER 1989:335). Térapim then were
associated with healing. 1 Sam 19, which
has the térGpim (19:13.16) in the same nar-
rative as sickness (19:14), is cited for sup-
port (but see below). The word —Rephaim,
which some translate as ‘healers’, is also
brought into the discussion despite its equal-
ly perplexing etymology. For example,
ALBRIGHT at one point suggested that the
Heb rérapim was a “contemptuous defor-
mation (...) from the stem RP" (W. F.
ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan
[New York 1968] 168 n. 43; see LORETZ
1992:138-139; 141-142; 148-151; 167-168).
For a critique of deriving térapim from RP’,
see HoFFNER (1967:233-234; 1968:62). 2)
Térápim is to be derived from the root RPH,
‘to sink, relax, be limp, sag’, thus E. A.
SPEISER (Genesis [Garden City 1964] 245)
suggests ‘inert things, idols’ (cf. ALBRIGHT
1941:40 n. 8; N. Sarna, The JPS Torah
Commentary: Genesis [Philadelphia 1989}
216). 3) Térdpim ìs cognate to Ug trp mean-
ing ‘to sag’ (cf. again ALBRIGHT 1968°:206
n. 63 who says that the térápfm should be
rendered ‘old rags’; see also J. Gray, / & I
Kings [Philadelphia 1964] 745). 4) Térapim
is to be related to post-biblical rrp (see
above) and thus refers to ‘vile things’ (once
844
TERAPHIM
again see ALBRIGHT, From the Stone Age to
Christianity {Garden City 1957] 31]; N.
SARNA, The JPS Torah Commentary:
Genesis [Philadelphia 1989] 216). 5)
Térapim is to be derived from an original
pétarim, ‘interpreters (of dreams)’, which
was intentionally changed (by metathesis) at
a later time by those interested in ridiculing
these. objects (so LABUSCHAGNE 1966:115-
117, but see HorrNEN's critique (1967:232-
233; 1968:61-62). 6) Téraptm 1s a loan word
from Hit :arpi($), which "denotes a spirit
which can on some occasions be regarded as
protective and on others as malevolent" and
which is parallel in lexical texts to Akk
Sédu, ‘spirit, demon’ (HoFFNER 1967:230-
238; 1968:61-68; CAD S II, 256-259; Sxv-
BOLD 1976:1057).
Of the above etymologies HoFFNER’s
would appear to be the most plausible al-
though it too is not without its difficulties
(see ROUILLARD & TROPPER 1987:360-361;
F. JosEPHSON, Anatolien TARPA/L, etc.,
Florilegium Anatolicum. Mélanges offerts à
Emmanuel Laroche [Paris 1979] 181).
JI. Although the word térdpim is not
attested anywhere outside of the Bible
(unless it is in fact a Ioan from Hit tarpi),
scholars have nonetheless frequently looked
to extrabiblical sources to try to understand
the function of the térapim over against its
ancient Near Eastern backdrop with par-
ticular attention being given to peripheral
Akkadian texts (Nuzi and Emar). Ever since
1926, when the Nuzi text Gadd 51 was
published (C. J. Gapp, RA 23 [1926] 49-
161, no. 51.10-17; see ANET, 219-220) and
when S. SwrrH (1932:33-36) drew a parallel
between the férapim and Nuzi ildnu, there
has been a fascination with using the Nuzi
texts not only to flesh out the phenomena of
the rérdpim specifically (especially the mo-
tive behind Rachel’s theft of them), but also
to reconstruct patriarchal practices of inherit-
ance, property rights, adoption and tbe
designation of family-headship (pater fam-
ilias; e.g. E. A. SPEISER, Genesis (Garden
City 1964] 250; C. H. Gorpon, BA 3
[1940} 1-12; cf. the dissenting view of
GREENBERG 1962:239-248). The greatest
impact was left by DRAFFKORN-KILMER’s
llàni/Elohim article which argued that “the
biblical elohim/teraphim correspond, in so
far as Genesis 31 is concerned, with Nuzi
ilani in their intimate role in regard to fam-
ily law” (DRAFFKORN 1957:222).
Most of the early studies using the Nuzi
texts concluded that the sérdpim were
‘household gods’ and this translation is
reflected in most major translations of Gen
31:19, 34, 35 (cf. NRSV, NEB). This con-
clusion was seen to be definitive because the
térapim themselves are referred to as
Elohim, ‘gods’ (Gen 31:30; cf. Judg 18:24;
—God lI) Later studies bave emphasized
that three Nuzi texts (JEN 478:6-8; HSS 19,
no. 27:11; YBC 5142:30) mention the ilanu
in collocation with the —^Etemmu, ‘the
spirits of the dead’ (see Cassin 1981:42-45;
DELLER 1981:62, 73-74; RounraARD &
TROPPER 1987:352-357; TsuKIMOTO 1989:
98-106; VAN DER TooRN 1990:219-221;
Loretz 1992:152-155). That the térapim
are to be equated with ancestor figurines is
not a new proposal, yet previous studies
were not based on such extensive compar-
ative evidence which emphasizes that “the
domestic cult at Nuzi included the care for
the etemmu on the same footing as that for
the ilànu" (vAN DER ToonN 1990:204 n. 8,
220). The Old Babylonian story of Etana,
which contains the phrase "I honoured the
gods, revered the spirits of the dead (ilàni
ukabbit etemmé aplah), shows that the
parallel iánu/letemma (and the ancestral
cult to which it refers) was not restricted to
the Nuzi peripheral material (see J. V.
KINNIER WILSON, The Legend of Etana: A
New Edition [Warminster, Wiltshire 1985]
100-101). A similar pairing of (household)
gods (ilànu) and the deceased ancestors
(métü; —^Dead) occurs in the recently pub-
lished Emar texts. The four pertinent texts
and their relevance to the térapim have been
discussed by VAN DER TooRN (1990:221;
see also TSUKIMOTO 1989:9-11 and LorETz
1992:166-167) who concludes that here too
“we find the care for the ancestors linked
with the worship of the family deities, both
set within the context of the domestic cult”.
845
TERAPHIM
Particularly relevant in the Emar texts is the
notion of invoking (unless we are to read
nubbfi as ‘to wail, lament’ [nab@i D stem))
the gods//dead which is one of the most
important essential services accorded to the
dead (BAYLISS 1973:117).
Finally, scholars have also looked to the
Assyrian as well as to the Ugaritic material
to flesh out the ancient Near Eastern back-
drop to the biblical 1érdpim. VAN DER
Toorn (1990:217-219) points out the re-
vering (palahu) and consulting (3a'alu) of
the efemmi mentioned in several Assyrian
texts over a wide range of time (Old Assyr-
ian to Neo-Assyrian). In particular he notes
“the formal correspondence between As-
syrian efemmé Sa’alu and Heb Saal
battérápim" which he calls an "intriguing
parallelism between ancient Assyria and
ancient Israel". The relevance of the Ugar-
itic material for understanding the biblical
térapim has been examined recently by
Loretz (1992:156-161, 164-166). In par-
ticular Loretz suggests that the controver-
sial ing ilm should be regarded as “eine
Bezeichnung der Toten der königlichen
Familie” which should be translated ‘Götter
der Sippe’ or ‘Sippengötter’. Nevertheless,
the notorious difficulties of this material (as
well as the other Ugaritic evidence LoRETZ
mentions such as the forms trp and
ilh/ilhm) renders any conclusions (and com-
parisons with the těčrāpîm) precarious.
III. The térápím occur only fifteen times
in the OT (Gen 31:19.34.35; Judg 17:5;
18:14.17.18.20; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13.16; 2
Kgs 23:24; Ezek 21:26[21); Hos 3:4; Zech
10:2), yet the number of conjectures regard-
ing the identity and function of the térdapiin
surely would be tabulated in several
multiples of fifteen. Faced with such cruces
interpretum one could of course throw up
one’s hand in despair and assert that “what
the Teraphim represented is anyone’s guess”
(B. B. Scumipt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead
[diss. Oxford 1991] 404 n. 4). Or, faced
with what might be contradictory evidence,
one could assert that the term térápim may
be a generic name or a single term used for
various cultic items (cf. SEYBOLD 1976:
1057-1060; AckRovpD 1950-51:378-380).
Most scholars try to reconcile all of the data
(together with one's understanding of the
etymology) in order to achieve a uniform
interpretation. In addition to debates over
the etymology of térdpim (see above),
scholarly discussion of the térdpim usually
concentrates on its form and function.
That the term férdpim referred to objects
(or a singular object) of some sort can be
easily inferred from the verbs associated
with it which describe ‘making’ (Judg 17:5),
‘finding’ (Gen 31:35), ‘removing’ (2 Kgs
23:24), ‘stealing’ (Gen 31:19), ‘taking, put-
ting and covering’ (! Sam 19:13; Gen 31:
34) the 1érdpim image(s). As for the shape
and size of the object(s), one must certainly
caution against generalization. Our data are
meagre and we have no way of knowing
whether the form of the sérapim remained
constant or whether it varied through time
and/or from one locality to the next. The
little evidence we do have suggests degrees
of variation. We also have no information
regarding the origin of the rérápim and our
ignorance in this regard should keep us from
making unsubstantiated assertions such as
May’s claim that Rachel’s import of the
térdpim “reflects the entrance of figurines
into Palestine for the first time” (H. G. May,
Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult [OIP
26; Chicago 1935] 27; cf. W. EicHRODT
Ezekiel [Philadelphia 1970] 299; W. Ziw-
MERLI, Ezekiel ] [Philadelphia 1979] 444).
] Sam 19:13-16 and Gen 31:34 are the
only two biblical passages which give any
hint regarding the actual form of the
térapim. 1 Sam 19:13, 16 suggests that a
térdpim (note the plural used for a singular
image) was an object approximating human
form. The narrator tells us that Michal hides
a térdpim in bed as a substitute for David
whom Saul is trying to kill (cf. HOFFNER’s
(1967:233 n.19] attempt to equate the Hit
tarpi$ with substitute images). Many
scholars (e.g. GORDON 1962:574) have as-
sumed that the férdpim here was life-size
and this certainly seems logical. Michal then
puts goat’s hair on its head and clothes it
evidently to give it more of a human ap-
846
TERAPHIM
pearance (although beged may refer to a
blanket as well as a garment and the goat’s
hair may also have been used to cloak the
image rather than to represent a wig). Evi-
dently Michal’s térapim was close enough
to an anthropoid shape to fool Saul's mess-
engers who depart without any further
scarching. (On the intricate details of this
passage sec ROUILLARD & TROPPER 1987
and VAN DER TOORN 1990.)
ALBRIGHT (1968:110) challenged this
view on archaeological grounds stating that
no life-size figurines "of comparable size
have ever been found in Palestinian excava-
tions". In concert with this we find quite a
few scholars suggesting, based on 1 Sam
19:13-16 as well as the pottery masks from
Hazor and Akhziv, that the word térdpim
designated a cultic mask of some sort
(HOFFMANN & QGRESSMANN 1922:75-137;
W. Ercuropt, Ezekiel [Philadelphia 1970]
299; G. von Rap (& A. ALT), Old Testa-
ment Theology | [New York 1963] 216; G.
Fourer, History of Israelite Religion (Nash-
ville 1972] 114; pe Warp 1977:5; A.
REICHERT, Kultmaske, BRL2, 195-196; W.
ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel ] [Philadelphia 1979)
444, etc.). For superb pictures of the clay
masks in question, see Treasures of the Holy
Land. Ancient Art from the Israel Museum
[New York 1986] catalogue nos. 6, 43, 86-
87).
Nevertheless, this theory does not seem to
be very likely. As VAN DER Toorn has
noted, if we have a cultic mask here, the
suffix on the expression méra'á3ótayw ('at
its head') in 1 Sam 19:13 would be redund-
ant. The covering of the térdpim with a
beged also makes much more sense if we
are talking about a life-size statue rather
than simply a head mask. In short, VAN DER
Toorn is certainly correct when he asserts
that the térdpim here “had more to it than a
sculptured head” (see VAN DER TOORN
1990:206, which also contains a critique of
those using the clay masks found at Hazor
and ez-Zib to support the cultic mask
theory). If —Laban's réràpim referred to in
Gen 31 were also anthropoid in shape,
(especially if they were complete human
figures and not masks) they would certainly
have been much smaller in size in order to
fit under the saddlebag on Rachel’s camel.
VAN DER ToonN (1990:205) even estimates
that "their length will not have exceeded 30-
35 cm".
Scholars have suggested numerous ways
in which the térdpim may have functioned
within ancient Israelite society and cult.
J. Gray (J & II Kings [Philadelphia
1964] 745) associated the térdpim with “the
many figurines with the features of Asherah
and Astarte found at Palestinian sites"
(-*Asherah, -*Astarte). These figurines, sug-
gested Gray, “rank as férapim" and were
used “in rites of imitative magic to promote
fertility”. Gray here is certainly following
ALBRIGHT who once made a similar claim
(ALBRIGHT, From the Stone Age to Christi-
anity [Garden City 1957) 311; cf. too H. G.
May, Material Remains of the Megiddo
Cult [OIP 26; Chicago 1935:27] who says
that it is "extremely probable" that the term
térapim was used to designate mother-god-
desses and other fertility figurines). There is
no explicit evidence linking the réràpim to
fertility rituals. ALBRIGHT asserted that later
biblical writers (he did not state which ones)
included fertility figurines under the general
term. térüpíim. 2 Kgs 23:24 associates the
těrāpîm with necromancy ("óbót, -*Spirit of
the dead; yiddé'ónim, -*Wizard), idols
(^Gillulim) and abominations (3iqqusgím;
-*Abomination)—no explicit fertility nuance
is specified—but does not suggest that any
of these terms are subsumed under the hcad-
ing térapim. Similarly, Judg 18:14.17.18.20
lists the térdpim along with an ephod, a
“graven image’ (pesel), and a ‘molten
image’ (massékd), yet nowhere is térdpim
used as a general heading for these terms.
There is one text which uses férdpim as a
general heading for idolatry (1 Sam 15:23)
listing it in conjunction with iniquity
Cawen), yet there is no explicit mention of
fertility in this passage. The only other pas-
sage of interest for this theory would be
Rachel’s comment in Gen 31:35 that she
could not rise from her camel (in whose
saddlebag the 1érapim were hidden) because
847
TERAPHIM
the ‘way of women’ was upon her. This pas-
sagė can help us understand ancient Israelite
taboos (--Taboo) concerning menstruation
(see VAN DER Toorn, From Her Cradle to
Her Grave [Sheffield 1994] 52-53), yet the
jump from such a taboo to equating the
térdpim with fertility (just because a woman
is sitting on them) would be a large one.
De Warp (1977:6), building on the work
of A. Phillips and E. A. Speiser, suggested
that the function of the térdpim may have
been protective in nature similar to that of
the Akk pdlilu, ‘protector’, although at the
same time he admits that “actually there is
not very much evidence in the OT for belief
in such personal protectors”. Likewise C.
WESTERMANN (Genesis 12-36 {Minneapolis
1985] 493) takes the térdpim to be house-
hold gods which “as everywhere (...) confer
protection and blessing”. While a protective
function is certainly in the realm of possibil-
ities (especially if HOFFNER’s [1967] sug-
gested etymology would prove true), such a
‘role is not explicitly attested in the 15
occurrences of the térdpim that we have
mentioned in the OT. DE Warp (1977:6)
Stretches the evidence to include the ref-
erence to ’éldhim in 1 Sam 2:25 (already
noticed by DRAFFKORN [1957:218] who
emphasizes its divinatory character). But the
fact that térapim could be referred to as
*élóhím (see below) does not mean that an
occurrence of ?"élóhim must refer to the
téráptm. (On other protective spirits see F.
A. M. WIGGERMANN, Mesopotamian Pro-
tective Spirits: The Ritual Texts [Groningen
1992].)
Many of the scholars who look to the
root RP', 'to heal', for the etymology of
lérdpim infer that the térapim must have had
healing purposes (cf. RouiLLARD & Trop-
PER 1987:340-361). With a slightly different
twist W. E. BARNES (JTS 30 [1928-29] 179)
claims that the térápim were used to "warn
the would-be intruder that there is sickness
about". If the etymology of térápim is from
RP’ one could make some case for this po-
sition, yet this etymology is far from certain
(see HOFFNER's critique mentioned above).
Healing is never mentioned as the function
of the térdpim in the 15 occurrences of
térapim in the Hebrew Bible. Only one
occurrence (1 Sam 19:13-14) has any asso-
ciation with healing. Yet even here one
simply cannot deduce from Michal's ruse
about David being sick in bed that the
térdpim were used for healing purposes. To
argue that the mention of sickness in this
one pericope denotes the use of térapim for
healing would be akin to stating that the
sole mention of weapons of war in conjunc-
tion with the térdpim in Judg 18:16-17
denotes a military use of the réràpim.
As mentioned above, scholars have
looked to the function of the ilànu in the
Nuzi texts to find a parallel to the function
of the térdpim in the Hebrew Bible. In the
words of one of the earliest proponents of
this parallel, “the possessor of them [the
ilànulhe téraápim] had a claim de iure to
property if not de facto. (...) Laban's
anxiety to recover his gods, like Rachel's
desire to possess them, did not depend sole-
ly on their divinity or their value, but on the
fact that the possessor of them was pre-
sumptive heir” (SMITH 1932:34-35). Until
recently this suggested function for the
térápim has predominated biblical scholar-
ship with some scholars preferring to em-
phasize property and inheritance rights
while others emphasized the role of the
térapim for designating family-headship
(pater familias, e.g. SPEISER, Genesis [Gar-
den City 1964] 250; DRAFFKORN 1957:216-
224). N. SARNA (The JPS Torah Commen-
tary: Genesis [Philadelphia 1989] 216) has
challenged the inheritance theory with
respect to Jacob’s case (-*Jacob). “The
terafim", he writes, "could not have assured
inheritance rights since the patriarch claims
nothing from Laban and, in any case, is
leaving Mesopotamia for good" (see also
DELLER 1981:48-57). With regard to fam-
ily-headship, Spanier (1992:405) has
recently argued that Rachel's actions in Gen
31 were a part of her "continuing struggle
for primacy within Jacob's household. (...)
Rachel perceived that the teraphim would
invest her own son -*Joseph with a mantle
of authority which would override all other
considerations."
Finally, there are those who promote the
848
TERAPHIM
divinatory function of the férapim. Without
a doubt, this function is the best attested
among the occurrences of térapim in the
OT. In one way or another the word térapim
is associated with divinatory practices of
some kind in all of the passages except for
the episodes dealing with Rachel's theft of
the tërāpîm in Gen 31 (but see below) and
Michal’s mse hiding the r2rapim in David's
bed in 1 Sam 19.
The two examples which are the most
explicit come from the late passages of Zech
10:2 and Ezek 21:26[21]. In Zech 10:2 the
térapim are portrayed as oracular devices
which ‘speak iniquity’ (dibbéri *Gwen).
They. are condemned along with ‘diviners’
(gósémim) and false dream interpreters.
Ezek 21:26 contains the famous passage
about King Nebuchadnezzar using various
types of divination to decide which fork in
the road to take. Among the divinatory prac-
tices attributed to him are belomancy (use of
arrows), the 1érapim, and hepatoscopy (divi-
nation through examining livers). All three
of these practices are summed up in Ezek
21:26 under the general heading of ‘prac-
ticing divination’ (ligsom qāsem). A third
passage which also associates the 1érapim
with divination (gesem) is 1 Sam 15:23.
Here too it is treated pejoratively and once
again paired with ‘iniquity’ (dwen
ütérüptm). The térüpim are also found in
collocation with the ephod (Judg 17:5; 18:
14.17.18.20; Hos 3:4). While the full picture
of the epbod as a sacred vestment remains
somewhat murky, its role in divination is
beyond doubt (cf. 1 Sam 30:7-8 as well as
the attachment of the Urim and Thummim
to the breastpiece of the ephod).
Divination was a complex and highly
specialized enterprise in the ancient Near
East (especially in Mesopotamia but also in
ancient Israel). Can we determine more pre-
cisely the type of divination with which the
férdptm were associated? To judge from the
passages just listed above, the word térapim
can be a generic term for tools of divination.
Yet on one occasion (2 Kgs 23:24) the
tëråpîm are listed alongside of tbe 'obót and
the yidd&oénim. These terms are clearly
associated with necromancy and the shades
of the dead (see —Dead, Spirit of the dead
and Wizard). The collocation of these terms
in 2 Kgs 23:24 may be sheer coincidence
(or an editor’s artificial attempt to make
Josiah’s reform look very thorough). On the
other hand, the térdpim are also termed
*élohim (Gen 31:30, 32; Judg 18:24) and
this fact may provide a key to solving much
of the mystery (as well as tying in the Mes-
opotamian material mentioned above). It is
well documented that *éldéhim/ilu can refer
to the dead (Lewis 1989:49-51; JBL 110
[1991] 600-603; VAN DER TooRN 1990:210-
211). Note the Mesopotamian material
above which pairs the i/d@nu with the etemmü
or métu. In short, those scholars who have
recently been suggesting that the Mesopot-
amian materia] underscores the use of the
rérapim as ancestral figurines are certainly
correct. It seems likely that tbe téraptm may
have been ancestor figurines which func-
tioned in necromantic practices in particular
as well as divinatory practices in general (cf.
HOFFNER 1968:68, who notes that both the
Heb térapim and the Hit tarpi have “a pro-
nounced chthonic orientation”). If this is
true, then Rachel’s térapim (which are re-
ferred to as ?éléhim) could also have been
divinatory in nature and thus parallel to all
of the other biblical passages (except for the
ruse in ] Sam 19) which mention the
térüpim next to divination. In fact, as
pointed out by GREENBERG (1962:239 n.2),
there are many interpreters throughout his-
tory (Tanhiima Wayyésé, Tg. Ps.-J., Rash-
bam, Ibn Ezra, Qimhi; cf. N. SARNA The
JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis [Phil-
adelphia 1989] 216) who have asserted that
Rachel’s motive for stealing Laban’s
térdpim was to prevent him from using them
in a divinatory fashion so as to detect
Jacob’s escape.
Lastly we may be able to tie in the form
of the térapim to this possible necromantic
function. It is quite clear that necromantic
rituals in Mesopotamia involved substitute
figurines which often represented the ghost
(salam Grpim) or the dead person (salam
LÓ.UG,) among other things (cf. J. A.
ScunLock, Magical Means of Dealing with
Ghosts in Ancient Mesopotamia [diss. Chi-
849
TEREBINTH
cago 1988] 53-64). In one instance, after
mixing a concoction, one puts it on the
figurine. As a result, “when you call upon
him, he will answer you” (see I. J. FINKEL,
AfO 29-30 [1983-84] 5, 9). This oracular
aspect of the necromantic figurine fits well
with the description of the térdpim ‘speak-
ing’ in the divinatory context of Zech 10:2.
IV. Bibliography
P. AckroyD, The Teraphim, ExpTim 62
(1950-51) 378-380; W. F. ALBRIGHT,
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel
(Garden City 19685); ALBRIGHT, Are the
Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugar-
itic Literature?, BASOR 83 (1941) 39-42; M.
Bay Liss, The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria
and Babylonia, /raq 35 (1973) 115-125; E.
CassiN, Unc querelle de famille, Studies on
the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the
Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman
(ed. M. A. Morrison & D. I. Owen; Winona
Lake 1981) 37-46; K. DELLER, Die Haus-
gütter der Familie Sukrija S. Huja, Studies
on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and
the Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lache-
man (Winona Lake 1981) 47-76; A. E.
DRAFFKORN, llàni/Elohim, JBL 76 (1957)
216-224; C. H. GoRDoN, Teraphim, /DB IV
(1962) 574; M. GREENBERG, Another Look
at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim, JBL 81
(1962) 239-248; G. HOFFMANN & H.
GRESSMANN, Teraphim. Masken und Wink-
orakel in Agypten und Vorderasien, ZAW 40
(1922) 75-137; H. A. HOFFNER, The Lin-
guistic Origins of Teraphim, Bibliotheca
Sacra 124 (1967) 230-238; *HOFFNER, Hit-
tite Tarpi$ and Hebrew Teráphim, JNES 27
(1968) 61-68; C. J. LABUSCHAGNE, Teraphim
—A New Proposal for Its Etymology, VT 16
(1966) 115-117; T. J. Lewis, Cults of the
Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM
39; Atlanta 1989); *O. LonETZ, Die Teraph-
im als "Ahnen-Gótter-Figur(in)en" im Lich-
te der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit, UF
24 (1992) 133-178 [& lit]; *H. ROUILLARD
& J. TRoPPER, TRPYM, rituels de guérison
et culte des ancétres d’aprés 1 Samuel XIX
11-17 et les textes paralléles d'Assur et de
Nuzi, VT 37 (1987) 340-361; K. SEYBOLD,
térdfim \dol(e), THAT 2 (1976) 1057-1060;
S. SmitH, What Were the Teraphim?, JTS
33 (1932) 33-36; K. SPANIER, Rachel’s
Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for
Family Primacy, VT 42 (1992) 404-412; *K.
VAN DER Toorn, The Nature of the Biblical
Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evi-
dence, CBQ 52 (1990) 203-222; J. TROPPER,
Nekromantie. Totenbefragung im Alten
Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 223;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989); A. TSUKIMOTO,
Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum)
im Alten Mesopotamien (AOAT 216; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1985); E. F. DE WARD,
Superstition and Judgment: Archaic Methods
of Finding a Verdict, ZAW 89 (1977) 1-19.
T. J. Lewis
TEREBINTH 778
I. NON I, Pistacia terebinthus, has been
explained by W. F. ALBRIGHT as a Hebrew
form of Canaanite "élat, goddess, the femi-
nine of ?el, which is also applied to —Ashe-
rah as —El's consort (ALBRIGHT 1968:165).
The concept of the terebinth as a holy tree is
well-known in the OT, but the terebinth is
never seen as a representative of Yahweh.
Sometimes the terebinth is connected with
idolatry in a way that presupposes a re-
lationship between the terebinth and a
foreign deity, probably Asherah. In these
cases, the attitude is clearly polemic. But
whether the word TYN itself connoted the
meaning ‘goddess’ is uncertain.
II. According to the common view, both
TON and OS derive from the Hebrew root
*^wL II 'to be first' or 'to be strong’. POPE,
however, claims that the etymology of YN
remains obscure and sees no possible way to
decide whether words like UN, iN, and
DUM should be connected with the middle
weak root "wL/'vL or with some other root
(1955:16-19). Uncertainty about the etymol-
ogy suggests that in this case, as in many
others, it may be more illuminating to ana-
lyze the semantic field of the word.
The conception of the tree as holy is
well-known in the Near Eastern world,
where pictures of holy trees are often found
on seals or as decoration in temples (Cf.
850
TERROR OF THE NIGHT
BRL? 34-36) The intimate relationship
between goddesses like Asherah (in Ugaritic
texts the consort of El, Athirat) and the tree
(often the palm-tree) shows that trees con-
note fertility. For further information on
holy trees in the Near East in general
(Ugarit, Egypt, Mesopotamia) see Jaroš
1974:214-217.
III. In the OT, the terebinth is frequently
mentioned in connection with holy places
like —^Shechem (Gen 35:4), Ophrah (Judg
6:11.19) and Jabesh (1 Chr 10:12). In the
book of Hosea the offerings under —oak,
poplar, and terebinth are condemned as idol-
atry (Hos 4:13). In Isaiah, the terebinth is
used as metaphor in ways which suggest
that the terebinth was considered a holy tree
by the prophet's audience.
More generally speaking, attitudes to-
wards the terebinth are ambiguous. On the
one hand, the terebinth, like the oak, sug-
gests the sanctity of a given place. In Gen
35:4 Jacob hides the foreign gods under the
terebinth that was near Shechem: an attitude
that may reflect an old custom to hide valu-
able things at a sacred place. At any rate
this text shows a respect for the foreign
gods that 1s not found in the texts concern-
ing the restoration of the cult, like 2 Kgs
23:4-25 (KEEL 1973:312-313, 331). Like
wise it is preferable to bury one’s dead
under a tree. In 1 Chr 10:12 Saul and his
sons are buried under a terebinth, and in
Gen 35:8 Rebekkah’s nurse is buried under
an oak below Bethel. On some occasions, a
holy person sits under a terebinth, in Judg
6:11 the angel of Yahweh, in 1 Kgs 14:13
a man of God. The terebinth at Shechem is
mentioned not only in Genesis, but also in
Josh 24:26 (note the different spelling).
Under the terebinth, in the sanctuary of
Yahweh, Joshua sets up a great stone as a
witness, after having made a covenant with
the people. Isa 6:13, too, presupposes the
idea of the holy tree, when it is said that the
Stump of the fallen terebinth (terebinth and
oak are here used as parallels) is holy seed.
In these texts, the holiness of the tere-
binth seems to be taken for granted; but the
tree itself is never identified with a deity.
The covenant in Josh 24, for instance, is
neither with the tree, nor with the stone, but
between Yahweh and his people. Neither is
the holy seed in Isa 6:13 identified with a
deity: it is used metaphorically to announce
the coming king (NIELSEN 1989:150-153).
In the polemics against the cult under
every green tree, prophets like Hosea and
Ezekiel condemn the cult under the tere-
binths (as in Hos 4:13; Ezek 6:13). The cult
must have been some kind of fertility cult,
and the reference to the terebinths may indi-
cate a special] relationship between this tree
and a goddess (ALBRIGHT 1968:165). In Isa
1:30-31, the prophet uses tree imagery to
spell out the doom of his audience. They
shall be hke a terebinth that withers, and
they shall burn together with their strong
ones, i.e. their idols. Possibly there is a play
on words in v 29 between an implied DOS
(gods) and O° (the strong trees). This
would make the oracle even more polemical
(NIELSEN 1989:207).
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan. A Historical Analysis of Two Con-
trasting Faiths (London 1968), G. DALMAN,
Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina 1,1-2 (Güters-
loh 1928); K. Jaroš, Die Stellung des
Elohisten zur kanaanüischen Religion (Göt-
tingen 1974); O. Keer, Das Vergraben der
‘fremden Götter’ in Genesis XXXV 4b, VT
23 (1973) 305-336; K. NIELSEN, There is
Hope for a Tree. The Tree as Metaphor in
Isaiah (Sheffield 1989); M. H. Pore, El in
the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden 1955); P.
WELTEN, Baum, sakraler, BRL? 34-35; M.
ZOHARY, Pflanzen der Bibel. Vollständiges
Handbuch (Stuttgart 1982).
K. NIELSEN
TERROR OF THE NIGHT 7D’ “m3
I. Pahad laylâ is hap.leg. in the OT, in
Ps 91:5, where it appears in close conjunc-
tion with several terms referring to various
demons (see below). Another combination
of the word pahad, Jit. ‘terror, dread’, and
layla, lit. ‘night’, occurs in Cant 3:8 where it
also refers to a certain type of demon (see
851
TERROR OF THE NIGHT
already the Targumim and Krauss [1936]
for references to other rabbinical sources).
See also Deut 28:66.
The understanding of paliad in Ps 91:5 as
‘terror’ is not the only one. M. DAHoopD has
suggested e.g. the meaning ‘pack (of dogs)’
on the alleged basis of Ug p/id (Psalms 1I
[AB 17; Garden City 1979] 331). Dahood
applied this meaning to other occurrences of
pahad, e.g. Cant 3:8; Prov 3:25; and more
(see RSP, I 439 for a summary). There have
been some attempts to relate layla etymolo-
gically to —Lilith (Is 34:14), Akk (Ardat)
lilf, a night demon (DE FRAINE 1959:375).
But this is no more than a folk etymology
(HALAT 502b). Functionally, however, the
demon pahad laylá reveals traits similar to
those of the Mesopotamian lil and ardat
lili, esp. in its occurrence in Cant 3:8 (sce
below).
pahad denotes the object of fear rather
than fear itself or its effects (psychological
or physical) (MÜLLER 1989:554.556). The
relationship between paliad and laylá does
not necessarily need to be construed as an
objective genitive, c.g., pahad ’ôyëb (Ps
64:2, thus MÖLLER 1989:557), laylâ being
the object of fear (HALAT 871, la), because
it can also be treated as a genitivus explica-
tivus (Ges. 128 k-q) denoting the time when
such demons usually appear (cf. Deut 28:
66). Night and darkness are the normal con-
text and cover of demons (thus clearly Cant
3:8).
TI. Among the host of Mesopotamian
demons, Lil (Sum 01.17.14 *wind-man') and
Lilitw/Ardat lili most resemble the biblical
pahad laylá. These demons seem to have
been attached particularly to pregnant
women and new-borns whom they harmed
(FARBER, RLA 7 [1987-90] 23-24). A similar
role is ascribed in cuneiform sources to the
demon Lamashtu. In later texts, they are
conceived as harmful to brides and grooms,
whom they attack on their wedding night
and prevent the consummation of the mar-
riage (S. LACKENBACHER, RA 65 [1971]
119-154; M. MALUL, JEOL 32 [1991/1992:
78-85)). Lilitu survived a long time and
occupies a central place in later Jewish
demonology, whence she passed even into
Arab demonology. Here, she seems to have
retained her ancient character as a baby-
killer, though she also appears (in Jewish
Qabbala) as a stealer of men's semen (G.
SCHOLEM, EncJud Vol 11, 245-249). As an
attacker of brides and grooms she comes
close to the incubus and succubus demons
known all over the world.
H. A cursory look at the context in
which pahad layla occurs in Ps 91 reveals
its demonic identity (OESTERLEY 1962:407-
409). This psalm abounds with names of
other demons, such as —deber (v 6, Pesti-
lence), -*qeteb (v 6, Destruction; the LXX
reads here also Kai daipoviov peonBpivov
= wéséd sohordyim, ‘and a noon demon’
instead of ydSttd sohorayim, ‘that wastes at
noonday’ [DE FRAINE 1959:377-379; cf.
Midr. Ps. 91:3]; for Séd see also Ps 106:37
and Deut 32:17, OESTERLEY 1962:408-409;
Shed), peren (v 13, ->Serpent) and tannin
‘sea dragon’ (v 13, perhaps meaning
‘jackals’, see also ->*Tannin), as well as
$ahal ‘lion’ and képir ‘young lion’—both
perhaps denoting lion-headed demons (v 13,
cf. Job 4:10-11). Also noteworthy are the
verbs hdlak ‘to stalk’, 56d ‘to waste’, nagas
‘to draw near’, and gdrab ‘to approach’ (vv
6-7.10), all of which are commonly used in
connection with activities of demons. All
rabbinical sources, Midrash and Targum,
identify here a host of mazzigim and Sédim
(sce in general OESTERLEY 1962; DE FRAINE
1959; Krauss 1936; note that Gen. Rab.
36:1 interprets pahad in Job 21:9 also as
meaning evil spirits—mazziqim). In Jewish
sources and liturgy the psalm is in fact
called "a song for evil encounters" to be
recited before sleep (bSheb. 15b; Midr. Ps.
91:1; cf. DE FRAINE 1959:374 n. 3; OESTER-
LEY 1962:407). It has been suggested that it
refers here to various demons who have
power over different phases of the day
(morning, noon, evening and [mid]night; see
DE FRAINE 1959; OESTERLEY 1962:407-411;
and for the general belief in such demons
throughout history see SPEYER 1984 [& lit];
for the Semitic world cf. W. H. WorRELL,
JAOS 38 [1918] 160-166). The demon
pahad layla is then in charge of the night,
the scene of his attacks (cf. the mashit
852
TERROR OF THE NIGHT
— Destroyer in Ex 12:23, cf. 29 and 11:4-5;
cf. bPesah. 112b where one is counselled
not to go out alone at night for fear of the
haunting night demons). Note Zohar 11:
163b: ‘dread in the nights’ = ‘Samael and
his female’, i.e. Lilith.
The name of this demon is clearly appel-
lative, reflecting its most salient characteris-
tics: Terror and night/darkness. These char-
acteristics occur elsewhere in the OT in
contexts which reveal other aspects of this
demon only vaguely hinted at in Ps 91. Note
especially Job 18:5-21 where an interesting
combination is attested between the dark-
ness falling on the wicked and the terror
which ensnares him like a trap. The picture
is of a person haunted by various evil spirits
and demons (see -*First-Born of Death, v
13; ~King of Terrors v 14), who are said to
catch their victims by nets and traps (vv 8-
10, with various words for traps). Another
colourful portrayal of intense (personified)
night terror is in Job 4:12-16, where Eliphaz
is terrified by an apparition (see the word
rüah *ghost' in v 15) which appeared to him
in the middle of the night (cf. Job 7:14; Isa
29:1-8). Saul is said to have been terrified
(from bà'at, for which see also Job 18:11
with ballahét; Ps 18:5 with beliyya'al
Belial; and Job 3:5 with kimriré-yém) by
the Evil Spirit from God. For the trap used
by these demons to ensnare their victims see
especially the common combination pahad
wapahat wapah, ‘Terror and pit and trap’, in
Isa 24:17-18; Jer 48:43-44; cf. Lam 3:47.
The trap, which also occurs here in Ps
91:3, is only a metaphor for the element of
suddenness, another characteristic of these
demons (see the observations about pahad
pitóm below). They are said to lie in wait
for their victim (cf. Gen 4:7 obliquely refer-
ring to the ~Rabisu) and to fall upon him
suddenly and unexpectedly. The terms used
to denote this characteristic (nāpal ‘to
pounce upon’, peta‘, pit’ém 'suddenly') are
used also in the context of wars and in
descriptions of attacks by enemies as well as
by ~wild beasts (for the relationship be-
tween demons and wild beasts sec OESTER-
LEY 1962:410); see, e.g., Jer 6:22-26; Ps 64;
and note the reference to the flying arrow in
Ps 91:5.
A related significant expression is pahad
piťöm ‘sudden terror’ in Prov 3:25 (occur-
ring also in Job 22:10), which the person is
instructed not to fear (’al tira’, cf. 16 tira’
mippahad laylé ‘You shall not fear Terror of
the night!’). According to v 24 it is clear
that this ‘sudden terror’ comes at night;
compare vv 23 and 26 with Ps 91:3.12. In
view of the parallelism of pahad layla and
the ‘flying arrow’ in the second hemistich of
v 5, the expression hes pit'óm 'a sudden
arrow’ (Ps 64:8; cf. Prov 7:22-23) suggests
that the expression pahad pit'óm reflects a
similar entity. Here it is interesting to notc
that according to Talmudic Midrash, a
demon which shoots like an arrow is ident-
ified with Lilith. Furthermore, the meteorite
was known in Jewish tradition as ‘the arrow
of Lilith’ (OESTERLEY 1962:409; cf. also DE
FRAINE 1959:375.376).
Other terms for terror, dread, such as
bit, *émá, pallágft, béhálá (for a collection
of such terms see Exod 15:14-16; cf. also Is
21:2-5), evoke in their respective contexts a
picture similar to that described above. See
especially the use of bi'ür in Ps 88:17-18,
where bi‘tit occurs in parallelism with harén
‘anger’, and both are personified. Job 6:4
reads as follows: “For the arrows of the
Almighty (~Shadday) are within me, my
spirit drinks their poison (/iémá), the terrors
(bi*üté) of God are arrayed against me." The
hdrén ‘anger’ in Ps 88:17 parallels the /émá
*poison' in Job 6:4, and the latter is charac-
teristic of the arrow! (Cf. Deut 32:23-25
where ‘arrows’, -*Resheph, Qeteb, Behe-
moth, "the venom (/rémá] of serpents", and
'fear ['émáh]" occur together.) Also, the
phrase about "the terrors of God" being
“arrayed” (“drak) against their victim recalls
the simile of the victim placed as a target
for the arrows of the enemy in Lam 3:12
and Job 16:12 (cf. Ps 11:2). The word /iémá
‘poison, venom’ (Akk imtu) is said to be a
characteristic of the host of demons and
monsters created by Tiamat as an army in
the war against —Marduk (Ee 1 136-137 and
cf. Deut 32:33; Ps 58:5; 140:4).
Another aspect of the demon Terror of
the night is particularly relevant to Cant 3:8.
853
THANATOS
On the theory that the Song of Solomon was
a collection of wedding songs, it reflects the
widespread belief in evil spirits and night
demons lying in wait to harm the young
couple, particularly whilst the marriage is
being consummated: cf. the attendants car-
rying swords. stationed in the bridal chamber
to provide protection for the newly-wed
couple (KRAuss 1936:323-330; cf. L. Kón-
LER, ZAW 34 [1914] 147-148 & lit; cf. M.
MaLuL, JESHO 32 [1989] 241-278, esp.
262-263.271). “Terror of the night’ was that
particular demon fond of causing harm to
the newly-weds on their wedding night,
rather like the Mesopotamian demons Lild
and Ardat-lili.
The polytheistic view reflected in Ps 91
should not be overlooked. On the one hand,
there is a great god, but on the other a host
of demons and evil spirits (cf. H. RING-
GREN, Israelite Religion [Philadelphia 1963)
100-103). However, scholars have noted the
polemical nature of the psalm, calling for a
complete trust in Yahweh as against the
common resort to magic means for warding
off evil spirits (e.g. DE FRAINE 1959;
OESTERLEY 1962). Significant here is the
verb SGmar ‘to guard’ in v 11 (Yahweh's
angels shall ‘guard’ the believer against all
demonic powers) which occurs also in Ex
12:42 (lél Simmurim) in connection with the
protection against the nocturnal masghir (cf.
Krauss 1936:329 [referring also to Num 6:
24).327). Also pointing in the same direc-
tion is the tendency towards demythologiz-
ation reflected in the identification of these
demons with human enemies and with the
wicked (e.g. Ps 55; 64). Finally, in certain
OT contexts those same demons and evil
spirits can even become God's messengers
and agents (e.g. Deut 32:23-25; Ps 78:49; cf.
'Ex 23:27-28).
IV. Bibliography
J. DB FRAINE, Le «Démon du midi» (Ps 91
(90), 6), Bib 40 (1959) 372-383 (& lit); S.
Krauss, Der richtige Sinn von “Schrecken
in der Nacht" HL III.8, Occident and
Orient. Gaster Anniversary Volume (ed. B.
Schindler & A. Marmorstein; London 1936)
323-330 (& lit); H.-P. MOLLER, 15 pdhad,
TWAT 6 (1987-89) 552-562; W. O. E. Oes-
TERLEY, The Psalms (London 1962); W.
SPEYER, Mittag und Mitternacht als heilige
Zeiten in Antike und Christentum, Vivarium,
Festschrift Theodor Klauser zm 90.
Geburtstag (ed. E. Dassmann: Miinster
1984) 314-326.
M. MALUL
THANATOS Oavatoc Death
I. Thanatos is the Greek mythological
personification of the power of death as a
god or a demon. It occurs as the name of a
demonic power in the NT (for OT see
—Mot) in 9 passages (out of a total of 120
occurrences of the word thanatos) in Paul
(e.g. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-56) and in Rev (e.g.
20:13-14).
]l. Thanatos as a personification is not
frequently found in Greek literature; and
when it occurs, it is often doubtful whether
the personified Thanatos is merely a poetic
metaphor or a real figure of popular belief
(KERN 1926:262-3; Lesky 1934:1245; von
Geisau 1975:648-9; cf. also the remark in
Hesychius s.v. Odvatog 6 te Ged5 Kai ð
rácXxouev, tÉAoG ðv tov piov, "Thanatos:
both the deity and what we suffer, namely
the end of life"). The earliest occurrence of
Thanatos personified is in Homer's /liad
XVI 667-675, where Zeus commands Apol-
lo to take Sarpedon’s dead body away from
the battlefield and to put him in the hands of
"the twin-brothers Sleep and Death” (Yrv
Kat Gavata ddupdoorv, cf. XIV 231; other
parallels in Lesky 1934:1251), who will
quickly bring him to Lycia in order to bury
him there. Hesiod mentions Thanatos and
Hypnos (together with Doom and Fate) as
the children of Night (Theog. 211-2, al-
though Sophocles, Oed. Col. 1574-7 has Gë
and Tartaros as parents of Thanatos); he
portrays them as follows: "There the sons of
gloomy Night have their dwelling, Sleep
and Death, fearsome gods. (...) The one of
them ranges the earth and the broad back of
the sea, gentle and mild towards men, but
the other has a heart of iron and a pitiless
spirit of bronze in his breast. That man is
854
THANATOS
his whom he once catches, and he is hateful
(€x8pdc) even to the immortal gods"
(Theog. 758-66, tr. M. L. West, Hesiod,
Theogony, Works and Days (Oxford 1988]
25). The image of Thanatos as one who
snatches away people out of life is fully
developed by Euripides in the Alcestis (438
BCE), a play in which Thanatos is onc of the
characters. Here we find the widespread
folktale about a man destined to die but
whose wife consents to die instead of him;
then a hero fights with Death to force him to
release her. In the Alcestis Heracles besieges
Thanatos and brings Alcestis back to her
husband. In the opening scene, which is a
dialogue between Apollo and Thanatos, the
god clearly regards Thanatos as his adver-
sary, whose mind Apollo, although a god,
cannot change and whose decision is irrevo-
cable (see esp. Alc. 49-62). The whole story
of Heracles’ victory over Thanatos is remi-
niscent of the tale of Sisyphus who out-
witted Death and bound him so that nobody
could die any longer (Lesky 1934:1246;
KROLL 1932:373; ibid. 423-47 on Seneca's
treatment of the theme in his Hercules
dramas). In tomb inscriptions Thanatos is
often called a jealous, hard, bitter, merciless
etc. demon (Saipwv mxpog, axpitos, Avr-
pós, Bapic, Baoxavoc, KaKdc, novnpdc,
references in WASER 1924:493). But some-
times Thanatos is regarded as a liberator
from the evils of life; so e.g. in Sophocles,
Aiax 854, where the tormented protagonist
says, "O Thanatos, Thanatos, come now and
look upon me", or Philoctetes 797-8, "O
Thanatos, Thanatos, how can it be that I call
on you always, day by day, and that you
cannot come to me?"
In the classical and Hellenistic periods
the functions of Thanatos seem gradually to
have been taken over by -*Hades and
Charon (Roupe 1898: II 199 n.3, 249 n.l;
Charon is the only one of the three who has
survived into modem Greek folk-belief).
The fact that Thanatos was considered to be
an inexorable deity may have contributed to
this god’s having no cult. An additional
factor in this respect was certainly that in
educated circles death was not regarded as a
god or a demon but as a natural process; e.g.
Carneades’ scathing remarks about the
deification of “Love, Guile, Fear, Toil,
Envy, Fate, Old Age, Death, Darkness,
Misery, Lamentation, Favour, Fraud, Obsti-
nacy", etc., in Cicero, De natura deorum Il
17, 44. The isolated reference in Pausanias
III 18, 1 to the effect that there were cult-
images of Sleep and Death in Sparta (cf.
Plutarch, Cleomedes 9,1) are untrustworthy
(Lesky 1934:1257-8). In art, mostly on
vases, Thanatos is often represented as a
winged demon (see the collection of pictures
in WASER 1924:502-524; also the comments
in Lesxy 1934:1258-68). Hades and espe-
cially Charon seem to have played a much
more prominent role in folk-belief than
Thanatos, who became more and more a
literary figure, even in the Orphic Hymn to
Thanatos, no. 87 (see also the collection of
statements about Death/death in Stobaeus'
Eclogae IV 51).
III. In post-biblical Judaism we meet the
personified Thanatos most clearly in the
Testament of Abraham 15-20. Abraham
refuses to follow -*Michael to heaven, i.e.,
to die. Then God bids Michael to summon
Death "who is called the (one of) abomin-
able countenance and merciless look" (rec.
A, 16:1) and who must take Abraham "with
soft speech" (16:5). In spite of a beautiful
disguise, he does not succeed. Only after
long dialogues and negotiations does Abra-
ham surrender: he kisses the right hand of
Death and departs. Although there are some
traces of personification of death in the OT
(~Mot), Death as an acting and speaking
figure in Test. Abr. is undoubtedly due to
influence of Greek literature, especially the
Alcestis.
IV. Although in the large majority of
cases the use of the word thanatos in the NT
does not show any tendency towards per-
sonification, there are some clear (and some
less clear) examples of this phenomenon. In
Rom 5:14 and 17 Paul writes that thanatos
ruled as king (€BaciAevcev) from Adam to
-*Moses because of the trespass of one man;
and in 6:9 he adds that after -Chrnist's
resurrection thanatos no longer exercises
855
THEMIS
power over him. In 1 Cor 15:26 Paul says
that the last enemy (€x8pdc, as in Hesiod,
Theog. 766) to be destroyed at the eschaton
is thanatos; and in 15:54-55 he addresses
thanatos with the defying words: “Where, O
Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is
your sting?", because "Death has been swal-
lowed up in victory". Although one cannot
say on the basis of these few texts that death
is in Paul's mind a full-fledged personal
being, there can be little doubt that, just as
in the case of -*'sin' and —'law', Paul at-
tributes to ‘death’ a superhuman and super-
natural power that verges on personification
(or rather demonification). The close con-
nection between the powers of ‘sin’, ‘death’,
and ‘law’ as co-operators in Paul’s concept
of ‘anti-salvation-history’ is a well-known
feature of his theology (ROHSER 1987).
In the Apocalypse of John the risen
Christ says to the seer that he has “the keys
of Death and of Hades” (Rev 1:18); in 6:8
the seer sees in a vision a pale green horse,
and "its rider's name was Death, and Hades
followed with him"; in 20:13-4 he sees how
"Death and Hades gave up the dead that
were in them" and how they "were thrown
into the lake of fire"; and in 21:4 it is trium-
phantly said that "Death will be no more".
Here we have in visionary language the
same eschatological message as Paul's in 1
Cor 15:54-S5, mutatis multis mutandis; the
mythological imagery of Rev allows the
author to develop the personification further
than Paul did, especially in Rev 6:8.
V. In early Christian literature after the
NT, onc does not find many instances of
personification of death, as was to be ex-
pected, but there are some notable cases, the
most striking of which is found in the so-
called Book of the Resurrection of Christ by
Bartholomew the Apostle, which is extant
only in a Coptic translation from the Greek
original (ed. and tr. by E. A. WALLIS
BupcE, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of
Upper Egypt [London 1913); see the sum-
mary by M. R. James in his The Apocryphal
New Testament [Oxford 1924} 181-186). In
this work Thanatos asks after the death of
Jesus why his soul has not gone down to
Hades, whereupon he orders that Jesus be
brought before him; thereafter follows a
very colourful description of the confron-
tation between Thanatos and Christ, in
which Christ is victorious (KROLL 1932:77-
81). Possibly Christ is depicted here as
greater than —>Heracles (SIMON 1955:112-
115). Another very vivid description of
Christ’s victory over Death is again found in
an early Coptic writing, The History of
Joseph the Carpenter (BRANDON 1960/61:
333-335).
VI. Bibliography
J. BAZANT, LIMC VII.1 (1994) 9041-908; S.
G. F. BRANDON, The Personification of
Death in Some Ancient Religions, BJRL 43
(1960/61) 317-335; R. BULTMANN, @avatos
KtA., TWNT 3 (1938) 7-25; J. C. EGER, Le
sommeil et la mort dans la Gréce antique
(Paris 1966); H. von GEISAU, Thanatos, KP
V (1975) 648-9; O. KERN, Die Religion der
Griechen | (Berlin 1926); J. KROLL, Gott
und Hólle. Der Mythos vom Descensus-
kampfe (Leipzig-Berlin 1932; repr. Darm-
stadt 1963); *A. Lesky, Thanatos, RE 5A
(1934) 1245-68; G. ROHSER, Metaphorik
und Personifikation der Sünde (Tübingen
1987); E. RonpE, Psyche. Seelencult und
Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen (Leip-
zig-Tübingen 1898; repr. Darmstadt 1961);
M. SiwoN, Hercule et le christianisme (Paris
1955); *O. Waser, Thanatos, ALGRM 5
(1924) 481-527.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
THEMIS O€npic
I. Themis is the Greek goddess of what
is just and lawful (@€p1¢ = ‘law’, ‘justice’,
‘custom’, probably deriving from the stem
Ge-, ‘to lay down, set, establish’; but see
HIRZEL 1907: 53-56; EHRENBERG 1921: 41-
43); she is the embodiment of the ‘social
imperative’, the ‘social conscience’ (HaR-
RISON 1927, 485-6). In the Bible rhemis
does not occur as a goddess, but only twice
in 2 Maccabees in the expression o9 8éptc,
'it is not lawful'.
Il. Themis is one of the many per-
sonified and deified abstract concepts (or
856
THEOS — THESSALOS
rather a case of ‘Person-Bereicheinheit’, thus
PórscHER 1975:676) in Greek culture. The
personification of al] that is lawful and just,
she is the daughter of Ouranos (Heaven)
and Gaia/Gé (Hesiod, Theogony 135; this
perhaps indicates that the early Greeks saw
justice and lawfulness as the foundation and
basis of the human and divine order, thus
HuNGER 1959, 397; but she is sometimes
identified with Gaia (Earth), e.g. Aeschy-
lus, Prometheus V. 209-10; HARRISON 1927:
480-1). Themis is one of —Zeus' wives, and
the mother of the Horai (—Dike [from
whom she is often hardly distinguishable],
Eirene, Eunomia; Theog. 901-2) and the
Moirai. As a personification, Themis is
found already in Homer, where she con-
venes the assembly of the gods (IL 20:4-6;
cf. 15:87-91 and Od. 2:68). According to
later writers she took over from her mother
the Delphic oracle and then gave it to
-*Apollo's grandmother, Phoibe (Aeschylus,
Eumenides, prol.; Plutarch, De defectu ora-
culorum 21, 421C). Pausanias attests many
altars and temples to her, although these cult
centres seem to be limited to Central and
Northern Greece (I 22, 1; II 27, 5; V 14, 10;
IX 22, 1; IX 25, 4; X S, 6; cf. also the
inscriptions mentioned by LATTE 1934:
1628). In the imperial period, mysteries of
Themis seem to have been created (see
Orphic Hymn 79; Clemens Alex., Protrepticus
It 19), although not much is known about
them. For statutes of Themis see the pictures
in WENIGER 1924: 578-581.
II. In the Bible the word themis is used
only by the author of 2 Maccabees, in the
very common expression that something is
od éus: 6:20, "... to refuse things that it is
not themis to eat” (ie. pork), and 12:14,
about Judas’ enemies who were “blas-
pheming and saying things which it is not
themis to say”. Here ‘not themis’ is used to
indicate that certain types of food and
certain forms of language are irreconcilable
with obedience to God’s will. Cf. the use of
90 0gjuxóv in Tob 2:13.
IV. Bibliography
V. E. EHRENBERG, Die Rechtsidee im
Jrühen Griechentum (Leipzig 1921) 3-52;
*J. E. HARRISON, Themis. A Study of the
Social Origins of Greek Religion (Cam-
bridge 19272; repr. London 1977) 480-535;
*R. HIRZEL, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes
(Leipzig 1907) 1-56; H. HUNGER, Lexikon
der griechischen und römischen Mythologie
(Wien 19596) 397-398; P. KARANASTASSI,
LIMC VIII.1 (1997) 1199-1205; K. LATTE,
Themis, RE 5A (Stuttgart 1934) 1626-1630,
W. POTSCHER, Themis, KP V (München
1975) 676; H. Vos, OEMIEZ (diss. Utrecht
1956); *L. WENIGER, Themis, ALGRM V
(1924) 570-606.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
THEOS ^ GODII
THESSALOS Oeoco02óc
I. Thessalos (‘Thessalian’) is the epo-
nymous hero of the Thessalians, the inhabit-
ants of Thessaly in northem Greece. His
name may be found in Thessalonike
(modem Saloniki) the second city of
modern Greece and already a place of
importance by the time of Acts.
Il. The Greeks often traced the begin-
nings of a tribe or a city to a significant
person of mythic times (a ‘hero’; Heros)
after whom that tribe or city was named (the
‘eponymous’ hero). The process is so old
that some mythic eponyms survive whose
tribes have been lost (DowpEN 1992:75-
76): Danaos (and his fifty daughters, the
Danaids), the name of whose ‘Danaoi’ sur-
vives only for indiscriminate use in Homer
to refer to ‘Greeks’; and Pelops, the eponym
of the Peloponnese, but surely also of a tribe
of Pelopes. Surviving pairs of eponym and
tribe include Arkas and the Arkades (Arcad-
lans) but are more prevalent in northern
Greece where tribes were often a more
important focus of identity than cities:
Aitolos and the Aitoloi (Aetolians), Phokos
and the Phokeis (Phocians), Boiotos and the
Boiotoi (Boeotians), -*Makedon and the
Makedones (Macedonians).
The Thessalians do not appear in the old
epics, presumably because the tribes bearing
that name had only arrived in Thessaly after
857
THILLAKHUHA
the fall of the Mycenaean civilisation (the
notional setting for the action of the epics),
though the sons of ‘Thessalos son of Hera-
cles’ make a brief bow in our texts of
Homer's catalogue of ships (/liad 2:679). A
significant parent gave Thessalos such
mythological depth as he could achieve, and
descent from -*Heracles is the standard
mythological cover for tribes that entered
Greece after the end of the Mycenaean age.
Indirect descent from Heracles was achieved
by making him a son of one Aiatos (Charax,
FGH 103F6). Another tradition made him
the son of Haimon, eponym of the
Haimones, a tribe in Thessaly (Rhianos,
FGH 265F30). Haimon was better rooted:
he was a son either of Pelasgos, who often
figures as a preliminary ruler in Greek land-
scapes, or of >Zeus himself. More colour-
fully, he might be a son of —Jason and
Medea (Diodoros 4, 54, 1), thus allowing
him to grow out of the age of heroes in
which his tribe was too late to participate.
His sole task in myth-history is to give his
name to the Thessalians—though there were
other, unspecified, accounts of how he got
his name (Diodoros 4, 55, 2).
III. The name Thessalos is borne by 29
persons in FRAsER-MaTTHEWS (cf. Aeneas
35 times, Jason 183 times), especially in the
3rd/2nd centuries BCE, and by 11 in PAPE-
BENSELER (cf. Aeneas 5 times, Jason 19
times), including Thessalos of Tralles who
in Nero's reign founded or refounded thc
Methodical School of medicine and is the
author of a work De virtutibus herbarum. It
is a complication, however, that a recognis-
able namce-type is derived from ethnic
labels, without requiring an eponymous hero
to mediate them—thus e.g. Attikos, Boiotos,
Lokros and even loudaios (‘Jew’) (Fick-
BECHTEL 1894: 332-337), although Fick-
BECHTEL (1894: 309. 335) hold that in a
Dorian context the name always summons
up the son of Heracles so named. His name
may be viewed as at best indirectly com-
memorated in the city of Thessalonike,
founded around 316/5 Bce by Cassander
(the ruler of Macedonia after the death of
Alexander the Great). He in fact named it
after a different eponym—his wife (though
in later tradition its eponymy reverted to
"Thessalus son of Graecus’, Isid. Erym. 15,
1, 48). This city brought together the in-
habitants of around 25 smaller places, as-
sering a Thessalian identity which had been
seeking cultural recognition for half a mil-
lennium. Thessalonike is mentioned at Acts
17:1.11.13; Phil 4:16; 2 Tim 4:10 and Thes-
salonians (Thessalonikeis) at Acts 20:4; 27:
2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1.
IV. Bibliography
K. DowDEN, The Uses of Greek Mythology
(London 1992); A. Fick & F. BECHTEL,
Die Griechischen | Personennamen nach
ihrer Bildung erklärt und systematisch
geordnet (2nd ed.; Göttingen 1894); P. M.
FRASER & E. MarrHEWS (eds.), A Lexicon
of Greek Personal Names, vol 1: The
Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica (Oxford
1987); U. HórER, Thessalus, ALGRM v
(1916-24) 775-7771; W. PAPE, revised by G.
E. BENSELER, Wórterbuch der griechischen
Eigennamen (Braunschweig 1884); F.
SCHACHERMEYR, Thessalos, PW 6A (1936)
163-164.
K. DowpEN
THILLAKHUHA
I. The Hebrew noun 3illuhím, 'marriage
gift (1 Kgs 9:6), has been related etymo-
logically with an alleged Ugaritic goddess
Thillahuha. She is supposed to be one of the
-*Kosharoth (DE Moon 1970:200).
II. The Ugaritic myth which relates how
the moon-god Yarihu obtained his bride
Nikkal (KTU 1.24) is concluded by a hymn
to the Kosharoth, the goddesses supervising
delivery. This hymn is concluded by a list of
scven words. This list is interpreted cither as
a list of seven nouns related to the process
of marriage and parturition (CAQOUT ct al.
1974:396-397) or as a list of seven deities
(DE Moon 1970:200; peL OLMO LETE
1991:74-75). The latter interpretation is the
more plausible. An argument for the inter-
pretation as goddesses might be the fact
that, like the seven Babylonian Sassurdatu
(Arr S iii:9), there were seven Kosharoth.
858
THORNBUSH
Det Oxrmo LETE compared Thillahuha with
the Sumerian deity nin-ima. This goddess is
known from the myth ‘Enki and Nin-mah’
in which she occurs as an assistent to
Nammu when creating mankind (1991:74-
75). MARGULIT (1989:285) lists only five
Kosharoth. He proposes an emendation for
the first two nouns to tlhh «n».wmlgh«n»
‘bridal gifts and trousseau' interpreted as
given by the Kosharoth to the newly weds.
If dhh (Thillabuha) is a divine name, it
should be construed as a derivation from a
noun (th) with a suffix 3.f.s. As one con-
Strual ‘her (i.e. the bride's) marriage gift’
has been proposed (HERRMANN 1967:23.46-
47; DE Moor 1970:200). A relation with
Heb Selah, ‘offshoot’ is, however, more
probable. Like the other Xosharoth,
Thillahuha was considered to have the form
of a swallow (KTU 1.17 [Aqhat] I 1:27; 1.
24:41).
IIl. 1n. the Old Testament, iHlühim has
the meaning ‘marriage gift’. In 1 Kgs 9:6
the Israelite property of the city of Gezer is
interpreted as a gift of the Egyptian Pharaoh
to his new son-in-law Solomon. In Mic
1:14, the literary and religious context re-
quires a translation as ‘parting gif? (WOLFF
1982:10). The metaphors for mourning
render a translation ‘marriage gift? in this
context less probable (pace DE Moor 1970:
200). Although a ‘marriage gift’ had a social
function in the religious and societal
customs in Ancient Israel, there is only an
etymological relation with the Ugaritic deity
Thillahuha.
The noun felah, ‘offshoot’, occurs only
once (Cant 4:13). In a hymn of the bride-
groom to the beauty of the bride be com-
pares her tenderness and sexua] attraction
metaphorically to the offshoot in a pleasure
garden. This metaphor might have religious
undertones. A relation of the goddess
Thillabuha to Selah, ‘offshoot’, seems more
probable than a relation to Silluhim, ‘mar-
riage gift’. After all, the Ugaritic deity func-
tions in the process of parturition and not in
the ritual of marriage.
IV. Bibliography
A. Caquor, M. Sznycer & A. HERDNER,
Textes Ougaritiques. Tome I (LAPO 7; Paris
1974); W. HERRMANN, Yarih und Nikkal
und der Preis der Kutarat-Gottinen (BZAW
106; Berlin 1967); B. MaRGuLir, The Ugar-
itic Poem of AQHT (BZAW 182; Berlin/
New York 1989); J. C. DE Moor, The
Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit, UF 2 (1970)
188-228; G. nri OrMwo Leve, Yarhu y
Nikkalu. la mitologia lunar sumeria en
Ugarit, AulOr 9 (1991) 67-75; H. W.
Worrr, Dodekapropheton 4. Micha (BKAT
XIV/4; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982).
B. BECKING
THORNBUSH 11, 120, "OR
I. In Exod 3:1-6 ^ Yahweh appears in a
burning bush (séneh). In Deut 33:16
Yahweh is called sSoknf séneh, ‘the Thom-
bush-dweller'. It has been suggested that the
thombush is used as a designation of
Yahweh in Judg 9:14-15 (td) and Ps 58:10
(td). Outside the Bible the Egyptian nation-
al god Amun seems to be related to the nbs-
tree, the Ziziphus spina Christi; a Ugaritic
deity is called 'the god of the Ziziphus'; in
Mesopotamia some deities have the ‘thorn-
bush’ as their symbol.
If. In Egypt the nbs-tree which is the
Ziziphus spina Christi was a holy tree (Ld4
1.[1975] 659, 967). A reference to a so-
called House of the nbs-tree is perhaps to be
found on a fragmentary New Kingdom
block at Tabo on which the name of Amun
of Pnubs (ie. Amun of the House of the
nbs-tree) has been written. In Egypt the holy
nbs-tree is the symbol of various deities:
Amun-Re, Sopdu and -Hathor (Scnu-
MACHER 1988; LdÁ 4 [1982] 1067-1068.)
In a Ugaritic incantation a human being
hopes to receive a favourable omen from the
trees. In the trees winged spirits are perch-
ing. Among them is il d‘rgzm, ‘the god of
the Ziziphus’ who is paralleled by ‘the god-
dess who is on a twig’ (KTU 1.20 i:8-9).
The ‘rgz is member of the Ziziphus family,
a thornbush. It is likely that the god of the
jujube-trees does not refer to a tree-god, but
to an ancestral god sitting on a branch of a
tree with his female companion. However,
859
THORNBUSH
there is no great difference between a
deified tree and a tree in which a spirit is
hiding. Tree-gods did occur in the ancient
Near East. In Egypt many pictures have
been found of tree-goddesses, mixed images
of a tree and an anthropomorphic deity.
These tree-goddesses were but metamorpho-
ses of high goddesses like -*Isis, Nuth, and
Hathor.
In Mesopotamia eddetu ‘boxthorn’ is
associated with certain deities in theological
commentary texts (CAD E 23). The amur-
dinnu (bramble or rose) would be the
emblem of a deity (CAD A/2, 91).
III. Probably the earliest designation of
Yahweh as ‘the Thombush-dweller’ (Sokni
séneh) is found in Deut 33:16. The circum-
stance that this epithet was maintained in
spite of the strong corrective tendency of
later tradition might be interpreted as an
argument in favour of its authenticity—pace
W. H. Scumipt (Exodus [BKAT 2; Neu-
kirchen Vluyn 1988] 116) who interprets
séneh as a secondary addition to the Exod 3
account. The Yahwistic account of the ap-
pearance of the deity in a buming séneh in
Exod 3:1-6 confirms the importance of this
concept in early Israel. Because the séneh
may probably be identified as Ziziphus spina
Christi, this designation comes very close to
the Ugaritic ‘god of the Ziziphus (jujube-
tree)’. The fact that already in the New
Kingdom Egyptian gods—even the highest
god Amun—may be described as dwelling
in or sitting under the holy Ziziphus may be
an extra argument for identifying the
Hebrew snh with this Ziziphus.
It has long been observed that there may
be a connection between the name of the
Ziziphus-bush and the name of Sinai (DE
Moon 1990:194-195). In Judg 5:5 and Ps
68:18 God is called zeh sindy -*'He-of-the-
Sinai’ which may refer to an earlier ‘He-of-
the-Thornbush'. 1f the Ugaritic ‘god of the
Ziziphus’ was an ancestral spirit, it may be
that the Hebrew epithet ‘Ziziphus-dweller’
points to the earliest phase of Yahwism
when Yahweh was still an ancestral mani-
festation of >El (De Moor 1990:232-234,
259-260). It is at least noteworthy that
Yahweh was supposed to be able to make
the sound (qwl) of marching steps (s'dh) in
the top of trees (2 Sam 5:24). To David this
must be the sign that his God is marching
against the Philistines. We may recall herc
that in Ugarit the bird-like ancestral spirits,
the ghosts of great warriors who protected
their offspring on earth, were even supposed
to come rolling through the tops of the trees
in their chariots.
In the Yahwistic account of Exod 3:1-6
the realistic nature of this imagery was miti-
gated, even if we assume that the angel of v
2 did not belong to the original account (cf.
v 4). Yet the self-predication in v 6 would
still seem to refer back to the ancestral cult.
According to DE Moor (1990:182-197) the
tradition of the Thombush-dweller found
expression in two more texts, namely Judg
9:14-15 and Ps 58:10. Jotham's fable tells
about a thombush (’td) who is asked by the
other trees to rule over them. De Moor pro-
poses to regard "td as an alternative name of
the Ziziphus and sees the original fable as a
plea for polytheism in opposition to the
early drive to make the Thornbush-dweller
Yahweh king of the gods. (For other views
scc J. EBACH & U. RÜTERSWÜRDEN; Poin-
ten der Jothamfabel, BN 31 [1986] 11-18).
In favour of this hypothesis one might
point to the fact that in Egypt the holy nbs-
tree is the symbol of various deities. The
theory has attractive aspects because it
solves a number of old puzzles with regard
to the relation between the fable and the
framework story. In DE Moor’s opinion this
scornful epithet 7d was still known to the
poet of Ps 58 who in his turn attacks the
gods of Canaan (Ps 58:2). He translates Ps
58:10 as follows: "Before they understand—
your thorns, O Thornbush! As soon as it is
alive—let the blaze sweep it away!” (i.e. the
untimely birth, cf. Ps 58:9). In this tradition
the name of a thorny plant is accepted as an
epithet for Yahweh, but the whole context
shows that it was understood to be a meta-
phor, not a deification of the thornbush.
Perhaps the thcophoric name sbkyhw
occurs in Lachish ostracon no. 11:5. It might
mean “Yahweh is a thorny bush” (cf. other
860
THOTH
theophoric names like dityhw, ‘Yahweh is a
door’, hryhw, ‘Yahweh is a mountain’).
IV. Bibliography
M. A. BEEK; Der Dombusch als Wohnsitz
Gottes (Deut XXXIII 16), OTS 14 (1965)
155-161; M. C. A. KonPzEL, A Rift in the
Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions
of the Divine (UBL 8; Miinster 1990) 588-
589, 591-593; J. C. bE Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Mono-
theism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990) 182-197; I.
W. SCHUMACHER, Der Gott Sopdu: Der
Herr der Fremdldénder (Gottingen 1988)
160-176, 178, 265.
M. C. A. KORPEL
THOTH
I. Despite many ingenious attempts
scholars have failed to establish a plausible
etymological explanation of the name of the
Egyptian God Thoth (Spies 1991:18-21
gives a convenient summary of current
views). Aram thwt and thwmm’ (= Gk Thot-
homous, ‘Thoth is justified’: SEGAL 1983:
47), Akk tihut, Lat Theur and Greek spel-
lings (e.g. Thduth, Théth and Thouth:
HorrNER 1946:50-52) reflect Eg Dhwty.
Phoen 7aautos (Eusebius, Praep. evang.
1.29.24) has been suggested to refer to Thoth
(J. EBACH, Weltentstehung und Kulturent-
wicklung bei Philo von Byblus (Stuttgart
1979] 60-67). It is extremely doubtful
whether Thoth (Eg Dkwty), the ibis-headed
god of ~wisdom and the Lord of Hermo-
polis, occurs in the Bible.
Il. Thoth’s cult seems to have had its
origins in the Delta but already at an early
date Hermopolis in Middle Egypt was his
chief cult centre (ZrvrE 1973:ix-x). Thoth is
a lunar deity who manifests himself as an
ibis or, since the Middle Kingdom (SPIES
1991:14), a baboon. The Egyptians asso-
ciated the waning and reappearance of the
>moon with the Eye of Horus which had
been robbed or damaged by the wicked god
Seth. On the day of the full moon, Thoth
retrieved or healed the Eye (Eg wad3.t, ‘the
Healthy Eye’). Thoth then mediates in re-
storing the harmony (Eg Maat) of the cos-
mos and thus of Egypt, its terrestrial coun-
terpart (cf. the hieroglyph of the wd*.t-eye as
designation of Egypt; Wb. 1.425.18).
Thoth's role as a cosmic deity is attested
since the Late Period. Thoth was regarded
as the Thought (heart) of the sun god ~Re
(cf. Horapollo Hierogl. 1.26) and as the cre-
ative Word (tongue) of >Ptah or ~Atum
(SAUNERON 1964:301-302). A Greek magi-
cal text calls Thoth the mind residing in the
heart (A. Drerericu, Abraxas [Leipzig
1891] 17, 1.43). Thoth, the viceregency of
Re, realises the plans of his Lord. He is the
eldest child of Re (BOYLAN 1922:195) and a
second god, without whose knowledge no-
thing comes into being. Re put Hu, the auth-
oritative Utterance and motive force behind
creation, in the mouth of Thoth (Edfou
VI.298.7), the Lord of the divine words
(BOYLAN 1922:92-97). At sunrise the loud
cries of joy of the ithyphallic (= creative)
baboon, the embodiment of Thoth, an-
nounced the appearance of the sun or the
cosmic renewal (H. TE VELDE, Some
Remarks on the Mysterious Language of the
Baboons, Funerary Symbols and Religion
{FS Heerma van Voss; Kampen 1988] 129-
137). Thoth is equated with Sia, the divine
Wisdom (DERCHAIN-URTEL 1981:206 n.63;
SAUNERON 1964:302), and by means of his
palette he designs the world, the pictura
mundi, which existed already in the demi-
urge’s mind. The palette of Thoth is called
Seeing and Hearing, notions which are
linked to the renewal of creation (DER-
CHAIN-URTEL 1981:88). Thoth, the kosmo-
krator, organised the world (RuscH 1936:
361). He is the Bull of the stars and designs
the cosmic place of the temple. The building
of a temple, which depended on fixed posi-
tions of the stars, was regarded as the earth-
ly repetition of creation. Thoth fills the lunar
eye, thus regulating the course of the stars
and causing the cosmos to be renewed
(DERCHAIN-URTEL 1981:34-35). He is
found in the solar barque accompanied by
Hu, Sia and Maat. As the substitute of Seth
(Orro 1938), he annihilates the foes of the
sun and thus assists in restoring creation,
symbolically expressed by the wd3.t-eye he
861
THOTH
offers to the sun god (J. ASSMANN, Litur-
gische Lieder an den Sonnengott (MAS 19;
Berlin 1969} 219, 308, with references).
Thoth was associated with the inundation.
According to Egyptian conceptions the full
moon brought the inundation and fertility to
the land (DERCHAIN 1962:34-35)
As Lord of Hermopolis (Eg Hmnw, ‘City
of the Eight’) Thoth was regarded as a cre-
ator in his own right. Hermopolis was con-
ceived as the primaeval Hill, where the
Ogdoad came into existence. Thoth, the
Eldest One and self-created god (BOYLAN
1922:193, 195; cf. Claudian, Stilicho 11.434
and P. DERCHAIN, A propos de Claudien,
ZAS 81 [1956} 96) is sometimes represented
as an ibis-headed nude man with the side-
lock of youth, wearing dog-headed slippers.
The creator god is young and old at the
same time, thus guaranteeing the continuous
renewal of the cosmos and of life itself. The
dog-headed slippers associate the god with
the Ogdoad who protect and assist the demi-
urge in creation (QUAEGEBEUR 1992).
The importance of Thoth as a funerary
god is firmly rooted in religious literature
(Pyr., CT and BD) and seems to derive from
his lunar nature (RÁRG 810). The deceased
wishes to traverse the sky in the company of
Thoth (CT VI.19.a) in order to be reborn
after the example of the moon (W. HELCK,
LdÁ |V [1982] 192). The fate of -*Osiris,
whose corpse was torn to pieces by Seth, is
reflected in the moon's phases. Thoth recon-
structs the corpse of Osiris (= the deceased:
Pyr. 639.b, 830.a-b, CT VI.322.s). Some-
umes Thoth and Shu, the air god, take care
of the corpse of Osiris (J. VANDIER, Le
Dieu Shou dans le Papyrus Jumilhac,
MDAIK 15 (1957) 268-269). Thoth defends
Osiris against his enemies and is asked to do
for the deceased what he has done for Osiris
(CT IV.91.b). He opens the mouth of the
deceased and gives him the breath of life
(ScHorr 1972:23). The god functions as
Psychopompos and together with Anubis he
reconstructs the corpse of the deceased. In
PGM IV 3131, Thoth seems to be associated
with Hermanubis (cf. Eusebius Praep.
evang. 3.11.43). Both Anubis and the Greek
god —Hermes are often represented carrying
the staff of the psychopompos. Thoth gives
a letter to the deceased in order to enable
him to pass by the doors of the Netherworld
and to arrive at the Hall of Osiris (QuAE-
GEBEUR 1988). The god is present at the
weighing of the heart of the deceased
against Maat (P. DERCHAIN, L'Oeil, Gardien
de la justice, ZAS 83 [1958] 75-76) and he
records the results (BD 125). Sometimes the
god is represented as the scale of justice
itself (CT 1.181.c-d, IV.301.c-302.c). He is
in charge of the funeral offerings which
were due on fixed days of the lunar month
(BovLAN 1922:138; KuRTH 1986:505).
However, Thoth’s nature has a dangerous
side. He is called the Cutting One, whose
knife is thought of as the crescent moon
(KEES 1925). The god is often represented
armed with a knife (ZiviE 1977:30-31).
Thoth was regarded as the murderer of
Osiris (Pyr. 329.a-e) because he was a bad
protector of the moon’s phases (DERCHAIN
1962:38). He appeared as hostile to the
deceased (Spies 1991:157) and to the gods
(Pyr. 1963.b) who were afraid of his de-
structive powers (DERCHAIN-URTEL 1981:
164, with many references). Thoth had been
born in an unnatural way from the head or
the knee of Seth, the violent god par excel-
lence (DERCHAIN 1962:22, with references).
Indeed he was said to have no mother, al-
though occasionally -*Neith is mentioned as
his parent (EL-SAvED 1969). To this may be
added Thoth's bad reputation as a trickster
who steals the offerings and mischievously
diverts 1/4 of a day at the end of each
month (Scuorr 1970).
The moon is connected with the calendar,
reckoning and science. Thoth, the lunar
deity, is thought to reveal his nature espe-
cially in intellectual activities. The god
develops this most famous aspect of his
character especially since the New King-
dom. He is the reckoner of time and he dis-
tinguishes months and years (BovLAN 1922:
183). The first month of the year is called
after Thoth (Cicero, Nat. deor. III. 22). The
god measures the fields (cf. Ampelius, Liber
Memor. 9.5), calculates taxes (HELCK 1976),
862
THOTH
guarantees. the accuracy of weights and
measures (ZIVIE 1977). The cubit is sacred
to Thoth and by means of it the god
measures (= creates) the world (cf. the
measuring of the world in Isa 40:12 and Job
38:5). Thoth, who defended —Horus (= the
archetypical pharaoh) in the trial against
Seth for the possession of Egypt, enthrones
the pharaoh and gives him many jubilees.
The god is associated with Meskhenet, the
goddess of childbirth (BOYLAN 1922:84-86),
and as inaugurator of time he is closely
linked to fate and the Agathodaemon (PGM
TV.655). Thoth is sometimes regarded as the
father of Isis, the goddess of fate and mother
of Horus (Ray 1976:158-159; KAKosy
1981:43, n.14 with many references). The
ibis, the bird of Thoth, announces to the
world the crowning of the pharaoh and the
beginning of a new era (Scuorr 1968). In
the Late Perjod he was a god of oracles and
dreams (RAY 1976:133; QUAEGEBEUR
1975). Thoth is the scribe of Re (SAUNERON
1962:287-289; cf. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 1.10;
Augustine Civ. Dei VIII.27). He is the pa-
tron god of scribes and bears titles of ad-
ministrative dignitaries (SAUNERON 1963:
300). Thoth invented script and language (S.
SAUNERON, La différenciation des langages
d'après la tradition égyptienne, BIFAO 60
[1960] 31-41) and is the author of ritual
books (ScHoTr 1963). Temples are founded
and decorated according to Thoth’s writings.
The god’s powerful creative word made him
a great magician who was equated with
Hike, the embodiment of Magic and the pro-
tector of Re against his foes (BOYLAN 1922:
124-135).
Thoth was also regarded as a great phys-
ician, because he cured the lunar eye (DER-
CHAIN 1962:26) Sometimes the god is
represented holding the stick of Asclepius
(KAkosy 1981:43).
IIL In the beginning of this century,
scholars often proceeded too uncntücally in
their eagerness to connect names of Egypt-
ian gods with supposed equivalents in the
Bible. More recently, however, KILIAN
(1966) and Notrer (1974) argued on good
grounds that the Ogdoad of Hermopolis
(“the souls of Thoth”) 1s in the background
of the Genesis creation myth. COUROYER
(1987) seems to suggest an association
between the biblical expression “the path of
God” (cf. Gen 18:19) and its Egyptian coun-
terpart “the path of Thoth”. MOWINCKEL
(1929), Pore (1965) and W. F. ALBRIGHT
(Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan [London
1968] 212-214) state that the word mme,
vocalised tuhét, which in Job 38:36 appears
in parallelism with Sekw? ‘cock’, refers to
Thoth. The meaning of tuhôt has been dis-
puted already in ancient times as can be in-
ferred from varying translations in LXX,
Vulg and Tg. Starting from Sekwi ‘cock’, the
majority of modern commentators on the
book of Job (e.g. KEEL 1978:60) suppose
that fuhôt represents a bird and they take it
to refer to the ibis, the bird sacred to Thoth
(P. DHoRME Le livre de Job [Etudes bibli-
ques; Paris 1926] 541; KEEL 1978:60; A.
DE WILDE, Das Buch Hiob [OTS 22; Lei-
den 1981] 369). HABEL (1985) and others
reject any association with Thoth and the
ibis.
The Chnstians associated Thoth with the
Archangel ~Michael (G. LANCZKOWSXI,
Thoth and Michael, MDAIK 14 [1956] 117-
127) and the Jews with —Moses (G.
MUSSIES, The interpretatio judaica of Thoth-
Hermes, Studies in Egyptian Religion dedi-
cated to Professor Jan Zandee (M. Heerma
van Voss et al, eds; Numen Supplement
43, Leiden 1982] 89-120). The Greeks
recognised in Thoth many of the. characteris-
tics of the god Hermes. The Egyptian
Hermes, known under the name of Tris-
megistos, was the reputed author of the
Corpus Hermeticum, which was widely read
by Gnostics and Christians.
IV. Bibliography
H. Bonnet, Thoth, RARG 320-321; *P.
BoYLaN, Thoth, the Hermes of Egypt
(Oxford 1922); B. COUROYER, “Le dieu des
Sages” en Egypte, RB 94 (1987) 574-603; P.
DERCHAIN, Mythes et dieux lunaires en
Egypte, La lune, mythes et rites (SO 5; Paris
1962) 17-68; *M.-T. DercHarn-UrTEL,
Thot à travers ses épithetes dans les scénes
d'offrandes des temples d'époque gréco-
863
THRONES
romaine (Bruxelles 1981); N. C. HABEL,
The Book of Job. A commentary. (London
1985); W. HELCK, Der Name des Thoth
(SAK 4; 1976) 131-134; T. HOPFNER,
Agyptische theophore Personennamen, ArOr
15 (1946) 1-64; L. KAxosy, Problems of the
Thoth-cult in Roman Egypt (StAeg VII;
1981) 41-46; O. KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung
an Ijob (Göttingen 1978), H. KEES, Zu den
ägyptischen Mondsagen, ZAS 60 (1925) 1-
15; R. KILIAN, Gen I 2 und die Urgötter von
Hermopolis, VT 16 (1966) 420-438; D.
Kurtu, Thoth, LdÀ 6 (1986) 497-523; S.
MOWINCKEL, MVIO und "DY. Eine Studie
zur Astrologie des Alten Testaments, AcOr
8 (1929) 1-44; V. NorrrR, Biblischer
Schüpfungsbericht und ägyptische Schöp-
fungsmythen (Stuttgart 1974); E. Orro, Thot
als der Stellvertreter des Seth, Or 7 (1938)
69-79; M. H. Pope, Job (AB; Garden City
1965); J. QUAEGEBEUR, Teéphibis, dieu ora-
culaire?, Enchoria 5 (1975) 19-24; QUAEGE-
BEUR, Lettres de Thot et Décrets pour
Osiris, Funerary Symbols and Religion (FS
Heerma van Voss; Kampen 1988) 105-126;
QUAEGEBEUR, Les pantouffles du dieu Thot,
Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egitto-
logia, Atti Vol. 1 (Torino 1992) 521-527; J.
Ray, The archive of Hor (London 1976); A.
Ruscu, Thoth, PW XI (1936) 351-388; S.
SAUNERON, Le dieu égyptien Thoth, ACF
62 (1962) 287-290; 63 (1963) 299-303; 64
(1964) 301-305; 65 (1965) 339-342; R. EL-
SAYED, Thoth n’a-t-il vraiment pas de
mére?, REg 21 (1969) 71-75; S. Scuorr,
Die Opferliste als Schrift des Thoth, ZÁS 90
(1963) 103-110; ScHorr, Falke, Geier und
Ibis als Krónungsboten, ZÁS 95 (1968) 54-
65; Scuorr, Thot le dieu qui vole, CRA/JBL
1970 [Paris 1971] 547-556; ScHorr, Thoth
als Verfasser der heiligen Schriften, ZAS 99
(1972) 20-25; B. SEGAL, Aramaic Texts
from North Saqqára (London 1983); H.
Spes, Aufstieg eines Gottes (Hamburg
1991); *A. P. ZiviE, Hermopolis et le nome
de l'ibis (IFAO (Bibliotheque d'Etude]
66/1; Le Caire 1973); ZiviE, L'ibis, Thot et
la Coudée, BSFE 79 (1977) 22-41.
R. L. Vos
THRONES @povoi
I. In a hymnic passage extolling Jesus
Christ we read “for in (or: by) him all things
in heaven and earth were created, things
visible and invisible, whether thrones
(thronoi) or dominions or rulers and
powers—all things have been created
through him and for him” (Col 1:16). Here
the term ‘thrones’, like the other words,
denotes heavenly beings. It occurs with this
meaning only here in the Bible. The other
words are found in similar lists (1 Cor
15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; 1 Pet 3:22);
whilst ‘rulers’ and ‘powers’ are mentioned
together in Col 2:10.15.
II. A throne, the symbol of majesty and
power to govern and to administer justice, is
often mentioned in connection with kings
and deities. This applies to the ancient Near
East (see FABRY 1984) and Greece (see HUG
1935), as well as to ancient Israel. In the OT
the LorpD’s throne is connected with Sion
(Isa 8:18; Jer 3:17; 14:21; 17:12; Ps 9:12) or
said to be in heaven (Isa 66:1; Pss 2:4; 11:4;
123:1). Isaiah in a vision "saw the Lord sit-
ting on a throne, high and lofty, and the hem
of his robe filled the temple” (6:1). Ezekiel
saw “something like a throne” and above it
“something like a human form” (Ezek 1:26,
cf. 10:1). This throne is situated above a
chariot formed by winged creatures (else-
where identified as cherubs (9:3; 10:1-22;
11:22, cf. Ps 18:11)). In Dan 7:9 ‘the
~Ancient of Days’, surrounded by a in-
numerable host and about to pronounce
judgement, is situated on a similar throne;
more thrones are sect in place, clearly for
those who are to sit in judgement with the
Ancient One (v 10). We may compare here
the visions in 7 Enoch 14 (esp. vv 18.20)
and J Enoch 71 (esp. v 7) and those in Rev
4-7.
In the Similitudes of Enoch, not only God
(‘the Head of Days’, ‘the Lord of Spirits")
will deliver judgement on his throne (47:3;
62:2.3), but also ‘the Chosen One’, ‘the
—Son of Man’ will be seated on the throne
of his glory (45:3; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 69:
27.29) to judge on God's behalf. Here we
may compare the picture in Matt 25:31 of
864
THRONES
the Son of Man coming in glory with his
angels and sitting on the throne of his glory,
about to judge all the nations. In Matt 19:28
(par. Luke 22:30) he is accompanied by the
twelve disciples, seated on twelve thrones
and judging (the twelve tribes of) Israel. In
Rev 4:4 (10) and 11:16 there are twenty-
four thrones in heaven, before the throne of
God, for heavenly beings called ‘the twenty-
four ~ elders’, and in Rev 3:21; 22:1.3 the
—Lamb shares the throne of God (cf. 7:17).
In 20:4, clearly referring to Dan 7:9, the
occupants of the thrones that are set up are
not identified.
In Rev 3:21 ‘the one who conquers’ will
obtain a place with Christ on the throne
which he shares with his Father, Compare /
Enoch 108:12 and 4Q521 (ed. É. PUECH,
RevQ 15 [1992] 485) fragm. 2 ii+4, line 7,
“the Lord wil] honour the pious ones on the
throne of his eternal kingdom" (cf. T. Job
33, Apoc. Elijah {ed, Pietersma-Comstock]
2:3-6). In Apoc. Zeph. (acc. to Clem. AL,
Strom 5,11.77.2) we meet angels called
‘lords’ occupying thrones in the fifth
heaven, and in Wis 9:4 (cf. 9:10; 18:15)
Wisdom is said to sit by God's throne
(here in Greek a plural of majesty is used,
as often in Greek literature, cf. also Ezekiel’s
Exagoge 76 [next to the sing. in 73-75)).
It is difficult to find early parallels for the
notion of ‘thrones’ as personified beings. It
occurs in Christian sources, e.g. in Melito,
On Pascha (ed. Hall) 603-607, “who fitted
the stars in heaven, who Jit up the lumin-
aries, who made the angels in heaven, who
established the thrones there”, in Valentinian
gnosis (acc. to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. J 18 [ed.
Harvey] and Clem. Al., Exc. ex Theod. 43.3)
and in clearly Christian passages in T. Adam
4:8 and Asc. Isa. 7:21.27, 8:8; 11:25 (see
also Test. Sol. MS D 8:6). Later Christian
parallels are listed in LPGL 655, 2d. As to
the OT pseudepigrapha, 7. Levi 3:8 may
also be mentioned, where in the fifth out of
seven heavens ‘thrones and ~—authorities’
bear continuous praise to God. As the pres-
ent Greek text of 7. Levi has undergone
Christian redaction (also in 3:6), we cannot
be certain that this reference to ‘thrones’ is
pre-Christian (the corresponding fragment of
Aramaic Levi introduces a heavenly journey,
but then breaks off). ‘Thrones’ are men-
tioned together with —angels, -*archangels,
—powers and —authonties in 7. Abraham
(ed. F. Schmidt), but only in the short recen-
sion represented by family EACDHI, not in
that found in MSS BFG, or in the long
recension. "Thrones' are found in an enu-
meration of heavenly beings in the longer
recension of 2 Enoch 20:1, but not in the
shorter one (nor in the list in J Enoch 61:
10). Equally, ‘thrones’ as heavenly beings
are mentioned in the Achmimic version of
Apoc. Elijah (ed. Steindorff) 21:4.8.10, but
not jn the Sahidic parallel (ed. Pietersma-
Comstock) 2:8-18. Much more work on
these pseudepigrapha will have to be done
before we are able to decide where and
when 'thrones' first appeared to denote a
class of heavenly beings. In Jewish mystical
literature from late antiquity, personification
of God's throne is very often encountered
(ScHAFER 1991 passim).
How thrones could be personified may be
illustrated by a passage in Apoc. Mosis
(Greek Life of Adam and Eve) 23,2 where
Eve confesses “I have sinned against you, ]
have sinned against your elect angels, I have
sinned against the cherubs, I have sinned
against your unshaken throne”. The opinion
found in the writings of a number of Chris-
tian writers (probably beginning with Clem.
Al., Eclogae 57,1) that the cherubim were
called ‘thrones’ because they supported the
throne of God seems unlikely, however
important Ezekiel’s throne-vision has been
in visions of heaven (e.g. Apoc. Abraham
18) and in Jewish mysticism.
Iii. The author of the Epistle to the
Colossians is not interested in the exact
function or hierarchy of the four heavenly
beings mentioned in 1:16. He emphasizes
that all of them are subordinate to the Cre-
ator and his Son, the firstborn of all cre-
ation, in whom they were created (cf. Col
2:10). They have definitely been subdued
and rendered powerless at the death and
exaltation of Christ (Col 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22);
at the end of time ‘every ruler, every author-
865
THUKAMUNA
ity and power’ will be destroyed (1 Cor 15:
24). Human beings should worship God and
his Son: not inferior angelic beings.
IV. Bibliography
H.-J. Faspry, TWAT 4 (1984) 247-272; A.
Huc, PW If 6,1 (1935) 613-618; S. M.
OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him.
Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in
Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 36; Tübingen 1993)
61-66; P. SCHAFER, Der verborgene und
offenbare Gott. Hauptthemen der frühen
jüdischen Mystik (Tübingen 1991).
M. DE JONGE
THUKAMUNA
I. The name of the Ugaritic deity Thu-
kamuna, occurring as element in the bi-
nomial divine name Tkmn-w-Snm, has ety-
mologically been related to the Hebrew
noun Sékem (GINSBERG 1936:92; WYATT
1990:446-449). ščkem occurs in the OT as a
noun meaning ‘shoulder; back’ (22 times;
cf. Ug skm, ‘shoulder’ e.g. KTU 1.14 ii:11;
11:54; 1.22 1:5); as a toponym Shechem
located in the highlands of Ephraim (e.g.
Gen 12:6; 33:18; 35:4; 37:12. 14; Josh 17:7;
20:7; 21:21; 24:1. 25. 32; Judg 8:31; 9; 21:
19) and as a personal name borne by four
different people in the OT (Gen 34:2; Num
26:31; Josh 17:2; 1 Chron 17:9),
II. The binomial deity Thukamuna-wa-
—Shunama is attested at Ugant in literary-
religious texts as well as in offering-lists.
The two names appear together. In KTU
1.114, the description of a heavenly
marzeah, they are depicted as sons of —El
and, probably, to be identified with the ‘gate-
keeper of the house of El’ (D. PARDEE, Les
texies paramythologiques [RSOu 4; Paris
1988) 59-60). Here, they perform the filial
duty towards a drunken father referred to in
the epic of Aqhat (KTU 1.17 1:30). In the
ritual KTU 1.41:12. 16 the offering of an
ewe for the deity is prescribed for the ritual
on the fifteenth day of the month 'First-of-
the-Wine'; the offering of a ram is also pre-
scribed as an additional offering at the same
event. On the third day of the festival an
ewe must be offered for Thukamuna-wa-
Shunama (KTU 1.41:31-32). In a list of dej-
ties in alphabetic script Thukamuna-wa-
Shunama are presented as the sons of E]
(KTU 1.65:1-4).
From J. W. Jack (The Rash Shamra
Tablets: Their Bearing on the Old Testa-
meni [Edinburgh 1935] 22) onwards an
etymological and formal relation between
Thukamuna and the Cassite deity Sugamuna
is assumed (most recently WyvATT 1990:
446; Wvarr 1996:45-46). Within the Cassi-
te pantheon Sugamuna can be equated with
the Mesopotamian —Nergal. The
identification as well as the direction of
influence, however, 1$ open to debate. K.
BALKAN (Kassitenstudien ! [New Haven
1954] 117.121) seriously doubted the Cas-
site origin of the name Sugamuna. Some
scholars searched for an Indo-European ety-
mology of the name (MixoNov 1933:144;
Wyatr 1990:446-447; Sanskrit: fucamdna,
$ocamána, ‘burning one; lamenting one; sor-
rowful one’); others prefer a Semitic deri-
vation. The occurrence of the toponym
Su-ka-mu-na-tim in a document from Mari
(A. 4634; G. Dossin, RA 64 [1970] 43), the
attestation of the noun 3km in the Ugaritic
language and the existence of the personal
names §u-ku-ma-na and Su-ka-ma-na at
Ugarit seern to favour the second possibility
(E. Liprtsxt, E]’s Abode: Mythological Tra-
ditions Related to Mt. Hermon and to the
Mountains of Armenia, OLP 2 [1971] 67;
PaRDbEEÉ 1988:]99).
Recently, Wyatt has elaborated the view
that the story in Gen 34 is an old Indo-Euro-
pean myth brought to the region by the Hur-
rians (the Horites of the story). The myth,
which has been transformed into a quasi-his-
torical legend, occurs in a number of Vedic
recensions, and describes a sacred marriage
followed by the sacrifice of the husband. At
least one of the partners is divine. Accord-
ing to Wyatr elements of the myth (and an
accompanying ritual) are either alluded to,
or narrated in full, in such passages as Rg
Veda 10. 90 (Purusastikta), Rg Veda 10. 95
— cf. Satapatha Brahmana 11. 5:1-10 (Purv-
ravas and Urva$i) and Aitareya Bráhmana 7.
13-18 (Sunah&epa). The bride in the myth 15
866
TIAMAT
the dawn-goddess Usha, the groom and
victim a royal figure (1990). Two remarks
should be made, however. Firstly, the Vedic
material adduced to prove the view is open
to discussion. Purusasukta occurs in a cre-
ation myth in which the purusa (a primordial
man seen as a cosmic figure) sacrifices him-
self in order to allow the universe to
emerge. The happy-ending story of Purura-
vas and Urva£i does not contain the element
of sacrifice of the spouse. Secondly, it
should be observed, moreover, that Wyatt's
suggestion presumes the existence of a
strong and influential Aryan upper-class in
the ancient Near East jn the second millen-
nium BCE, who via the Mitanni-Hurrians
transmitted religious ideas also known in the
Vedic religion. This view has definitely
been dismissed by KAMMENHUBER (1968)
and DiAKoNorr (1972).
HI. The city of Shechem has been a re-
ligious centre from of old. (e.g. G. E.
WRIGHT, Shechem. The Biography of a
Biblical City (London 1965] Although
Shechem is an enduring place for worship in
Old Testament times and later by the
Samantans, the name of the city of Shechem
as such is not an object of veneration. The
personal name Shechem does not have a
theophoric character (HALAT 1385-1386).
The name Shechem should preferably be
related lo the noun Skm, ‘shoulder’, indicat-
ing the geographical position of the city on
the edge of a mountain. A relationship with
the Ugaritic deity Thukamuna probably rests
on homonymy.
IV. Bibliography
J. M. Draxonorr, Die Arier im Vorderen
Orient: Ende eines Mythos, OrNS 41 (1972)
91-120; O. EissFELDT, TÀonn winm, ZDMG
99 [NS 24] (1945-9 [1950]) 29-42; A. KAM-
MENHUBER, Die Arier im Vorderen Orient
(Heidelberg 1968); N. D. Mironov, Aryan
Vestiges in the Near East of the Second
Millennium Bc, AcOr 11 (1933) 140-217;
*D. PARDEE, Tukamuna wa Sunama, UF 20
(1988) 195-199 (with lit.); B. THIEME, The
‘Aryan’ Gods of the Mitanni treaties, JAOS
80 (1960) 301-317; N. WYATT, The story of
Dinah and Shechem, UF 22 (1990) 433-458;
Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal
Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical
Traditions (UBL 13; Miinster 1996).
B. BECKING
TIAMAT oy
I. Téhém, usually translated "the deep",
occurs in Gen 1:2 as a designation of the
primeval sea, and is frequently used in the
OT to denote the cosmic —sea (Yam) on
which the world rests, and from which all
water comes, as well as any large body of
water, including rivers, and the depth of the
sea and the earth.
Heb TZhóm is etymologically related to
Akk Tidmat, which derives from an older
Semitic root, thm, known in Ugaritic and
other semitic Janguages as a designation of
the sea. In Arabic Tihamar denotes the
coastal plain along the southwestern and
southern shores of the Arabian peninsula. In
Akkadian the root is known in the female
form, tidmtu, or tdmtu, ‘sea’. The divine
name Tiamat, especially well-known from
the Babylonian Creation Myth Enama elis,
is the absolute state of the noun.
To the deification of Tiamat in Mesopot-
amian texts corresponds the deification of
thmt in the divine pair grm wthmt (‘moun-
tains and deep waters") in Ugaritic texts.
I. In. the Babylonian creation epic
Enüma elis, Tiamat (also called Mummu) is
the personified primeval ocean that was
defeated by —~Marduk, whose supremacy
over the Babylonian pantheon was estab-
lished through battle. Marduk defeated
Tiamat in single combat, using the winds
and a huge net as his weapons. The body of
the dead Tiamat was split like a fish to be
dried into two halves, one of which became
the sky. Having positioned the celestial
bodies, Marduk used Tiamat’s spit for
clouds, placed a mountain on her head, and
made an outlet from her eyes for the waters
of the Euphrates and the Tigris (Enuma
elis IV 93 - V 66).
The principle of creation that appears in
the conversion of the carcass of the slain
Tiamat into a cosmic entity is paralleled
867
TIAMAT
twice in Enüma elis. The first example is
Apsu, Tiamat's consort, who was killed by
Ea. A sanctuary, in which Marduk was born,
was established on his carcass. The second
is Kingu, the leader responsible for organi-
zing Tiamat's battle to revenge Apsu. He
was slaughtered, and mankind was created
out of his blood by Ea.
Alongside with the violent principle of
killing, sexual productivity appears in the
poem as a means of creation. In the begin-
ning Tiamat and Apsu commingled their
waters as a single body. Within them a
generation of two pairs, first ^Lahmu and
Lahamu, then Anshar (the circumference of
—Heaven) and Kishar (the circumference of
Barth), were produced. The latter became
the parents of Anu (Heaven), who became
the father of Ea (Nudimmud). Marduk was
Ea's son.
In Assynologica] literature Tiamat is
usually understood as the salt water ocean,
in opposition to Apsu, which is supposed to
represent the subterranean fresh water
sources. However, the text itself makes no
distinction between salt water and fresh
water. Enuma elif, V 52-66, considers
Tiamat to be the source of al! fresh water,
not only the Euphrates and the Tigris, but
also other sources of water supply, as well
as fog, mist, and snow. The place of these
sources is clearly thought to be under the
ground or a mountain, whereas older
concept has it that Apsu represented the sub-
terranean fresh water supply. Apsu, on the
other hand, appears in Enüma elif IV 144-
145 to represent the lower part of the
cosmos; the sky (here called Esharra) is
established as a celestial counterpart to Apsu
or the lower world. The significant opposi-
tion between Tiamat and Apsu is thus that
of feminine and masculine principles, rather
than salt water versus fresh water.
Although Enüma eli$ tends to play a
dominating role in discussions of Mesopot-
amian religion, it should not be forgotten
that, contrary to what is often assumed,
there is no reason to believe that Enüma elis
goes back to the Old Babylonian or Cassite
period, but in al] probability was composed
during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1124-
1103 Bce; but cf. ^ Marduk). The concept of
a battle between the primordial cosmic sea
and a leading god of the pantheon was an
innovation in Babylonian religion introduced
with Enüma elis. The motif itself was prob-
ably inspired from the mythology of Wes-
tern Asia, where it is represented by the
Ugaritic myth of —Baal. After Yam had
demanded Baal’s surrender, Baal defeated
Yam by means of two clubs given him by
Kothar-wa-Hasis (KTU 1.2 iv:7-28). Unlike
Tiamat, Yam was apparently not completely
destroyed, but only confined to his proper
sphere. Originally Marduk was a rather
vague mythological character, and in an
attempt to give him his own identity by
applying accounts of great mythological
deeds to him, this may well have been a
source of inspiration for Enüma elit. Also
the idea that the sky and the world below
were formed out of the two parts of the
body of a slain monster was new in Baby-
lonian mythology, and so was the concept of
Apsu as a personal mythological entity.
Sumerian and Akkadian texts reaching
back to the third millennium BCE contain
several accounts of the creation of the
world. Mostly these occur as introductions
to literary compositions and are focused on
the particular subject of each poem. Though
their pattern is not consistent and coherent,
the following features are fairly common:
After the separation of heaven and earth, the
gods found their place in cosmos by distrib-
uting it in a peaceful way. A few allusions
to the concept of a generation of gods pre-
ceding Enlil, the leader of the Sumerian
pantheon, occur. The so-called Theogony of
Dunnu is a unique text in which a detailed
theogony appears. However, such concep-
tions do not belong to the main stream of
Mesopotamian mythological thinking.
Since the discovery of a new spate of
texts at Ugarit during the 1992 season, it has
become clear that also in the Ugaritic sphere
the watery deep, known in Hebrew as
Tehom, has been deified. The pantheon Jist
Ug. V no. 18:18, read as $HUR.SAG-MES ii a-
mu-tu[m] by Jean Nougayrol, should in fact
868
TIAMAT
be read as 4yuR.SAG-MES & A.mu-i, the last
word meaning ‘waters’? and not ‘valleys’. A
duplicate text found in 1992 has Syur.sac-
MES ù da-MEš (RS 1992.2004:29, courtesy
Daniel Arnaud), which confirms the cor-
rected reading of Ug. 5 no. 18:18. RS 1992.
2004 is a deity list corresponding to RS
26.142 (= Ug. 5 no. 170), which, as is now
clear, corresponds to RS 24.643 verso (= C.
VIROLLEAUD, Les nouveaux textes mytholo-
giques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra, Ug. 5
[1969] no. 9). The entry there corresponding
to RS 1992.2004:29 is [gr]m wrhmi, *moun-
tains and deep waters’ (no. 9:41). This
means that the entry erm w[----] in the first
part of RS 24.643 is to be read grm w[thmi]
(line 6).
III. Téhóm occurs 35 times is the OT,
both in the singular and in the plural. Like
Sheol, it is used as a semi-proper name
without the definite article, except for the
plura] forms Ps 106:9 and Isa 63:13. In the
OT 1éhém never occurs as an personal deity.
Although attempts have been made to find
traces in the OT of a combat between ^ God
and an alleged monster like Tiamat
(~Rahab and Leviathan), there is no evi-
dence that téhóm ever was such a personal
mythological character. In the relevant pas-
sages, téhóm refers to the waters of the Reed
Sea, and the separation of the waters refers
to the Exodus rather than to the creation of
the world. The scene is Israel's crossing the
sea after God had separated its waters (Isa
27:1; 51:9-10; Ps 74:12-17; 89:9-12; Job
9:13-14; 26:12-13).
Another point of contact has been found
in the concept according to which the split-
ting up of Tiamat’s body led to the isolation
of the cosmic waters inside her, and that a
crossbar and guards were established in
order to check that the waters did not escape
uncontrolled (Enuma elif YV. 139-140). This
is corroborated by the Babylonian account
of the Flood, where it is said that the Flood
actually occurred when the posts were torn
out (Gilgames epic X 101). This is similar
to Gen 1:6-7, where it is said that a firma-
ment was erected "jn the middle of the
waters” in order to separate the waters
below the firmament from the waters above
it (cf. the hymnic paraphrase in Ps 104:6-
10). This coincides with the idea that the
flood occurred when the waters of the deep
(i.e. téhóm, here the subterranean waters in
opposition to the celestial waters) and the
locks of the celestial waters were released
(Gen 7:11). The idea is also echoed in Ps
148:4, "the waters above the heavens". This
is reminiscent of the general idea promu]-
gated in Enüuma eli$ V, that the celestial
world is a replica of the lower world.
In this case the parallels are not suffi-
ciently specific to warrant the conclusion
that Enüma eli$ was the source of the
biblical account. Yet, the similarity of the
ideas involved cannot simply be explained
as reflections of universal concepts. A poss-
ible explanation would be that the ideas had
spread and become commonly known in a
larger area of the ancient Near East. An-
other possibility is that the Biblical account
of the creation of the world, as expounded
in Gen 1, was composed as a polemic
response to the account of Enuma elis. To
what extent Enuma elif, or at least the
general outline of its plot, was known to the
biblical] authors and readers, is beyond the
point of verification. Yet, the biblical
account did not come into being in an intel-
lectual vacuum, and the assumption would
make. it possible to see the organization of
the biblical creation story as sophisticated
transformation of mythology into theology.
Summaries of Eniima elif were given as late
as the Hellenistic period by Berossos, and
by the neo-Platonic Damascius (early sixth
century CE).
IV. Bibliography
J. BorrÉRo & S. N. KRAMER, Lorsque les
dieux faisaient l'homme (Paris 1989) 602-
679 (Enuma elis), cf. 472-478 (La Théo-
gonie de Dunnu); J. VAN DDK, Existe-t-il un
“Poéme de la Création” Sumérien?, AOAT
25 (1976) 125-133; A. HEIDEL, The Baby-
lonian Genesis (Chicago 1942) 96-114; T.
JACOBSEN, The Battle Between Marduk and
Tiamat, JAOS 88 (1968) 104-108; W. G.
LAMBERT, Studies in Marduk, BSOAS 47
(1984) 1-9.
B. ALSTER
869
TIBERIUS ~ TIGRIS
TIBERIUS — RULER CULT
TIGRIS “pn |
I. The OT refers to the Tigris a
Hiddegel. The designation hannāhār
haggádól, "the Great River" was applied to
the Tigris in Dan 10:14, but otherwise refers
to the — Euphrates. The two nvers appear as
a pair in the expression "aram naharayim,
“the Land of the Two Rivers”, ic. (Western)
Mesopotamia.
Hebr Hiddegel derives from an earlier
Semitic form of the name which appears as
Idiglat in Akkadian, and Idigna in Sumer-
ian. The female ending, characteristic of the
Akkadian form, shows that the Tigris, like
the Euphrates, was conceived as a female
entity. The designation is likely to go back
to a pre-Sumerian name. In later Akkadian
and Aramaic the name became abbreviated
to Digla(t). The name Tigris comes from Gk
Tiyptc, which in its turn is based on Old-
Pers Tigra. The name was not used in Hit-
tite, where the Tigris was called Aranzi
(RGTC 6 [1978] 524 and 530).
II. The name of the river bears the di-
vine determinative in a Sumerian godlist
dating from the first half of the second mil-
lennium BCE (TCL 15, 10:82), but in current
usage the name of the river was never pre-
ceded by the divine determinative. Indica-
tions of the deification of the River can,
however, be found in the Old Babylonian
anthroponyms Ummi-Idiqlat, “The-Tigris-is-
my-mother'; Idiglat-ummi, "My-mother-is-
the-Tigris” (RGTC 3 [1980] 287); Mar-Idiq-
lat; “Son-of-the-Tigris”; and especially in
some Middle Assyrian names, Sép-Idiqjat,
"The-Foot-of-the-Tigris (scil I seized)”;
Arad-Idiglat, "Servant-of-the-Tigris"; Idig-
lat-remini, “Tigris-be-merciful-to-me”; Idig-
lat-KAM, ‘“He-of-the-Tigris”; Siq)-Idiqlat,
"Lap-of-the-Tigris"; Silli-Idiqlat, “My-pro-
tection-is-the-Tigris”; Ta$me-Idiglat, "The-
Tigns-listened"; and Kidin-Idiglat, "(The-
one-under-the-) Protection-of-the-Tigris"
(RGTC 5 [1982] 301-302). Similar name
forms, such as Kidin-Martu, “(The-one-
under-the-) . protection of Martu”; Kidin-
Adad, etc., indicate that the name of the
river here functions as a theophoric element,
Yet, no evidence suggests that the Tigris
was accorded divine status in the Mesopot-
amian mythology and cult of the third an
early second Millennia BCE.
The assumption that the divine status
assigned to the river in anthroponymns is an
echo of the earlier deification of the river
may not be the only way in which this occa-
sional appearing of the river as a god can be
explained. Three phenomena might have to
be taken into account.
First, in ordinary theological thinking,
natural forces, such as water, were regarded
as means that could be used by the major
gods of the pantheon in exorcistic and pu-
rifying rituals. During the performance of
the incantation rituals these natural forces
could themselves be regarded as divine
powers. Owing to its cleansing and healing
potential, this in particular applies to the
water of the river.
Secondly, the Mesopotamian rivers
played a role in the water ordeal (River)
which made it natural to regard the river not
only as a means through which the divine
will of the god of justice (Sun) manifested
itself, but also as an independent deity.
Thirdly, since the two rivers, the Eu-
phrates and the Tigris, were the life-giving
forces that made it possible to inhabit the
alluvial plain, there was a tendency to
regard the rivers as manifestations of the
primeval river which, in mythological think-
ing, was said to be the creator of everything
(banat kalama) and to have spread fertility.
The existence of the primeval river god
Naru can be inferred from anthroponyms
from the Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic periods.
The earliest reference to the primeval river
in mythological context is the name id-
mah, “Mighty River” (wntten with the di-
vine determinative) in a Sumerian myth (G.
A. Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian
Inscriptions, vol 1 [New Haven 1918] Bar-
ton Cylinder), dating from ca. 2300 BCE.
In the Sumerian mythology of the early
second millennium BCE the Tigris does not
appear as a personal deity. The Tigris and
the Euphrates are said to have been filled
870
TIRASH
with water when the god Enki erected his
penis and ejaculated into the nvers (Enki
and the World Order 251-254; BoTrErRo &
KRAMER 1989:173-174). In the mythological
speculation of Enuma elif V 55, the
Euphrates and the Tigris are said to have
sprung from the eyes of ~Tiamat, the divine
antagonist of ~*Marduk, and an esoteric
commentary from the first millennium BCE
specifies that "the Tigris is her night eye, the
Euphrates is her left eye" (SAA 3 [1989],
no. 39 r. 3) In ordinary Mesopotamian
thinking the rivers were not regarded as
divine, but the yearly flooding of the rivers,
through which in particular the god Enki
(Ea) bestowed his favours upon mankind,
was a central feature of Mesopotamian relig-
ion. The precise location of the Tigris river-
bed in southern Mesopotamia in antiquity is
much debated, and it has been argued that
only the Euphrates, and not the Tigris,
played a role in the irrigation of the land.
The textwal evidence, however, clearly indi-
cates that the two rivers were regarded as
equally important for agriculture and trans-
portation from the third millenium BCE
onward.
IU. In the Bible, the Tigris js never
ascribed divine status. It occurs as a merely
topographical point of reference in Dan
10:4, where the river bank is said to be the
place where the prophet received his vision.
The river does, however, take on mytholo-
gical demensions in the Paradise Myth. The
Tigris (Hiddegel) is there said to be one of
the four branches into which the stream
springing from Eden divides (Gen 2:14),
together with Pishon, Gihon, and the
Euphrates. The information given there, that
the Tigris flows east of Assur, is topo-
graphically correct.
IV. Bibliography
J. BorrÉno, Mythes et rites de Babylone
(Paris 1985) 290; J. BorrÉmo & S. N.
KRAMER, Lorsque les dieux faisaient
l'homme (Paris 1989); W. HxiwPEL, Ein
zweiter Schritt zur Rehabilitierung der Rolle
des Tigris in Sumer, ZA 80 (1990) 204-219.
B. ALSTER
TIRASH Urvn vv n
I. Heb tivds appears to be the term for
‘new wine’, i.e. wine which is incompletely
fermented (though it should be noted that
KOHLER [1928] took the view that it simply
meant ‘wine’ and was an archaic alternative
to yayin: this question does not affect the
present treatment). It occurs in Hebrew fre-
quently in this plain meaning, often in the
context of the formulaic phrase ‘the grain,
the new wine and the oil’ (Deut 7:13; 11:14
etc.). There are analogous forms in Ugaritic
(trt: KTU 1.114:4, 16 (//yn] and 1.17 vi:7
[with yn)) and Phoenician and Punic (trš:
Karatepe KAI 26 A Il 7, 9; C IV 7, 9;
Carthage CIS I 5522:2). There appears also
to be an etymological connection with Akk
siraS (var. siri$, iris), both the word for
‘beer and the name of the deity of beer and
brewing (CAD S 306, cf. AkkGE, 448-449).
The Hebrew word has been linked some-
times with a divine name attested both in
Ugaritic and other sources and, less certain-
ly, in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 27:28; Hos 7:
14; 9:2).
There is no clear etymology for the Ugar-
itic divine name, trt. It might be related to
Hieroglyphic Hittite tuwarsa (RABIN 1963;
C. H. GORDON, Ugaritic Textbook [AnOr
38; Rome 1965] 499). This would be un-
likely if Ugaritic mrt (KTU 1.22 i:18, 20; 2.
34:32), which refers to a type of wine, is
related to the same root as trt. RABIN, how-
ever, noting Jewish Aramaic méyrat with a
similar meaning (Tg Deut 29:5), separates
mrt from tt, relating the former to Arabic
marata, ‘steep fmit in water’. In any case
others think the Hittite is borrowed from
Semitic (e.g. AARTUN 1984). Comparison
with Akk sira§ suggests a root *TRS having
something to do with the process of fermen-
tation.
Older Hebrew dictionaries link the
Hebrew to the root yrS. While it is difficult
to find a suitable meaning in the common
root YRS, ‘take possession of’, tirés in Mic
6:15 has been thought by some to present
evidence of a second verb (YRS IJ). Tiros in
this passage might be understood as an
‘imperfect’ meaning ‘you wil] tread (grapes)
871
TITANS
(P. Haupt, Critical notes on Micah, AJSL
26 [1909-1910] 201-252, esp. 215, 223).
Such a meaning would suit the common
noun, providing the link with wine-making.
The text is, however, by no means certain
and the identification of vnS YI here (and in
Job 20:15, which 3s a less convincing case)
has been rejected by other scholars (e.g.
LonETZ 1971). Whether the existence of
this verbal root is accepted or not, the divine
name would stil remain in doubt, since
there is no contextual indication of a link
between the divinity and wine.
Il. The divine name is clearly attested in
Ugaritic and in the El-Amarna personal
name of a ruler of Hazor, ™Abdi-tir-3i (‘Ser-
vant of Tiršw: EA 228:3). As a deity, Ugar-
itic trt is found in KTU 1.39:16 and 102:9 in
offering lists. Apart from the presumed asso-
ciation with wine, virtually nothing can be
concluded about the nature of the deity. For
ALBRIGHT (1968) and W. KUHNIGK (Nord-
westsemitische Studien zum Hoseabuch
[Rome 1974] 97, 112) Tirosh is a Canaanite
Bacchus; A. HERDNER (Ug 7 [1978] 5)
suggests that we are dealing with a goddess
of the new wine, drawing a paralle! with the
Mesopotamian deity SiraS (though even here
the sex is uncertain). Even the association
with wine is ambiguous, since it is possible
(cf. the case of Dagon) that the particuiar
type of wine in question was named after
the deity rather than vice versa (ALBRIGHT
1968).
IH. This deity does not appear in the
Hebrew Bible in any explicit narrative or
unambiguous context, but the suggestion has
been made that sometimes ffr6 ‘new wine’,
contains an allusion to the Canaanite deity.
In particular this kind of allusion is found
by DaHoop (e.g. 1974) and KuHNIGK
(Nordwestsemitische Studien zum Hosea-
buch [Rome 1974] 97, 112) in Gen 27:28;
Hos 7:14 and Hos 9:2. In Gen 27:28, the
suggestion of such an allusion is pure specu-
lation. Tirds stands alongside ddgan, but
nothing in the context suggests mythological
overtones. dagan is satisfactorily translated
as ‘grain’, and ‘plenty of grain and new
wine’ are simply divine gifts in Isaac’s
blessing upon his son.
On the other hand, it is one of Hosea's
clear themes that it was — Yahweh, not the
foreign gods, who gave Israel ‘the grain, the
new wine and the oil’ (2:10-11.24). In Hos
7:14 the specific context is that of turning to
other gods, and "for dágàn and ifrós they
gash themselves” may plausibly be inter-
preted as an allusion to illicit cult (though
perhaps simply to a cult of lamentation for
the failure of vegetation) Hos 9:2, "tíros
shall fail them (corr.)”, could well also be
an allusion to the the deity. Caution is
necessary even in the Hosea cases, however,
since there is no contemporary evidence for
the worship of such a deity in Palestine
(though Dagon is so attested).
IV. Bibliography
K. Aarrun, Neve Beiträge zum ugari-
tischen Lexicon I, UF 16 (1984) 1-52, esp.
35-36 no. 45, and 50 no. 64, W. F.
ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan
(London 1968) 186; A. Coorer, Divine
Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,
RSP IYI 428; M. DaHoop, Hebrew-Ugaritic
Lexicography XII, Bib 55 (1974) 381-393,
esp. 387 s.v. OTN (& lit}; L. KOuer, Eine
archaistische Wortgruppe, ZAW 46 (1928)
218-220; O. Lorerz, Hebräisch tyrwš und
jrš in Mi 6,15 und Hi 20,15, UF 9 (1977)
353-354; C. RaBin, Hittite Words in
Hebrew, Or 32 (1963) 113-139, esp. 137-
138 no. 20; H. H. Scumip, WV jrs beerben,
THAT | 778-781, esp. 780-781.
J. F. HEALEY
TITANS Twuóveg
I. Jn the strict sense ‘Titans’ is the col-
lective name of only six of the sons of
Uranus-Sky and Gaea-Earth, whose six
sisters and wives were called Titanesses
(TitaviSec). The most important couple of
these were Cronus and his sister-wife Rhea,
who became the parents of —Zeus, -*Hera
and various other gods. The Greek name
‘Titans’ occurs in the geographical name
“Valley of the Titans” in the LXX at 2 Sam
5:18.22; 23:13 (Lucy; | Chr 11:15 (v. l.
Hex), and as a synonym of "giants" in Jdt
16:6. The name cannot be explained from
Greek and is considered to be of pre-Hel-
872
TITANS
lenic provenance. According to the Etymo-
logicum Magnum 760,53 there was a con-
nection with tic “day, sun” (cf. TiAavdc,
the husband of Eós-Daybreak); Hesychius
explains titr|v as Bacixic "queen".
Yl. The other children of Uranus and
Gaea were: the three Cyclops (personi-
fications of lightning and thunder), and the
three Hecatonchires (personifications of
strength and power), who had been bom
before the Titans. After the Titans, accord-
ing to Hesiod, the three Erinyes (goddesses
of revenge), the various Giants, and the
Melian ~Nymphs were born. All this later
offspring came into existence from the
blood drops of Uranus' castration which fell
on Gaea. Ás most of the Titans have no
clear functions or names that can be ex-
plained from Greek, such as Cronus, Hera,
Titan itself, it is usually assumed that they
represent the pantheon of the original pre-
Greek population. These gods were then
largely superseded by the Olympians, the
gods of the Greek invaders, especially Zeus,
—Poseidon and —Hades. This fact would
then be refiected in mythology by the
“Titanomachy” or struggle between the sec-
ond generation of the gods (Cronus and
peers) and the third (Zeus and peers). Wars
and conflicts, however, between successive
generations of gods are not an uncommon
phenomenon in the myths of other nations.
In the Orphic vanants of this myth mankind
sprang from the ashes of the Titans, who
were killed by Zeus’ lightning because they
had devoured his son ~Dionysus. As a con-
sequence, every man was considered in
Orphism to contain both a Dionysiac or
divine and a Titanic or rebellious element
(cf. in Plato, Leges 3,701c Titavirn púas).
In a somewhat wider sense the name
"Titans" was also applied to the offspring of
the brothers and sisters of Cronus and Rhea,
for instance, to Atlas and Prometheus, the
sons of Iapetus (Japheth), and to Helios,
the son of Hyperiôn. And since most of the
children of Uranus and Gaea were of gigan-
tic stature, “Titans” in a still wider sense
became more or less equivalent with
"plants", and furthermore, with “evil
powers”, because they had been the oppo-
nents of Zeus both in the Titanomachy and
in the Gigantomachy (cf. the Orphic view).
It is only in these wider senses that
“Titan(s)” is found in Hellenistic Jewish
literature.
IH. The LXX “Valley of the Titans” cor-
responds to the “Valley of the >Rephaim”
jn the MT, either without textual variation,
or being itself a textua] variant of “the Val-
ley of the Pagow” or “yvyaviwv” (2 Sam
23:13 Lue and 1 Chr 11:15 Hex; cf. Jo-
sephus, Ant. 7,71 v.l) Since the Rephaim
were considered to be the tall, original in-
habitants of Canaan, "Titans" means here
simply "giants". The same holds good of Jdt
16:6 where the two words occur in paral-
lelismus membrorum: "neither did sons of
Titans slay him (i. e. Holophernes), nor did
tall giants attack him, but Judith ... put an
end to him". They also occur side by side in
I Enoch 6-7 and 9:9 where they refer to the
giant offspring of "the sons of God" and
"the daughters of mankind" of Gen 6:1-4
(LXX: yiyavtec only).
The name is not found as such in the
writings of the NT, but may be hidden in
"666" in Rev 13:18, the number of “the
Beast" and also of a man. One of the sol-
utions of this riddle that have been listed by
Irenaeus, happens to be Teutav (Against
Her. 5,30,3), of which. the numerical values
3004+5+10+300+1+50 add up to 666. He
comments that this solution js particularly
convincing to himself, because it is not the
name of an actually venerated god or a
known king, but nevertheless a divine and
kingly, even a tyrant’s, name. A further NT
link with the Greek Titans is the use of the
verb taptapious in 2 Pet 2:4 by which the
author describes how God cast down the
fallen angels in Hell to keep them there for
the final judgment. It is the typical word
used for the punishment of the Titans after
their defeat (e.g. Apollodorus, Library 1,2,3;
Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. 3,210); the sub-
stantive "Tartarus", however, is found more
often to refer to the Jewish Nether World,
though by far not as frequently as
*Hades"(— Giants).
The fact that Ezechiel Poeta makes the
Egyptian messenger, who reports about the
873
TORAH
catastrophe of his country-men at the Red
Sea, speak of “Titan Helios” rather than
"Ré", when he has to say that the sun was
setting (line 217) sheds some light on his
Hellenism. More profound is the mythologi-
cal Hellenization of Gen 10-11 which has
been carried through in the Sibylline
Oracles. Here we are told (3,105-158) that
after the fall of the Tower and the confusion
of languages, during the tenth generation of
mankind since the Flood, three brothers
ruled as kings simultaneously, cach over a
third part of the earth: Cronus, Titan, and
Iapetus: Their father Uranus had made them
swear to him that they would respect one
another’s realms. After his death, however,
they began to fight, with the result that
Cronus became sole king but had to promise
Titan that he would not father any sons.
When sons were born nevertheless, they
were all swallowed by the Titans (plural),
except for Zeus, Poseidon and Pluto, who
had been sent to safe places by their mother
Rhea. This became known and there arose a
war between the seventy sons of Titan and
the sons of Cronus, in which both parties
perished in the end. After this war the
Egyptian kingdom was established, next the
kingdom of the Persians, etc. This story is a
remarkable conflation of the Hesiodic myth,
its Orphic variant (here the Titans, not
Cronus, swallow newly born children), and
clements from Genesis: the tripartition of
mankind at a tenth generation (in Gen as
reckoned from Adam, here since the Flood);
according to Epiphanius, Ancoratus 114, it
was —Noah who administered a similar oath
to his sons as Uranus did, and in both cases
ihere is a —Japhetl/Iapetus among them. A
different and much simpler version is found
in Sib. Or. 1,283-323: the new generation
born aftér the Flood is the Golden or sixth
generation, who are ruled by three magnani-
mous kings, evidently Noah's sons; the next
generation are the proud and rebellious
Titans.
IV. Bibliography.
J. DóniG & O. GiGoN, Der Kampf der Gót-
ter und Titanen (Olten 1961); H. voN
GEISAU, Titanes, KP 5 (1975) 867-868; voN
GEISAU, Titanomachie, KP 5 (1975) 868.
G. MussiES
TORAH Wy
|. The word Torah is usually connected
with the root YRH, which means “to point,
direct, teach” in the Hiphil conjugation. If
so, the noun properly means “instruction,
teaching, direction”. Since Torah is used
most frequently of specific cultic instruc-
tions, as well as the demands of the coven-
ant, however, it is translated as nomos in
Greek, hence Eng "law". Inasmuch as the
word commonly refers to "the Torah of
->Moses” and “the book of the Torah of
Moses” (the Pentateuch), one may think of
the Torah as “law” in the sense of the cov-
enant community’s “constitution”. That is
certainly the dominant meaning of the word
in the Hebrew Bible. Along with that con-
cept, however, was the understanding of the
Torah not only as a body of rules, but as an
embodiment of -*wisdom (cf. Deut 4:1-8)
which may be universally recognized for its
effect on humanity (GREENBERG 1990). In-
deed, the Torah may be understood collec-
tively as the written and unwritten precepts
that make up the regimen of a wholesome
community. As such it was always central to
the Israelites.
II. Heb 6rd is often seen as the seman-
tic equivalent of Akk #értu “instruction,
command”. The equation is not without
difficulties, however, for the Akkadian noun
is derived from wáru ( « *w?R), whereas
one should expect a connection with warf (
< *wrw), the Akkadian cognate to Heb
YRH. It has been suggested that Heb 16rd is,
like Akk tértu, derived from *w’R and that
the usage of vnH in the Hiphil is secondarily
generated from the noun (ALBRIGHT 1927).
The intriguing hypothesis remains prob-
lematic, however, in the light of the fact that
the root *w’R does not occur elsewhere in
Hebrew. In any case, Akk tértu has not
became hypostatized. It is true that the legal
notions of Kittu ('Right', —Zedeq) and
—MiSaru (‘Equity’) are deified in Akkadian
literature, and these are to be identified with
874
TORAH
Misor and Sydyk mentioned in Sanchunia-
thon. But these are only broadly pertinent as
analogies for the phenomenon of hypostases
in general. The same may be said of the
deification of Hw ‘Authoritative Utterance,
Ordinance’ in Egyptian literature. Certainly
no direct influence may be discerned as
regards the personification of Torah in the
Bible. Rather, the images and idioms
pertaining to personified Torah are drawn
from or otherwise inspired by older biblical
sources, notably the portrayal of Wisdom
and the Kabéd — ‘Glory’.
The centrality of the Torah led eventually
to a pious devotion to it that borders on
veneration. This is evident in Ps 119, where
the poet uses language for the Torah and its
precepts that is ordinarily reserved for the
deity. Thus, instead of asking that God’s
‘face’ should not be hidden, the supplicant
implores: “Do not hide your commandments
from me!” Here the Torah takes the place of
God's 'Face' (pàünfm), that is, God’s Pres-
ence. The psalmist expresses trust (v 42)
and speaks of lifting up the hands to the
commandments (v 48). The author indulges
in poetic licence, but since —God is ad-
dressed directly in this composition, one
cannot yet speak of the Torah as hypostasis.
It is even doubtful if one shovid think of the
personification of the Torah here, although it
has been observed that the word repeatedly
used for the Torah as a ‘delight’ is the same
one used of personified —^ Wisdom as God's
‘delight’ in Prov 8:30-31 (GREENBERG 1990).
It is not until the Wisdom of Ben Sira
that one first encounters the explicit
identification of the Torah with primordial
Wisdom. Transparently dependent on Prov
8, the book begins by asserting that Wisdom
was created before all things and was re-
vealed to humanity (1:1-10). Then, at the
climax of the book in chapter 24, the revel-
ation of primordial Wisdom is audaciously
identified with the revelation of the Torah
on Mount Sinai (v 23). Personified Wisdom
is plainly the Torah. She is said to have
dwelled ‘on high’ with the pillar of cloud as
her throne, but she was ordered to dwell (lit.
‘tabernacle’) among the Israelites. She was
established on Zion and ministered before
the deity in the tabernacle. The theophanic
symbolisms are obvious, and there can be
no doubt that the Wisdom-Torah here is de-
picted in language reminiscent of YHWH's
Kàbód — ‘Glory’. This identification of
Torah with Wisdom persists in Bar 3:9-4:4,
again with theophanic idioms. Wisdom-
Torah is said to have “appeared upon earth
and lived among human beings all who hold
fast to her shall live and those who forsake
her wil) die" (Bar 3:37-4:1).
IE. In rabbinic literature, the Torah com-
pletely replaced Wisdom as hypostasis, al-
though the portrayal of Wisdom remains
foundational. Like Wisdom (Prov 8:22), the
Torah is said to have been created before all
things in the world (Gen. Rabb. 1:4; b. Pes
54a; b. Ned 39b). Of all the preexistent
things, however, only the Torah and the
—throne of Glory are said to have been cre-
ated, while the others were only conceived,
and of those, the Torah preceded the throne
of Glory. Indeed, the opening word of Gen
l:l is interpreted as referring to the Torah:
Heb béré’sit is taken not to mean “in the
beginning”, but “by the beginning”, mean-
ing the Torah (Gen. Rabb. 1:1). Support for
this interpretation is found in Prov 8:22,
“YHWH created me the beginning (ré’sit) of
his way”. The Torah is said to be the insuu-
ment through which the world was created
(Abot 3:14; cf. Sipre Deut 48). God re-
portedly took counse] with the Torah before
creation, and so the plural “us” in Gen 1:26
(“let us make humanity”) is seen as a ref-
erence to God and the Torah (Tanh. Pequde
3; Tanh. Berereshit 1). Variously personified
as daughter and bride, the Torah is depicted
as reclining in God’s bosom and joining
angels in praising God (Gen. Rabb. 28:4). In
some cases, the Torah is so closely asso-
ciated with various manifestations of divine
presence as to be virtually equated with
them. Thus one reads: “The Holy One,
blessed be. He, says: ‘If a person desecrates
My daughter (i.e. the Torah), it is as if that
one desecrates Me. If a person enters the
synagogue and desecrates my Torah, it is as
if that one rose and desecrated My Glory’”
875
TRAVELLERS
(Tanh. Pequde 4). Ultimately, among some
Kabbalists, it was said that the Torah itself
is the name of God and, indeed, that the
Torah is God.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Names “Israel” and
“Judah”, with an Excursus on the Etymol-
ogy of tédah and térah,” JBL 46 (1927)
151-185; W. Bousser - H. GRESSMANN,
Die Religion des Judentums im spiithellenis-
tischen Zeitalter (Tübingen 1926) 121, 347;
L. Dürr, Die Wertung des göttlichen
Wortes im Alten Testament und im antiken
Orient (Lepizig 1938) 122-157; M. GREEN-
BERG, Three Conceptions of the Torah in
Hebrew Scriptures, Die Hebräische Bibel
und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (FS R.
Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 365-
378; G. ÓsrsonN, Törā in the Old Testa-
ment (Lund 1945); H. RINGGREN, Word and
Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of
Divine Qualities and Functions in the
Ancient Near East (Lund 1947).
C. L. Seow
TRAVELLERS C2»
I. The participle Qa! plural *oóbérím of
the verb ‘br, ‘to pass from one side to the
other' seems to have a special meaning in
the context of the cult of the dead, denoting
the spirits of the dead crossing the border
between the land of the living and the world
of the dead. It can be interpreted as a divine
name in Ezek 39:11. 14, which may have
nlso been preserved in the geographical
name Abarim (Num 21:10-11; 27:12; 33:44,
47-48; Deut 32:49; and Jer 22:20). Its Uga-
ritc cognate, then, would be *brm in KTU?
1.22 i:15.
II, In the Ugaritic text KTU? 1.22 de-
scribing a necromantic session, the king
invokes the spirits of the dead (-*Rephaim)
and celebrates a feast, probably the New
Year Festival, with them. It is told that they
came over traveling by horse-drawn char-
iots. As they are taking part in the meal
served for them they are explicitly called
‘those who came over’.
In Job 33:18 the verb ‘br is used to de-
note the crossing of the river between life
and death (Funus 1986:1024). This repre-
sents the quite general ancient conception of
a river or sea separating the world of the
dead from the land of the living (cf. the
Greek Styx and the Akkadian Hubur). In the
Sumerian flood story Dilmun, the place of
blissful afterlife, is called ‘land of the cros-
sing’(kur-bal Atr 144:260).
MI. In Ezekiel the word ‘ébérim occurs
several times, usually as an indication of spec-
tators watching the misery of Israel being
punished by ~ Yahweh (5:14; 36:34) or to in-
dicate that it was made impossible to pass
through the land (14:15; 29:11; 33:28). In
chapter 39 the emphasis is on the action of
men going through the land looking for the
corpses of Gog and his ‘horde’. In v 14,
however, the second occurrence indicates the
dead. A possible solution to this crux inter-
pretum is to relate ‘6bérim, here and in v 11,
to the ‘brm mentioned in the Ugaritic text
denoting the spirits of the dead. Pore trans-
lates all occurrences of ‘6bérim in Ezek 39
with ‘the Departed’ (1977:173). This leads,
however (as noted by IRwin 1995:103-104)
to new problems for the interpretation of the
text. Irwin suggests to understand it as
*Molek imagery ... as a special term descri-
bing the character of Gog and his forces as
sacrificial victims'.
The valley of the *obérím is located 'east
of the sea’ (v 11), which is probably the Dead
Sea. So it was part of Transjordan. This is a
region which shows many traces of ancient
cults of the dead, such as the megalithic
monuments called dolmens and placenames
referring to the dead and the netherworld,
viz. Obot (-'Spirit-of-the-Dead'), Peor (cf
—Baal of Peor), and Abarim (SPRONK 1986:
228-230).
According to the OT belief in Yahweh
left no room for the veneration of the dead,
but apparently such Canaanite practices
were never eliminated completely. Ezek 39:
11-16 can be regarded as an attempt to eradi-
cate such ancient beliefs (RiBiCHINI-XELLA
1980): the powerful spirits of the dead who
came over to the land of the living are defe-
ated and buried for ever by ordinary people.
876
TREES —
The only ‘crossing’ that remains is their
crossing over the land to search for those
who have embarked upon the journey of no
retum.
IV. Bibliography
H. F. Fuus, ‘abar, TWAT 5 (1986) 1015-
1033 [& lit.J; B. P. IRwiN, Molek Imagery
and the Slaughter of God in Ezekiel 38 and
39, JSOT 65 (1995) 93-112; M. H. Pope,
Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit,
Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of
J. J. Finkelstein (ed. M. de Jong Ellis; Ham-
den 1977) 163-182; S. RipicHint & P.
XELLA, ‘La valle dei passanti’ (Ezechiele
39:11), UF 12 (1980) 434-437; K. SPRONK,
Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the
Ancient Near East (AOAT 219; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1986).
K. SPRONK
TREES ~ OAK, SYCOMORE, TERE-
BINTH, THORNBUSH
TYCHE Toyn
I. Tyche is the Greek personification of
luck or success (from tynchanō, ‘happen to
onc’), which is expressed also in the
anthroponym Tychicus, an especially popu-
lar Greek name during the Hellenistic period
that occurs five times in the New Testament.
II. Tyché means both ‘good fortune’ or
‘success’, or, ‘luck’ or ‘chance’, either good
or bad as determined by context (Euripides,
Ton 512-515). For the early Greeks, tyché
could be considered, along with the moirai
(the ‘fates’), as an agent of human good and
evil (Archilochus 8 apud Stobaus 1.6.3). As
Archilochus conceded, however, that “all
things are given by the gods” (Archilochus
58; see also D. 2.22) who are the masters of
tyché (see E. El. 880-891), tyché came to be
understood as the good obtained by their
favour, as expressed in the common phrase
theié tyché (Herodotus 1.126, 3.139, 4.8, 5.
92) and, consequently, as the benevolent
attribute of such deities as —Aphrodite,
-»Hermes, Rhea, or ~Zeus (A. B. COOK,
Zeus, À Study in Ancient Religion [Cam-
bridge 1914-1940] I: 175-176; II. 1: 675; II.
TYCHE
2: 878 n. 11, 879 n. 17, 1163). First personi-
fied as one of the Oceanids, daughters of
Oceanus and Tethys (Hes. Th. 360; H. Cer.
420), or as one of the Moirai (Pindar, Frag.
21), tyché became fully deified as a
—'saviour': Tyché Sóter (Aeschylus, Ag.
664; Sophocles, OC. 80, 1080) or, as the
daughter of Zeus, the Deliverer (Pindar, Ol.
12.2-12): Tyche Sóteira (12.3). Otherwise,
no mythology developed around her in the
classical period.
Pindar acknowledged Tyche as a goddess
who “upholds the city” (Pindar, Frag. 39), a
reference to the traditional association
between fyché and certain cities (Thucydides
5.112). By the fourth century BCE, a public
cult to ensure the good fortune of cities
emerged in Thebes and, shortly thereafter,
Agathe Tyche, or ‘Good Fortune’ began to
receive sacrifice in Athens. In contrast to the
traditional association of Greek deities with
particular cities, Tyche could be associated
with any city because of her comprehensive-
ness and by the third century she possessed
temples in nearly all large Greek cities; by
imperial times, her worship had spread to
many small towns as well. Finally, the
Tyche of individual cities became trans-
ferred to the fortune of their collective ruler,
the Hellenistic king or the Roman Emperor
(Mart. Pol. 9.2; 10.1; Origen, Mart. 7; 40,
C.Cels. 8.65, 67).
Because of her eventual universal sover-
eignty (Pliny, HN 2.5.22; see already Euripi-
des, Cycl. 606-607 and Hec. 488-492 where
Tyche is described as more powerful than
the gods), Tyche could be praised by early
Hellenistic times as the "noblest of the
gods" (Stobaeus 1.6.13), even while her un-
predictability became increasingly empha-
sized (Pliny, HN 2.5.22; see already Eun-
pides, Aic. 785-786). Her capricious nature,
the embodiment of a perceived ambiguity of
existence in the Hellenistic period (e.g.,
Apuleius, Mer. 1.6), determined the charac-
ter of the Roman goddess -*Fortuna with
whom Tyche became identified. During the
Hellenistic period, however, a sympathetic
Tyche with the sole qualifying attribute of
agathé (‘good’) became differentiated from
877
TYCHE
her recently emphasized ambivalent nature
and associated with other benevolent god-
desses of the period, especially Isis (V. F.
VANDERLIP, The Four Greek Hymns of Isi-
dorus and the Cult of Isis (Toronto, 1972]
31-32, 78, 94-96; Apuleius, Met. 11.15), or,
as Tyche-Isis, in combination with other
goddesses. There are, for example, statues of
the Roman Fortuna with the attributes of
Tyche-Isis (Brit. Mus. GR 1955.12-15.1), or
of ~Athena-Tyche-Isis (Brit. Mus. GR 1920.
2-18.1), as well as similar syncretistic repre-
sentations on coins.
Tyche was most often depicted as a
standing woman steering a course with a
rudder in her right hand and holding a
cornucopia in her left. According to Dio
Chrysostomus, "the rudder indicates that
Tyche directs the life of men; and the hom
of —Amaltheia calls attention to the giving
of good things and prosperity" (Or. 63.7).
She is also associated with a globe, which
may represent her universal rule, or, again
according to Chrysostomus, her fickleness,
"for the divine power is, in fact, ever in
motion" (Or. 63.7). Chrysostomus' explana-
tion is perhaps closer to the representation
of Tyche, largely on coins, with a wheel—
the image of her changeability.
Even as cities or rulers might have their
own tyché, so individuals might have theirs
(Demosthenes 18 [De Cor.). 252-266). In
this connection, personal names incorporat-
ing the word and indicating, thereby, the
wish for good fortune are documented since
Homer (Il. 7.220: Tychius), but became very
common from the first century BCE on (e.g.,
Eutyches, Tychicus).
III. In the Bible, the name Tychicus
appears in the deutero-Pauline literature of
the New Testament as that of an associate of
Paul. According to Acts 20:4, he is a native
of the Roman Province of Asia who accom-
panied Paulon his third missionary journey
from Corinth to Jerusalem (the Western text
knows the name as ‘Eutychus’, the character
in the following story, Acts 20:7-12). In
Colossians and Ephesians, Tychicus is a
“beloved brother and faithful minister in the
Lord" who is to report to the recipients of
the letter(s) about Paul and to encourage
them (Col 4:7-8; Eph 6:21); according to
Titus it is proposed to send him or Artemas
to Titus in Crete (Tit 3:12); and according to
2 Tim, he is sent to Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12).
In later Greek tradition, Tychicus was con-
sidered to be one of the ‘seventy’ disciples
(Lk 10:1, see Pseudo-Dorotheus; Pseudo-
Hippolytus) who either became the suc-
cessor of Sosthenes as Bishop of Colophon
(Menalogion for December 9), or was
appointed Bishop of Chalcedon by the
apostle Andrew (Pseudo-Epiphanius), or
became Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus,
where the ninth-century Roman martyrol-
ogist, Ado, followed by Usuard, commemo-
rated his feast at Paphos on April 29. Al-
though theophoric names ideally indicated
some alliance with the deities from whom
they were taken and something of their
"power and honour" (Plutarch, Def. Orac.
421E), the uses of the name, Tychicus, in
the Christian context are in the popular
sense of wishing good fortune.
IV. Bibliography
G. BuscH, Untersuchungen zum Wesen der
Toxn in den Tragódien des Euripides (diss.
Heidelberg 1937); H.-P. DRÓGEMÜLLER,
Tyche, KP S5 (1975) 1016-1017; W. C.
GREENE, Moira. Fate, Good, and Evil in
Greek Thought (Cambridge, MA 1944) s.v.;
F. W. HAMDORE, Griechische Kultpersoni-
fikationen der vorhellenistischen Zeit (Mainz
1964) 37-39, 97-100; G. HERZOG-HAUSER,
Tyche und Fortuna, Wiener Studien 63
(1948) 156-163; HERzoG-HAUSER, Tyche,
RE 7A [2. Reihe] (1939) 1643-1689; H.
HERTER, Glück und Verhängnis. Über die
altgriechische Tyche, Hellas 4 (1963) 1-10;
M. P. NILSSON, Geschichte der griechischen
Religion, 2 (München 1955) 200-210; L. B.
RADFORD, The Epistle to the Colossians and
the Epistle to Philemon (London 1931) 127-
143, 324-326; N. ROBERTSON, Tyche, OCD
(1970) 1100-1101; L. Runt, Tyche,
ALGRM 5 (1916-1924) 1309-1357; H.
STROHM, Tyche. Zur Schicksalsauffassung
bei Pindar und den frühgriechischen Dich-
tern (Stuttgart 1900).
L. H. MARTIN
878
TYPHON
TYPHON Tvdav
I. The adjective ryphónikos in Acts
27:14 indicates that the Eurakylén was a
stormy wind. The word derives from the
noun ryphón which stands for a whirlwind in
Philo, Deus 89. Both meanings can be con-
nected with the monstrous figure Typhón in
Greek mythology. Josephus hints at a re-
lated god in Ap. 1.237.
IL. Typhon appears in Greek myths as
the opponent of -*Zceus or even of all gods.
He is the youngest son of Tartaros and Gaia
and has several names (Typhóeus, Typhós,
Typhaón and Typhón), which were used
interchangeably. In antiquity his name was
derived from ryphoó *to be crazy' (e.g. Plut-
arch, De Iside 2, 351F) or typhé ‘smoke’,
which is bound up with the idea that
Typhon was the personification of vulcan-
ism. The name resembles -Zaphon and
there seem to have been connections
between Typhon and -*Baal-zaphon (Eiss-
FELDT 1932; BoNNET 1987). According to
Apollodorus, Bib. 1.41, Typhon flees to
Mount Kasios, the mountain of Baal-zaphon.
The myths about Typhon may be influenced
by oriental forerunners like Ullikummi in
Hurrite texts (SEIPPEL 1939; VIAN 1960).
Typhon is described as a primaeval monster
which was defeated by Zeus, but lived on
beneath the earth after his punishment
(under vulcanos or in the Tartaros). He has
gigantic proportions, often a lower part con-
sisting of the bodies of snakes, further
wings, a hundred arms, a hundred snakes’
heads (according to Apollodorus, Bib. 1.39,
there were a hundred kephalai drakontón
attached to his hands), and a human head as
well. He spits fire and is called a -*Dragon
(e.g. Strabo 16.2.7). His terrible voice(s) and
insolent behaviour are often emphasized
(see for an extensive description ScHMIDT
1916-1924).
Hesiod describes the struggle between
Zeus and Typhon for the rule over gods and
men after the defeat of the -*Titans. Zeus
eliminates Typhon with his lightning and
throws him into the Tartaros (Theog. 820-
868). According to other texts Typhon ends
up under the Etna (e.g. Aeschylus, Prom.
351-372) or the (volcanic) coast of Cam-
pania, from where he still causes volcanic
eruptions. Typhon is related to several other
sites. According to one version of the com-
bat myth he brings Zeus after the seize of
his sickle and sinews to his residence, the
Corycian cave in Cilicia (e.g. Apollodorus,
Bib. 1.42). He is also associated with the
river Orontes (Syria) The partly under-
ground bed of this river was explained by
the elimination of Typhon, who fled from
Zeus' thunderbolts and ploughed up the
channel of the future river and disappeared
into the ground and caused the fountain to
break forth to the surface (Strabo 16.2.7; see
for a related tradition FONTENROSE 1980:75,
277-278). Typhon's elimination is also
linked with the sea. According to Nicander
(see Antoninus Liberalis 28) Typhon trics to
escape the lightning of Zeus and his burning
by diving into the sea (cf. Valerius Flaccus,
Argon. 2.25-29).
Typhon is connected with the Delphic
Dragon Python (FoNTENROSE 1980:77-93).
According to Hom. Hymn to Apollo 305-355
~Hera produced Typhon because of her
anger at Zeus over the birth of -*Athena and
asked the Delphic dragoness to raise him,
Gradually Typhon became associated with
the >Giants (Hyginus, Fab. 151; cf. Pindar,
Pyth. 8.17-18). From the sixth or fifth cen-
tury BCE onwards Typhon is identified with
the Egyptian god -*Seth (possibly already
Pherecydes according to Origen, Contra
Cels. 6.42; Herodotus 2.144; 156; 3.5; Dio-
dorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 1.21-22: 88; passim
in Plutarch, De Iside), who was initially a
royal god but developed in the first millen-
nium BCE into the prototype of evil and the
god of the foreigners (TE VELDE 1977). The
element of the flight of the gods before
Typhon in several Greek and Latin texts
(e.g. Nicander according to Antoninus
Liberalis 28; Ovidius, Metam. 5.321-331;
Hyginus, Fab. 196) is probably inspired by
Egyptian traditions conceming Seth (GRIF-
FITHS 1960). The combat myth of Typhon
has a different character in the texts where
Seth and Typhon are identified. Typhon’s
opponents are in that case Osiris, Isis and
879
TYPHON
—Horus (->Apollo). Herodotus (3.5) men-
tions that Seth-Typhon ends up in the Ser-
bonian Lake, at the coast near the eastern
border of Egypt. The negative aspects of
Seth matched well with the character of
Typhon, who probably was the most promi-
nent opponent of the Olympic gods (cf. Pin-
dar, Pyth. 1.15 theón polemios; Aeschylos,
Prom. 358 pasin theois antesté; Hyginus,
Astr. 2.28 acerrimus gigas et maxime
deorum hostis, Nonnus, Dion. 2.571 thee-
machos). This explains why Seth-Typhon
came to bc used as a kind of stereotype to
characterize historical figures as the creators
of chaos. Especially in texts from Ptolemaic
Egypt there are several examples of a simi-
lar negative characterization of rebels or
foreign enemies: Antiochus III in the Raphia
decree, Harsiesis, the Greeks in the Oracle
of the Potter; possibly also Antiochus IV
(for references see VAN HENTEN 1993:224-
225 and 239-243; cf. Apollonius Rhodius,
Argon. 2.38). The opponent of the typhonic
enemy is usually the king, who was asso-
ciated with Horus. The mythic conflict
between Seth-Typhon and Horus was part of
the Ptolemaic royal ideology, which is evi-
dent from the coronation ceremony and
other places (KOENEN 1983; VAN HENTEN
1993:224).
Typhon also appears as a demon of
storms, whirlwinds (see already Hesiod,
Theog. 846; 869-880; ScHMIDT 1916-1924:
1426; 1442-1445; FONTENROSE 1980: 126;
545-546, and Index A I s.v. motif 3G p.
581) and earthquakes and the originator of
volcanic eruptions. Aristotle, Met. 1.1 339a,
and Pliny, Nat. hist. 2.131-132 mention
typhónes as whirlwinds without a reference
to Typhon.
III. The use of typhónikos in Acts 27:14
is bound up with the meaning ‘gale’ of
typhón and Typhon as originator of storm
winds. Because of the context it is unlikely
that a whirlwind or waterspout was meant
by Luke. Philo uses ryphón in the sense of
whirlwind metaphorically in Quod deus 89
(cf. LXX Ps 148:8 v.l.).
Josephus Ap. 1.237 can be understood
against the background of the identification
of Seth and Typhon. Josephus transmits a
passage of Manetho relating that the aban-
doned city of Avaris in the eastern delta of
the Nile was given to the impure who la-
boured in the quarries nearby. The city is
connected to Seth-Typhon in this passage by
the adjective Typhónios, which might have a
historical basis in the foundation of the city
by the Hyksos. The foreign god of the
Hyksos was probably identified by the
Egyptians with Seth, the Egyptian god of
the foreigners (TE VELDE 1977:128). Be-
cause of Manetho’s association of the im-
pure with the Israelites, however, the import
of the passage becomes strongly anti-
Jewish: the Jews are presented as adherents
of the now very evil god Seth-Typhon.
Although Typhon is not mentioned in
Dan 7-12 or Revelation it is quite possible
that the typhonic type which was taken from
Greek and Egyptian mythology was incor-
porated into passages of these apocalyptic
writings in order to emphasize the appear-
ance of foreign rulers as the tyrannical
eschatological adversary. The vision in Dan
7 shows not only correspondences with
Canaanite mythology (Baal, —Sca), but
also with texts on Seth-Typhon (especially
concerning the eleventh horn; VAN HENTEN
1993). The battle against heaven and the
stars in Dan 8:10-12 and Rev 12:4; 7-9; 13:
6 of the little horn, the dragon and the first
beast corresponds with the role of Typhon,
who according to Apollodorus, Bib. 1.39-40,
touches the stars with his head and attacks
heaven (Claudian, Carm. 26.62-66; Nonnus,
Dion. 1.291; 2.386-387). Valerius Flaccus
(first century CE) even says that Typhon
thought that he had captured the kingdom of
heaven and the stars (Argon. 2.236-238).
According to several scholars also the
pattern of Rev 12 shows strong similarities
with a (Greco-Egyptian) version of myths
concerning Seth-Typhon: the flight of Isis
for Seth-Typhon; the birth and secret up-
bringing of Horus; and the revenge on Seth-
Typhon by Horus for the killing of his
father Osiris (sources: Herodotus 2.144;
156; 3.5; Plutarch, De Iside, esp. 12-21;
Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 1.21-22; 88; Bous-
880
TYPHON
SET 1906; V6cTLE 1971; BERGMEIER 1982),
This does not exclude similar correspon-
dences with other dragon myths (Python, cf.
YARBRO COLLINS 1975). Seth-Typhon shares,
however, with the dragon of Revelation the
fact that he fights against several opponents
(Osiris, Isis and Horus) and pursues the
woman after she has given birth to a son.
The attempt to overwhelm the woman with
a river (Rev 12:15) corresponds with the site
of the conflict of Seth-Typhon, the delta of
the Nile (cf. also Typhon’s connection with
the Orontes). If the author of Revelation
actually has incorporated pagan material in
chap. 12, he probably also has used tra-
ditions conceming Seth-Typhon, e.g. in
addition to the traditions about the pursuit of
Isis and Horus, also the attack on heaven
and stars. Even the beginning of the vision
with the two heavenly signs matches with
traditions concerning Seth-Typhon. Isis and
Seth-Typhon are connected with stars and
constellations, Isis with the dogstar (Plut-
arch, De Jsid. 21 = Mor. 359D) and Virgo,
Seth-Typhon with pole stars and the Great
Bear, according to some scholars also with
Hydra (BERGMEIER 1982).
IV. Bibliography
R. BERGMEIER, Altes und Neues zur 'Son-
nenfrau am Himmel (Apk 12)’, ZNW 73
(1982) 97-109; C. BONNET, Typhon et Baal
Saphon, Phoenicia and the East Medi-
terranean in the First Millennium B.C.
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22; ed. E.
Lipiński; Louvain 1987) 101-143; W. Bous-
SET, Die Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen
1906) 351-356; O. EISSFELDT, Baal Zaphon,
Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeli-
ten durchs Meer (Halte 1932); J. FONTEN-
ROSE, Python. A Study of Delphic Myth and
its Origins (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1959;
19802); J. G. GRIFFITHS, The Flight of the
Gods before. Typhon: an Unrecognized
Myth?, Hermes 88 (1960) 374-376; Grir-
FITHS, The Conflict of Horus and Seth from
Egyptian and Classic Sources (Liverpool
1960); J. W. VAN HENTEN, Antiochus IV as
a Typhonic Figure in Daniel 7, The Book of
Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A.
S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Louvain
1993) 223-243; L. KOENEN, Die Adaptation
ágyptischer Kónigsideologie am Ptolemáer-
hof, Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Studia
Hellenistica 27; eds. E. van 't Dack, P. van
Dessel & W. van Gucht; Louvain 1983)
143-190; G. MicnailLIDEs, Vestiges du culte
solaire parmi les chrétiens d'Egypte, Bul-
letin de la Société d'Archéologie Copte 13
(1948-49) 37-110, esp. 84-100; J. SCHMIDT,
Typhoeus, Typhon, ALGRM 5 (Leipzig
1916-1924) 1426-1445; G. SErpreL, Der
Typhonmythos (Greifswalder Beiträge zur
Literatur und Stilforschung 24; Greifswald
1939); H. TE VELDE, Seth, God of Con-
fusion. A Study of his Role in Egyptian
Mythology and Religion (Probleme der
Agyptologie 6; Leiden 19772) [& lit]; F.
VIAN, Le mythe de Typhée et ie probléme
de ses origines orientales, Éléments orien-
taux dans la religion grecque ancienne. Col-
loque de Strasbourg 22-24 mai 1958 (Paris
1960) 17-37; A. VÓGTLE, Mythos und Bot-
schaft in Apokalypse 12, Tradition und
Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner
Umwelt, FS K.G. Kuhn (eds. G. Jeremias,
H.-W. Kuhn & H. Stegemann; Göttingen
1971) 395-415; A. YARBRO COLLINS, The
Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation
(Missoula 1975) 57-100.
J. W. VAN HENTEN
881
UNCLEAN SPIRITS xvevpata axabapta
I. ‘Unclean spirit’ occurs only once in
the OT (Zech 13:2 rfiah hatfum’d, lit. ‘the
spirit of impurity’) and 21 times in the NT
in both singular and plural. It is found only
in the synoptic gospels and Acts and twice
in Rev, The related phrase ‘evil spirit’
(pneuma ponéron) occurs in the OT (Evil
spirit of God) and eight times in the NT.
Often the noun daimonion is used synony-
‘mously (see below and -*Demon).
II. The belief in supernatural non-cor-
porcal beings considered not to be gods and
affecting the life of corporeal beings (men
and animals) is widespread. Since they are
invisible and yet present and active they are
often called 'spirits'; this idiom is derived
from the (invisible yet active) wind. They
may appear as a group or band or as indi-
vidual beings, often having a name and
more or less personal ways of action.
These spirits are either benevolent and
helpful or malevolent and harmful. In the
latter case they are often called demons or
ghosts. Often they take possession of human
beings or animals and are identified with
them. This belief is found in all religions of
the ancient Near East and the Mediterra-
ncan. It appears to be intensified in Hellen-
istic and Roman times. It is well represented
in the Jewish religion of these times, espe-
cially in apocalyptic writings.
III. The phrase ‘unclean spirit’ is part of
the demonological idiom of Judaism (cf. e.g.
T. Benj. V 2; T. Sim. IV 9; VI 6; Jub. 10,1;
11,4; 12,20; K. BERGER, NTS 20 [1973] 7 n.
28; Str-B 1V,1 503-509). It is, however, not
very common, probably because ‘unclean’ is
a ritual concept. In the synoptic gospels it is
synonymous with daimonion or circum-
scribed by a form of the verb daimonizesthai
as is shown by the fact that both concepts
occur in the same story (cf. e.g. Luke 9:37-
43) or in parallel versions of the same story
(cf. e.g. Mark 6:7; Matt 10:1 [‘unclean
spirit’) with Luke 8:33 [daimonion]; Mark
7:25 has ‘unclean spirit’, Matt 15:22 has
daimonizetai). The description of the be-
haviour and actions of unclean spirits is
identical with that of daimonia.
IV. Bibliography
*C. Corre et al., Geister (Dämonen), RAC
9 (1976) 546-797 [& lit; F. Hauck,
Akathartos, TWNT 3 (1938) 430-432; G.
LANCZKOWSkKI, Geister, TRE 12 (1984) 254-
259 [& lit]; Str-B, Zur altjüdischen Dámo-
nologie, IV,1, 501-535.
J. REILING
UNKNOWN GOD “Ayvwotos 8£65
I. In the Book of Acts (17:23) Luke
tells how Paul the apostle addresses the
Athenians on the Areopagus and takes as his
point of departure an inscription on an altar
he saw in the city. This inscription, he says,
ran as follows: "For an unknown god"
(ayvooto 0£6).
II. All the other evidence for a cult of
(an) unknown god(s) is later than Acts. In
the 2nd cent. cE, Pausanias says that near
the harbour of Phalerum (Athens) there were
altars of gods named ‘unknown ones’ and of
heroes (Bopuoi 6$ Bedv te ovopatopeévav
ayvOotav xai npoov, I, 1, 4) In his
description of the sanctuaries in Olympia he
says that by the great altar of the Olympian
—Zeus there is also an altar of unknown
gods (ayvwotwv Gea@v Bawyds, V, 14, 8). In
the early 3rd cent. cE, Diogenes Laertius
tells that in the (probably) 6th cent. BCE the
Athenians asked Epimenides from Cnossos
to help them get rid of a plague: he brought
sheep to the Areopagus and there he let
them go wherever they wanted, and on each
spot where a sheep lay down he had the
882
UNKNOWN GOD
Athenians sacrifice to the deity concerned
(t@ mpoonkovtt Ge@), and he adds that even
to his day altars may be found in various
parts of Athens with no name inscribed
upon them (Bapot àvóvupot, I 110). His
contemporary Philostratus, Vita Apollonii
V1,3, has his hero praise Athens’ prudence
because there altars are set up in honour
even of unknown gods (xai ayvaotov
Saipovav ooi i6puvtai). This literary
evidence seems to suggest that altars to un-
known gods were inscribed either with a
plural àyvóotoig 6£oig (or &àyvootov O0£gàv)
or in the singular with an anonymous 6eà
(for extensive discussion and references to
secondary literature sce VAN DER Horst
1989:1428-1443). When one looks for epi-
graphical evidence to corroborate cither of
these hypotheses, it turns out that there is no
unambiguous material. In 1910 a 2nd cent.
CE altar inscription from Pergamon was
published (HEPDING 1910) that reads:
OEOIZ ATT......] KAIIT[..] AAAOYXOI.).
which could be restored as: 6£0ig aytotá-
toig (or: ayvotatotc) Kanitov 5a60Uxyog
(for other suggested restorations see VAN
DER Horst 1989:1433), but HEPDING (1910:
455-456) proposed: @eoig ayvaotots. In
spite of objections to this proposal it still
seems the most feasible one (see also WEIN-
REICH 1915:30-32; NILSSON 1961:355; VAN
DER Horst 1988:26). The same applies to
another inscription from Dorylacum (Phryg-
ia), where QE0i¢ ayv@otoig would seem to
be the least problematic restoration (C. W.
M. Cox, MAMA V [Manchester 1937] 56,
with the discussion by VAN DER Horst
1989: 1436-1437). So the scanty archaeologi-
cal evidence clearly favours the hypothesis
of a dedication in the plural. In addition to
that, Churchfathers seem to imply that
Luke’s statement about an inscription in the
singular is in need of correction. Tertullian
perhaps makes already a tacit correction
when he states that he knows of Athenian
stupidity and idolatry with ‘altars prostituted
to unknown gods' (Adv. Marc. 1 9; Ad
nationes II 9,4), where one would expect
him to use the phrase in the singular in view
of the passage in Acts. But at the end of the
4th cent. CE Jerome is quite explicit: ‘The
altar-inscription is not, as Paul asserted, ‘To
an unknown god’, but as follows: ‘To the
gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the
unknown and foreign gods’ (diis Asiae et
Europae et Africae, diis ignotis et per-
egrinis). But since Paul did not need [or:
could not use] a number of gods but only
one unknown god, he used the word in the
singular" (Comm. in Ep. ad Titum 112 = PL
26:607). And later, in a letter of ca. 388 (ep.
70), he repeats that Paul "in his propaganda
for Christ even skilfully rephrases (torque?)
an inscription he came across by chance so
as to tum it into an argument for faith” (a
statement in which Jerome perhaps echoes
Didymus of Alexandria; see the latter's
comments on 2 Cor 10:5 in the catenae
edited by K. STAAB, Pauluskommentare aus
der griechischen Kirche [Münster 1933] 37).
The opinion of these two (or three) Church-
fathers that Paul (or Luke) changed the text
of the inscription in order to get a suitable
starting-point for his speech strengthens the
impression that there may have been no
such inscriptions in the singular at all,
neither in Athens nor elsewhere, however
much their testimonies do corroborate the
pagan literary and epigraphical data to the
effect that there were indeed cults of un-
known gods in antiquity (for further testi-
monies from Churchfathers see LAKE 1933:
240-246; vAN DER Honsr 1989:1440-1442).
The question as to what was the function
of such cults is not easy to answer, since the
expression àyvootog @edg is not un-
equivocal. It may mean a god who ts well-
known to one people but not (yet) known to
another (i.e. a foreign deity whose name and
function are in principle knowable [for evi-
dence that the god of the Jews may have
been considered an ‘unknown god’ by
Pagans see VAN DER Horst 1989:1444-
1446]; or a god whose name nobody
knows, either because it has been forgotten
(altar-inscriptions may have become unread-
able) or since there is no way of knowing
which god (maybe even which of the known
gods) is the author of a calamity or of good
fortune; or a god unknown to those who did
883
UNKNOWN GOD
not receive a special revelation or initiation;
or a god unknowable—ayvwotog can have
this meaning as well!—because of the limi-
tations of human knowledge, or in essence
unknowable but partially knowable by infer-
ence from his/her works; etc. (see BIRT
1914; Dopps 1963; FEsTUGIERE 1954). Prob-
ably the most frequent motive to raise altars
for (an) unknown god(s) was uncertainty or
doubt about the identity of the god who had
caused a certain event. In ancient religions it
was of the utmost importance to know the
right name of the deity when invoking
him/her or sacrificing to him/her. From
Homer onwards onc finds a variety of prayer
formulas which aim to prevent the god in-
voked from being offended by an incorrect
invocation, such as "Hear, Lord, whoever
thou art" (Homer, Od. V 445; cf. Aeschylus,
Agam. 160-161; Euripides, Troad. 884-887;
Catullus 34:21-22; Apuleius, Metam. XI 2;
Macrobius, Sat. III 9,10). The Romans even
developed a specific formula that is often
found not only in prayers but also in dedi-
catory formulas both in inscriptions and in
literary texts, sc. sive deus sive dea (ALVAR
1985). Aulus Gellius reports: “The Romans
of old (...), whenever they felt an earth-
quake or received a report of one, decreed a
holy day on that account, but forbore to
declare and specify in the decree, as is com-
monly done, the name of the god in whose
honour the holy day was to be observed, for
fear that by naming one god instead of an-
other they might involve the people in false
observance. If anyone had desecrated that
festival, and expiation was therefore necess-
ary, they used to offer a victim si deo si
deae (...), since it was uncertain what force
and which of the gods or goddesses had
caused the earthquake" (Woctes Atticae Il
28,2-3). Just as the Romans for fear or
anxiety that by naming one god instead of
another their acts of worship would not
yield the results required, used the sive deus
sive dea formula, so the Greeks, too, to keep
on the safe side, could use the formula ‘un-
known god'. And this consideration makes
it intrinsically probable that in such cases a
Greek would use this expression in the sin-
gular, even in an altar-inscription (VAN DER
Honsr 1988:39-40). An additional motive in
the cult of unknown gods certainly was the
anxious concern not to run the risk that one
did not know and hence did not worship the
best divine helper and so failed to obtain the
help one so badly needed. This danger could
be warded off by a “möglichst vollständige
Berilcksichtigung der Gottheiten, also auch
der unbekannten” (WACHSMUTH 1975:708).
There is also some evidence that suggests
that the term ‘unknown gods’ was used to
designate the gods of the netherworld
(x8óvio1 goi) or the Erinyes (called 'anony-
mous goddesses' by Euripides, /ph. Taur.
944; see KERN 1926:125-134), in order to
avoid the naming of gods whom for safcty’s
sake one preferred not to mention: Ovid,
Metam. XIV 365-366; Statius, Achill. I 135-
140; Pap. Chicago 1061 VI 26 (in J. U.
PowteLL, Collectanea Alexandrina [Oxford
1925] 85); for further passages scc NORDEN
1923:115-124. On the different philosophi-
cal background (Platonic epistemology) of
the unknown god in Gnosticism see
FESTUGIERE 1954:1-140 and Turcan 1987:
136-137.
III. By making Paul start his speech by
referring to an inscription Luke makes use
of a well-known literary device (cf. Ps-Hera-
clitus, Ep. 4; Ps-Diogenes, Ep. 36). There is
a distinct possibility that Luke had his hero
deliberately change the text of an inscrip-
tion, for it would by no means be an iso-
lated case. Before his days, the 2nd cent.
BCE Jewish exegete Aristobulus quoted
Aratus' Phaenomena but changed twice
‘Zeus’ into ‘God’ (he frankly admits: “We
have given the true sense, as one must, by
removing the name Zeus throughout the
verses", ap. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. XIII 12.7).
Philo also quotes Hesiod in a monotheistic
form by changing @e0i into 80g (De ebrie-
tate 150), and also later Christian writers,
when quoting Plato or Plotinus or other
pagan writers, adapt these texts to Christian
usage by changing 6eoi into @Edc (e.g.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus). But there is no abso-
lute need to assume Luke did the same. The
backgrounds of the cult of ‘unknown gods’
884
URIEL
show that a dedication in the singular be-
longed to the possibilities and can never be
ruled out, but the question must remain
undecided. Whether or not there ever existed
an altar for an unknown God (in the singu-
lar) in Athens, it is clear that Luke wants to
present Paul as claiming that he is proclaim-
ing to the Greeks the God of Israel whom
they honour without knowing him, and that
from now on they have no longer any ex-
cuse for their ignorance, since they have
heard the message of this God’s self-revel-
ation in Jesus Christ.
IV. Bibliography
J. ALVAR, Materiaux pour l'étude de la for-
mule sive deus sive dea, Numen 32 (1985)
236-273; T. Birt, “Ayvwoto. Geoi und dic
Areopagrede des Apostels Paulus, RhMus
N.F. 69 (1914) 342-392; C. CLEMEN, Re-
ligionsgeschichtliche Erklürung des Neuen
Testaments (2nd ed.; GieBen 1924) 290-304;
E. R. Dopps, The Unknown God in Neo-
platonism, Proclus: The Elements of Theol-
ogy (Oxford 1963) 310-313; W. ELLIGER,
Paulus in Griechenland (SBS 92/93; Stutt-
gan 1978) 193-199; A.-J. FESTUGIÈRE, La
révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste IV: Le dieu
inconnu et la gnose (Paris 1954) 1-140; C.
HARRAUER, Agnostos theos, Der neue Pauly
I (Stuttgart 1996) 264-265; H. HEPDING, Die
Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908-1909, II: Die
Inschriften, MDAI (Abt. Athene) 35 (1910)
454-457; P. W. vAN DER Honsr, The Unk-
nown God (Acts 17:23), Knowledge of God
in the Graeco-Roman World (eds. R. van
den Broek, T. Baarda & J. Mansfeld; Leiden
1988) 19-42; *VAN DER Horst, The Altar
of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts
17:23) and the Cult of ‘Unknown Gods’ in
the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, ANRW
II 18, 2 (1989) 1426-1456; O. KEnN, Die
Religion der Griechen 1 (Berlin 1926) 125-
134; K. LAKE, The Unknown God, The
Beginnings of Christianity 1, 5 (eds. F. J.
Foakes Jackson & K. Lake; London 1933)
240-246; M. P. NiLSsON, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion Il (2nd ed., München
1961); *E. NORDEN, Agnostos Theos. Unter-
suchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser
Rede (2nd ed., Leipzig 1923); R. TURCAN,
Agnostos Theos, ER 1 (1987) 135-138; W.
H. WacHoB, Unknown God, ABD 6 (1992)
753-755; D. WACHSMUTH, Theoi agnostoi,
KP 5 (1975) 708; *O. WEINREICH, De dis
ignotis observationes selectae, ARW 18
(1915) 1-52.
P. W. VAN DER HORST
URIEL WTN
I. The name appears in the OT as a per-
sonal name: ] Chr 6:9; 15:5.11; 2 Chr 13:2.
In 4 Ezra, an angel of this name is men-
tioned as angelus interpres. The etymology
depends upon the decision whether the root
is Hebrew (light) or Aramaic (fire). 7. Abr.
A 13:11 knows an angel Purouel who has
power over the fire (mvp). It is tempting to
identify him with Uriel.
II. Among the four archangels (e.g. Gk
Apoc. Ezra 6:2; Mass. Hekalot, A. JEL-
LINEK, Bet ha-Midrasch Il [Leipzig 1853]
43-44) Uriel is replaced by Phanuel in the
book of similitudes (J Enoch 37-71), though
in general he does appear in this group. 3
Baruch 4:7 knows Uriel as the third of five
archangels, other versions read here Phanucl.
At other places Uriel interchanges with
Sariel (J. Z. SwrrH, OTP 1I, 709). It might
be, too, that Vrevoil (2 Enoch 22:10, cp. F.
I. ANDERSEN, OTP I, 140, note) is an orig-
inal Uriel.
In accordance with his name Uriel seems
to be connected mainly with astrology. 7
Enoch 72-82 shows him as explorer of the
stars and their ways in heaven (cp. 33:3-4).
He is the guide of the heavenly luminaries
(4 Enoch 72:1; 79:6; 82:7). 1 Enoch ex-
plains the discrepancy between the Enochic
calendar and astronomical reality already by
the assumption that the stars err because of
the sins of man. So the guidance of the
stars, revealing their ways and their crrors
becomes tantamount to announcing the
eschatological punishment of men and the
stars, i.c. the fallen angels which are ident-
ified with stars in the Enochic corpus. It is
nevertheless possible that the 'prince of
light’ is to be identified with Michael rather
than with Uriel (cf. Y. YADIN, The Scroll of
885
URIEL
the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons
of Darkness [Jerusalem 1957] 214-125).
Uriel knows and reveals the place of the
future punishment and imprisonment of these
stars (1 Enoch 18:14-19:2; 21:5-6.9). Accord-
ingly he is depicted elsewhere as set over
Tartarus (1 Enoch 20:2, Greek version) and
even buries Adam together with Michael
(Vita Adae 48:1). Accompanied by —Gabrie]
he serves as light for the resurrected (Apoc.
Eliah 5:5). One group of manuscripts men-
tions Uriel among the four archangels who
fulfil the eschatological judgment (Sib. Or.
2:215); Uriel alone. breaks the gates of
— Hades (ibid. 227-237, cp. 1 Enoch 20:2)
and leads the dead to their punishment.
III. In later times the tradition is mainly
concerned with Uriel as revealing angel or
angelus interpres as in 4 Ezra 4:1; 10:28
and throughout. In this function Unel is
mentioned in rabbinic texts and remains a
favourite in the magical texts (e.g. T. Soi.
2:4 [Q]; 2:7 [L]; 8:9 [P]; 17:7. 9 [HY; 18:7
[L]. 9.24 [H]. 27 {P}, SrüsE, 2 1. 6,
PRADEL, 55-56. 60; Kropr, XXVIII, 7, 47;
XLV, 3, 17; 4v, 20; XLVI, 9v, 15; LXXVI,
88; XLVII, 2, 4 etc. Sefer Harazim I, 87;
NaveH & SHAKED, Amulet 11, 1. 3; but
only five times in PGM) as in early Jewish
mysticism (SCHAFER 1988:§§ 363. 372. 418.
493. 644). Fragments of the Hekhalot litera-
ture mention an angel Me'ori'e/2N" ND. (P.
SCHAFER, Geniza-Fragmente zur Hekhalot-
Literatur [Tiibingen 1984], fragm. 13, p. 2b,
line 10 and fragm. 16, p. 1b, line 12). This
might be an original Uriel. The relations of
Uriel to Suriel and Sane] need further study
(cf. for the time: H. J. POLOTSKY, Suriel der
Trompeter, Le Muséon 49 [1936], 231-243 =
PoLoTskv, Collected Papers [Jerusalem
1971] 288-300; G. VERMES, The Archange]
Sariel. A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Christianity, Judaism and Other
Greco-Roman Cults [Ed. J. Neusner; Leiden
1975} 159-166).
Unel's fight against —Jacob/Israel does
not really fit into these lines of tradition. It
occurs in the relatively late Prayer of
Joseph, fragm. A (J. Z. SMITH, OTP 11).
IV. Bibliography
A. M. KrorP, Ausgewählte koptische Zau-
bertexte I-III (Broxelles 1930/1931); M.
MaRGALIOTH, Sepher Ha-Razim. A Newly
Recovered Book of Magic from the Tal-
mudic Period. Collected from Genizah Frag-
ments and other Sources; (Jerusalem 1966)
[Heb]; *J. MicHL, Art. Engel IX (Uriel),
RAC 5 (1962) 254-258; J. NAvEH & S.
SHAKED, Amulets and Magic Bowls. Ara-
maic Incantaions of Late Antiquity (Jerusa-
lem/Leiden 1985); *P. PERDRIZET, L'arch-
ange Ouriel, Seminarium Kondakorianum 2.
(1928), 241-276; F. PRADEL, Griechische
und süditalienische Gebete, Beschwórungen
und Rezepte des Mittelalters (Giessen 1907);
P. ScHArER, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Litera-
tur, in Zusammenarb. m. M. Schlüter u. H.
G. von Mutius (Tübingen 1981); R. STÜBE,
Jüdisch-Babylonische Zaubertexte (Halle
1895). v E E
M. Maca
886
VAMPIRE mpi
I. The noun ‘ălûqâ occurs once in MT,
in a proverbial expression in Prov 30:15.
The word appears to be pan-Semitic, with
cognates attested in Syriac (‘elaqta), Arabic
(‘alag), Ethiopic (‘alaqt), and Akkadian
(ilqu). In each of these cognate languages
the meaning is ‘leech’. In Arabic there is a
related word, *awleq, interpreted as referring
to a kind of demon (CANAAN 1929:29). This
latter sense has been conjectured for the
word in MT (e.g. DE Moor 1981-1982:111
n. 16).
II. The Arabic noun ‘awleg does occur
meaning ‘leech’ or the like, but not specifi-
cally a demon. On the other hand, the
second Phoenician amulet from Arslan Tash
(ed. A. Caquor & R. DU MESNIL DU
Buisson, Syria 48 [1971] 391-398; cf. DE
Moon 1981-1982:110-112) contains an in-
cantation against a demon which is most
probably depicted on the plaque. According
to the inscription on the plaque the demon is
a personified 'Blood-sucker', /h3t Imzh 'In-
cantation against the Blood-sucker’. The
Phoenician mzh might be compared with
Hebr mzy 7b, ‘the Suckers of Hunger’ (Deut
32:24). Though the Phoenician demon is not
identical with the Ar ‘awleg, the incantation
makes clear that insects could be seen as
demons.
III. The proverbial expression of Prov
30:15 reads (in MT): "The 'dlügà has two
daughters (who say) 'Give, give!" The
common Semitic meaning, 'leech', would
suit the context. Since the sayings in Prov-
erbs often feature insects and other humble
creatures (cf. the ants, locusts, and other ani-
mals in Proverbs 30), it may be unwise to
posit here the unique occurrence of ‘demon,
vampire’, based on an inner-Arabic semantic
development.
The alternative etymology developed by
GLueEck (1964) who connects ‘ălûqâ with
Ar 'aláqà, ‘copulation’, and renders the
Hebrew noun with ‘erotic passion’, has been
criticised by NorTH (1965) in favour of the
traditional rendering.
IV. Bibliography
T. CANAAN, Ddmonenglaube im Lande der
Bibel (1929) 29; J. J. GLUECK, Proverbs xxx
15a, VT 14 (1964) 367-370; J. C. DE Moor,
Demons in Canaan, JEOL 27 (1981-1982)
106-119; F. S. NorTH, The Four Insatiables,
VT 15 (1965) 281-282; J. WELLHAUSEN,
Reste Arabischen Heidentums (Berlin 1897)
148-159.
R. S. HENDEL
VANITIES 037
I. In Deuteronomistic religious pol-
emics and related texts, ‘vanities’ (hebelim)
indicate images of non-Yahwistic deities. It
is impossible to establish the identity of the
deities involved (Preuss 1971:160-164).
Etymologically, hebel is related to words for
*breath; vapour and nullity’.
II. Since it is not clear to which deities
the term hebelim refers, their character can-
not be described. It is characteristic of the
orthodox form of the Yahwistic religion in
ancient Israel to designate ‘other deities’ in
a disparaging way. This has no counterpart
in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. The
Assyrians depict the deities of the people
conquered as ‘their deities’ or ‘the gods in
which they trusted’ (Sargon II; BECKING
1992:31). They consider them to be real dei-
tics and not merc idols.
III. The term ‘Vanities’ occurs frequently
in OT religious polemics (Deut 32:21; 1 Kgs
16:13. 26; 2 Kgs 17:15; 8 times in Jer, Zech
10:2; cf. Ps 31:7 and Jona 2:9). By calling
indigenous Canaanite and other deities
‘vanities’, their formal existence and prac-
887
VARUNA
tical efficacy is negated (EISSFELDT 1962:
271). This designation is comparable with
the indication of the divine Falsehood.
The etymology of the word hebel under-
scores this insight. The Hebrew word has no
cognates in older Semitic languages. It can
be considered as an onomatopoeic construc-
tion of the Hebrew language itself (SEYBOLD
1974:335-336) indicating human breath.
Using hebel, the deities are compared by the
deuteronomistic school to ‘breath; vapour;
transiency'. They stand in contrast to the
everlasting character of Yahweh. This is
apparent in a polemical passage from Jere-
miah, where the non-Yahwistic divine is
compared with ‘breath’. The images of the
artisan are classified as ‘falsehood’; there is
no life (rah) in them. They are “a nothing
(hebely, a work of mockery" (Jer 10:14-15).
In a similar context, Yahweh is introduced
as speaking agent ndiculzing the. carved
images: "Why have they offended me with
their idols, with alien nothings (hablé
nékar)?” (Jer 8:19). Here, the vanities refer
to foreign deities, presumably introduced by
the Assyrian or Babylonian overlords. In
Postexilic hymns, the term ‘vanities’ is con-
nected with the parallel noun Saw’, ‘idle
idols’ (Ps 31:7; Jonah 2:9) indicating non-
active deities in general.
The deuteronomistic concepts have been
taken over by the authors of the NT. After
the healing of a lame person in Lystra, Paul
is identified by the Lycaonians as ^Hermes
and Barnabas as —Zeus. The inhabitants of
Lystra believed the gods had come down as
humans. Paul rejects this identification and
summons the people to conversion apo
toutón ión mataión, "from these vain idols”,
by which the Greek gods are meant (Acts
14:15). In 1 Pet 1:18, it is stated that the
Gentile Christians have been redeemed from
the idle conduct (ek rës matatas) of their fore-
fathers. The expression implies the rever-
ence of idle idols (VAN UNNIK 1980:14-15).
A relation of hebel with the Central Arab-
ian fertility god ^ Hubal is improbable.
IV. Bibliography
B. BEcKING, The Fall of Samaria (SHANE
2; Leiden 1992); O. EissrELDT, Gott und
Gótzen im Alten Testament, KS Y (1962)
266-273; H-D. Preuss, Die Verspottung
fremder Religionen im Alten Testament
(BWANT 92; Stuttgart 1971); K. SEYBOLD,
23i hebel, TWAT 2 (1974) 334-343; W. C,
VAN UNNIK, The redemption in Y Peter i 18-
19 and the problem of the First Epistle of
Peter, Sparsa Collecta Part Two (NovTSup
30; Leiden 1980) 3-82.
B. BECKING
VARUNA
I. The name of the Jebusite Araunah,
Heb ’drawnd (2 Sam 24:16.20-24; 1 Chr
21:15.18; 2 Chr 3:1), has etymologically
been related to the Indian deity Varuna. In
doing so, Araunah has been related to an al-
leged Aryan upper class in the ancient Near
East (F. Homme 1904:1011; H. HOMMEL
1929:117).
II. In the Vedas of ancient India Varuna
played an important role. He often appears
together with Mitra (>Mithras), both having
an ethical character as guarantors of Rta.
Varuna is related to the night. He rules over
the invisible and is gifted with magic power:
“IT am King Varuna, these magic powers
were first given to me” (Rg Veda 4,42:2.
{181]). Varuna is seen as omnipresent and
omniscient. He is revered as the creator and
the wise sustainer of the world knowing and
initiating the clockwork of creation. Since
he also appears as God of heaven, the ety-
mological relation with Ouranos is plaus-
jble. In the so-called classical period re-
flected e.g. by the Mahabharata, Varuna is
still worshipped though in a less prominent
role. He is relegated to the position of a god
of death (DANIELou 1964, Dowson 1973;
Renou & FILLIOZAT 19835).
In the list of gods in the treaty and the
countertreaty between the Hittite king
Shupiluliuma J and the Mitanni-Hurrian
king Kurtiwazza some deities occur which
have been construed as Aryan: Mita,
Varuna, Indra and the two Ndsatya (e.g.
Mironov 1933; THIEME 1960, WyatT
1996:333). Although they occur in a minor
position (Nos. 105-108 in the god-list) they
have been interpreted as an indication of the
presence of an Aryan upper-class in the
888
VASHTI
ancient Near East. This interpretation as
well as the identifications of Mitra and
Varuna has now convincingly been challen-
ged (KAMMENHUBER 1968; DIAKONOFF
1972). In the treaties *Varuna is written
DINGIR.MES U-ru-wa-na-a3-3i-el (KBo I 1
Rev:55; KUB II 1b Rev: 2l) and
DINGIR.MES A-ru-na-as-Si-il (KBo | 3*
Rev:41) respectively. Phonetic laws prohibit
an identification with Varuna. The name
should be interpreted as ‘the gods of
Urwan/the Urwanites they are’ (DIAKONOFF
1972:106-107).
IIT. The name Araunah can be interpreted
as Hurrian: the noun eweri- ‘lord’ with the
extension -ne has the meaning ‘feudal lord’
(W. FEILER, Hurritische Namen im Alten
Testament, ZA 45 (1939] 217-218.224-225;
B. Mazar, The Early Biblical Period
(Jerusalem 1986] 41). N. Wyatr (‘Araunah
the Jebusite’ and the Throne of David,
StTheol 39 [1985] 39-53) identified Araunah
as Uriah the Hittite. A relation with Aryan
groups in the ancient Near East is less
plausible. Besides, the alleged relation rests
on an obsolete and objectionable ideology.
IV. Bibliography
A. DaNiÉLOU, Hindu Polytheism (London
1964) 118-121; I. M. DiAKONOFF, Die Arier
im Vorderen Orient: Ende eines Mythos,
OrNS 41 (1972) 91-120; J. DowsoN, A
Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology
(New Delhi 1973) 336-338; F. HOMMEL,
Grundriss zur Geographie und Geschichte
des Alten Orients (Leipzig 1904); H. How-
MEL, Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem
des 139. Psalms, ZAW 47 (1929) 110-124;
A. KAMMENHUBER, Die Arier im Vorderen
Orient (Heidelberg 1968) 142-151; N. D.
Mironov, Aryan Vestiges in the Near East
of the Second Millennium sc, AcOr 11
(1933) 140-217; L. RENOU & J. FiLLIOZAT.
L'Inde Classique Y (Paris 21985) 317-319;
B. THIEME, The ‘Aryan’ gods of the
Mitanni treaties, JAOS 80 (1960) 301-317;
N. Wyatr, Myths of Power: A Study of
Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and
Biblical Traditions (UBL 13; Münster
1996).
B. BECKING
*VASHTI ^r
I. JENSEN 1892:62 suggested that the
name of Qucen Vashti, the spouse of Ahasu-
erus in Est 1:9 (cf. 1:11.12.15.16.17.19;
2:1.4.17), is related to the presumed Elamite
goddess *Wasti (or Masti). Since there are
more plausible explanations to the name
Vashti, there is no need to make a link with
a goddess whose name was in fact pronoun-
ced as Masti.
II. Masti is an Elamite mother goddess,
attested in Middle and New Elamite royal
inscriptions and in personal names. The cor-
rect reading of the signs 4wAS-TI, once read
Barti, is proven by the writing 9ma-ás-ti in a
Middle Elamite brick inscription (VALLAT
1983: 11 line 2). The goddess is frequently
mentioned in the late Elamite inscription of
Hanni from Mālamīr (M. W. STOLPER,
Malamir B. Philologisch, RLA 7 [1987-90]
276-81), where she is adorned with the epi-
thets zana ^Štarriša ‘lady of Tarriša’ (F. W.
KóNic, Die elamischen Kónigsinschriften
[AfO Beih. 16; Graz 1965] no. 76 $ 4 c.a.;
for Tarrisa see F. VALLAT, RGTC 11 (Wies-
baden 1993] 275) and anima balia ‘nappirra
‘protective mother of the gods’ (KONIG,
ibid, no. 76 § 10 e.a.). MaSti is the most
important goddess of the pantheon of
Malamir, but she was also venerated at Susa
and elsewhere as her name appears as a
theophoric element in personal names from
Susa and Tall-i Malyan (F. VALLAT 1983:
13; M. W. STOLPER, Texts from Tall-i Maly-
an [Philadelphia 1984] 200a; R. ZADOK,
The Elamite Onomasticon [Napels 1984]
28.)
III. In an early study of Elamite proper
names, JENSEN argued that Vashti, the
queen and spouse of Ahasuerus, coincides
with the name of a goddess: "Ich lese Wasti
und nicht Maàti, weil ich Grunde zu der
Annahme habe, dass die in Rede stehende
Göttin in der “MJI des Buches Esther wie-
derzufinden ist" (1892:62). It is now clear
that the name of the goddess was pronoun-
ced Masti. GEHMAN submits a morc plausi-
ble explanation of the name Vashti, by rela-
ting it to Avestan vas, ‘to wish, to desire’.
The form ut is the past participle with a
feminine ending, which yields the meaning
889
VINE — VIRGIN
‘the desired one, the beloved’ (1924:322).
The Avestan bears a close correspondence
to the Hebrew transcnption, and makes
excellent sense.
IV. Bibliography
H. S. GEHMAN, Notes on the Persian Words
in the Book of Esther, JBL 43 (1924) 321-
328; W. Hinz & H. Kocu, Elamische Wor-
terbuch (Berlin, 1987) II 896 s.v. d.mas-ti;
P. JENSEN, Elamitische Eigennamen, WZKM
6 (1892); 47-70; F. VALLAT, Les briques
élamites de Deylam, Kunst, Kultur und
Geschichte der Acháemenidenzeit und ihr
Fortleben (ed. H. Koch and D.N. Macken-
zje; Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran.
Ergánzungsband 10; Berlin 1983) 11-18.
F. VAN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN
VINE > GEPEN
VIPER YON
I. The viper (“ep ‘eh) occurs three times
in the Hebrew Bible, always in poetic con-
texts to describe negative environments or
sensations. Third-millennium texts from
Mesopotamia attest to the veneration of a
god Iba"um, etymologically related to Heb
"ep “eh.
JL A third-millennium Akkadian seal
depicting a fully developed snake-dragon is
‘dedicated to.a.god i-ba-um (R. M.. BOEH-
MER, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während
der Akkad-Zeit (Berlin 1965} Tafel XLVIII
no. 570). This snake-god is probably identi-
cal with Cip-pu, the vizier of the chthonic
deity Ningiizida in the Babylonian god list
An-Anum V 262 (WIGGERMANN 1997:37).
This deity is also known from a geographic
name in the Diyala region (KA-4J-ba-um;:
RGTC 3 128-29). The meaning of the word
i-ba-um is illuminated by a vocabulary from
Ebla, where Sum muS-ama, obviously some
kind of snake (Sum mu& means ‘snake’), is
translated as i-ba-ü-um. Civit has connected
this term with Heb “ep‘eh, ‘viper
(1984:91).
IIl. The deified character of the viper in
Mesopotamia is proven by its appearance in
the god lists. In Old Testament passages the
viper occurs in poetic descriptions of desert
landscapes (Isa 30:6) or as cause of negative
physical experience (Isa 59:5; Job 20:16).
Whilst the snake in ancient Israelite culture
was frequently associated with divine power
(serpent), there are no traces of a divine
nature ascribed to the viper.
IV. Bibliography
M. Ci, Bilingualism in logographically
written languages: Sumerian in Ebla, J
bilinguismo a Ebla (ed. L. Cagni; Napoli,
1984) 91; F. A. M. WIGGERMANN, Trans-
tigridian snake gods, Sumerian Gods and
Their Representations (CM 7; eds. I. L. Fin-
ke) & M. J. Geller; Groningen 1997) 33-55,
esp. 36-37.
K. VAN DER TOORN
VIRGIN TSSM mnaop6£vog
I. In Hebrew two nouns occur which
traditionally have been translated with
‘virgin’: ‘alma and betülá. A convincing
etymology of the noun ‘almd has not been
given. The word has cognates in various
Semitic languages; Ugar gimt, ‘girl’; Phoen
‘Imt, Aram *'ljmt. The exact meaning of these
words, however, is not easily established.
The proposal of DoHMEN (1987:172-173)
who sees a relation—via Ugar $lm—
between Heb ‘almé and Akk/Semitic sim,
*image'.and proposes a semantic, field in-
cluding ‘image of and ‘image refernng to’,
is unlikely. The noun bétülá is etymological-
ly connected to Akk batultu and Ugar butt.
In both these languages the noun primarily
refers to an age-group. With WENHAM
(1972) it might be taken for granted that
bétil4—and probably also ‘almé—refers to
a ‘girl of marriageable age’ and not to a
virgo intacta.
In the OT the nouns do not refer to a
goddess; in Ugaritic texts they are both used
as epithets for a deity. Early Christian theol-
ogy identified the ‘alma of Isa 7:14 with the
virgin — Mary.
TI. In Mesopotamian hymns celebrating
the love between -—Ishtar and Dumuz
(~Tammuz) the goddess is presented as a
young nubile woman (WILCKE 1976-80:84).
890
VOHU MANAH
In Egypt the epithets ‘dd.t, rmn.t and hwn.t,
‘girl; young woman; virgin’, are applied to
many goddesses—e.g.— Hathor and —Isis—
who had not yet had sexual intercourse
(BERGMAN, RINGGREN & TSEVAT 1972:
872-873).
In the Ugaritic myth in which it is nar-
rated how the moon-god Yarihu obtained his
bride Nikkal, gimr occurs as a designation
for a goddess: hl gimt tld b(n), ‘Look! The
girl bears a son to him’ (KTU 1.24:7). It is
not clear whether gimt is the name of a deity
(W. HERRMANN, Yarih und Nikkal und der
Preis der Kutarāt-Göttinen [BZAW 106;
Berlin 1967] 7) or a reference to a goddess
(KonPEL 1990:291). In the ritual text KTU
1.41:25, glmt is used as an epithet for
-Anat (ARTU 162). In KTU 1.4 vii:54 the
expression bn glmt should be rendered with
‘sons of the darkness’ (DOHMEN 1987:171;
ARTU 65). The expression is an epithet for
Gupanu-and-Ugaru and does not refer to the
offspring of a female (or virgin) deity.
The Ugaritic goddess Anat is often called
the belt (e.g. KTU 1.3 ii:32-33; 1.3 iii:3; 1.4
11:14; 1.6 iii:22-23). The epithet refers to her
youth and not to her biological state since
she had sexual intercourse more than once
with her Baal (BERGMAN, RINGGREN &
TsevaT 1972:873-874; KorreL 1990:322-
323).
Ill. [n the OT, both ‘alma and bétild are
used for human beings only and do not refer
to deities. The noun ‘alma occurs 9 times in
the OT. It refers to women in the royal harem
(Cant 6:8); to a group of music making girls
(Ps 68:26); to a musical indication (Ps 46:1);
and to young women of marriageable age
(Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; 68:26; Isa 7:14; Prov
30:19; 1 Chron 15:20). Of great interest is
the passage in Isa 7:14. Interpreting Isa 7 as
a messianic prophecy and viewing the ‘alma
as a virgin on the basis of the LXX render-
ing rap8évoc, early Christians identified her
with Mary and read the passage as the pre-
diction of the virginal conception of -Em-
manuel/-*Jesus (Math 1:23).
The noun bétülá occurs 51 times in the
OT. In three instances the noun might indi-
cate a ‘virgin’ (Lev 21:13-14; Deut 22:19;
Ezek 44:22). At Joel 1:8 it certainly does
not refer to a virgin. The apposition “who
had no intercourse” (Gen 24:16; Judg 21:12)
should be interpreted as a modification to
bétülá rather than the definition of a charac-
teristic attribute (e.g. F. ZIMMERMANN, JBL
73 [1954] 98; BERGMAN, RINGGREN &
TsEvar 1972:875). In expressions like
bétülat yisra'el, bétülat bat *ammi, bétülat
bat siyyón that are to be interpreted as per-
sonifications of land, people or city, vir-
ginity is not implied (BERGMAN, RINGGREN
& TsEvaT 1972:875).
IV. Bibliography
J. BERGMAN, H. RiNGGREN & M. TsEvar,
bétülá, TWAT 1 (1972) 872-877; C. Dou-
MEN, ‘alindh, ‘elam, TWAT 5 (1987) 167-
177; M. C. A. KonPEL, A Rift in the Clouds
(UBL 8; Münster 1990); G. J. WENHAM,
Betilah, *a Girl of Marriageable Age', VT
22 (1972) 326-348; C. WiLckKE, Inanna/
Ištar, RLA 5 (1976-80) 74-87.
B. BECKING
VOHU MANAH
I. Vohu Manah, ‘Good Thought’, is the
name of one of the seven principal deities of
Zoroastrianism (the Amesha Spentas). A
slightly blurred form of his name is extant
in the Hebrew transcription of Mehuman
(j2Y12), the name of one of the seven cham-
berlains of Ahasuerus in Est 1:10 (DucHEs-
NE-GUILLEMIN 1953:106).
Il. In Zoroastrian theology, a group of
seven deities, called the Amesha Spentas
(‘beneficent immortals’), occupies a promi-
nent position. Although the antiquity of the
doctrine of the Heptad has been the subject
of debate (NARTEN 1982), its main features
were already fixed in the Late Avestan
period, coinciding roughly with the Achae-
menian dynasty in Persia. The deities who
make up the Heptad most often include
Ahura Mazda, who is also the creator of the
other Amesha Spentas. A hierarchy of these
beings puts ASa VahiSta (— Arta) at the first
position, followed by Vohu Manah. Vohu
Manah, whose name means ‘Good
Thought’, is the embodiment of good thin-
891
VOHU MANAH
king and of the proper attitude towards the
religion. He is also the guardian of cattle. In
the story of the meetings Zarathustra held
with Ahura Mazda, the prelude to the reve-
lation, it is Vohu Manah who comes to meet
the prophet and takes him to heaven. It is
probably this mythical episode which led to
the function of Vohu Manah as a divinity of
visions and inspiration (WIDENGREN 1945).
This function is clearly attested, for. instan-
ce, in the fact that the main Zoroastrian apo-
calypse, the Zand 1 Wahman Yasn, presents
itself as a commentary on a (possibly imagi-
nary) hymn to Vohu Manah (CERETI 1995).
Jn later Zoroastrian literature, Wahman (the
Middle Persian form of his name) is perhaps
tbe prime example of a literary tradition that
symbolizes desirable mental attitudes by
urging believers to let the deities dwell in
their bodies. His association with the cow is
also evident from the fact that leather and
other items of (pure) clothing can be refer-
red to as ‘Vohu Manah’.
As far as non-Zoroastrian historical sour-
ces are concerned, the information on Vohu
Manah is rather limited. His name has been
attested once among the Old Persian names
on the Elamite tablets of Persepolis (Mayr-
HOFER 1973:8.1035). In more recent Greek
epigraphy from Anatolia it is slightly more
common. Strabo (Geography 11.8.4;
15.3.15). mentions a god. Omanos (= Vohu
Manah), who is worshipped in Anatolia in
connection with Anahita and a mysterious
divinity Anadatos. The statue of Omanos is
carried around jn a procession (DE JONG
1997:150-155). Diodorus Siculus 1.94.2, fin-
ally, mentions the fact that “among the
Arians, Zathraustes claimed that the Good
Spirit gave him his laws”, which probably
refers to the story of the meeting between
Vohu Manah and Zarathustra mentioned
above (DE JONG 1997:266-267)..
III. The Book of Esther contains a list of
names of seven chamiberlains (eunuchs) of
Ahasuerus (Est 1:10). Whilst the names may
not have belonged to historical figures, they
are generally considered genuine (Old) Per-
sian names. Mehuman is one of the eunuchs.
On the assumption that Hebrew /m reflects
a Persian /v/, DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN inter-
prets 7/2172 as a rendition of Vohu Manah
(1953:106). This interpretation is accepted
by MiüLnLARD (1977:485). Although other
interpretations of the names have been
offered, the identification with the theonym
Vohu Manah still has the best papers.
IV. Bibliography .
C. CERETI, The Zand 1 Wahman Yasn. A
Zoroastrian Apocalypse (Rome 1995); J.
DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, Les noms des
eunuques d'Assuérus, Le Muséon 66 (1953)
105-108; A. DE JONG, Traditions of the
Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin
Literature (RGRW 133; Leiden 1997); M.
MAYRHOFER, Onomastica Persepolitana.
Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-
Tüfelchen (Wien 1973); A. R. MILLARD,
The Persian Names in Esther and the Relia-
bility of the Hebrew Text, JBL 96 (1977)
481-488; J. NARTEN, Die Amaga Spantas im
Avesta (Wiesbaden 1982); G. WIDENGREN,
The Great Vohu Manah and the Apostle of
God. Studies in Iranian and Munichaean
Religion (Uppsala & Leizpig 1945); G. L.
WINDFUHR, Vohu Manah. A Key to the
Zoroastrian World-Formula, Michigan
Oriental Studies in Honor of George G.
Cameron (ed. L. L. Orlin; Ann Arbor 1976)
269-310.
A. DE JonG & K. VAN DER TOORN
892
WATCHER WY
I. Daniel chap. 4 (vv 10, 14, 20) is the
only passage in the Hebrew Bible where the
noun TY is commonly understood to refer
to a heavenly being. Nebuchadnezzar reports
that he saw in his dream "a watcher and
holy one come down from heaven". The
meaning of ‘watcher’ is assured by the jux-
taposition with ‘holy one’ and the statement
that he came down from heaven. The word
is simply transliterated in Theodotion. The
Old Greek uses the single word &yyeAog
(->Angel) in place of “watcher and holy
one". Both Aquila and Symmachus read
Eyptyopos, wakeful one or watcher, pre-
sumably from the Semitic root “iY, wake
up.
II. The ‘Watchers’ are widely attested in
Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and early
Roman periods. The most famous attestation
is in the ‘Book of the Watchers’ (JEnoch 1-
36) where the term is used for the fallen
angels. The Enochic book is an elaboration
of the story of the —'sons of God' of Gen 6,
who took wives from the children of men.
The episode in Genesis is elliptic, and is
presented without clear judgment. The
offspring of the 'sons of God' are presented
in a positive light as "heroes of old, men of
renown”. In the Book of Enoch, however,
the action of the Watchers is clearly rebel-
lious. They swear an oath and bind each
other with curses not to alter the plan. They
conspire to take human wives, and two
hundred of them come down on Mt. Her-
mon. They have intercourse with the women
and beget giants, who cause havoc on
earth. The Watchers also impart illicit revel-
ation, about astrology, roots and spells and
the making of weapons. When the carth
cries out to the LORD, the archangels are
sent to imprison the Watchers under the
earth to await the final judgment. The
Watchers subsequently appeal to -*Enoch to
intercede on their behalf, but he is instructed
to tell them that they should intercede for
men, not men for them (7 Enoch 15:2). The
Spirits of the giants are to remain on earth as
evil spirits to disturb humanity (15:8 - 16:1).
A variant of this story in the Book of
Jubilees has the Watchers come down to
teach men to do what is just and right on
earth (Jub 3:15). They are only subsequently
corrupted when they see the daughters of
men (Jub 5:1). In Jubilees, the evil spirits
have a leader, -*Mastema, who persuades
God to let one tenth of the evil spirits
remain with him on earth to corrupt human-
ity and lead it astray.
The term ‘Watchers’ occurs in Hebrew in
CD 2:18, with reference to the fall of “the
Watchers of heaven", a phrase used in /
Enoch 13:10 (in Aramaic); 12:4; 15:2
(Ethiopic). Further attestations with refer-
ence to the fallen angels are found in 7.
Reuben 5:6-7, and T. Naphtali 3:5 (Greek:
£ypnyopo). Such beings are not always
referred to as 'Watchers'; cf. the 'Pesher on
Azazel and the Angels’ from Qumran
(4Q180; MiLiK 1976: 112) and the statement
in 2 Peter 2:4 that "God did not spare the
angels when they sinned".
The name "Watchers" is not confined to
the fallen angels, however. Several passages
in J Enoch speak of angels “who watch” or
"who sleep not": 20:1 (the four archangels);
39:12-13; 71:7. The Aramaic NY is also
found at / Enoch 22:6 with reference to
-*Raphael, and again at 93:2 (plural) where
the Greek and Ethiopic versions have
"angel". In 2 Enoch 18 (Slavonic Enoch) the
"Grigori" (£ypmyopoi) are located in the
fifth heaven. While “200 princes” of them
have fallen, the remainder resume the
heavenly liturgy. 2 Enoch is usually dated to
the late first century CE, but some scholars
893
WATCHER
place it much later. The Hebrew 3 Enoch
(Sefer Hekalot) which dates from the fifth or
sixth century discusses the “four great
princes called Watchers and holy ones” in
chap. 28, with specific reference to Daniel 4.
Watchers and holy ones are frequently men-
tioned together, e.g., 2 Enoch 12:2; 22:6; 93:
2 (Aramaic).
In IQapGen the Watchers are associated
with the holy ones and the Nephilim (2:1)
and with the sons of heaven (2:16) in the
context of the birth of Noah. The same con-
text may underlie the references in the frag-
mentary 4QMessAr 2:16,18. The PTY are
also mentioned in the fragmentary 4QEn-
Giants, and 4QAmram.
I. The oldest non-biblical attestations
are probably those in the Enochic ‘Book of
the Watchers' dating from sometime in the
third century BCE. There are indications that
the story as found in J Enoch combines
older sources, one of which names the
leader Semihazah and focuses on the sin of
illicit mingling with human women, while
the other names him Asael or ~Azazel and
emphasizes the sin of illicit revelation
(HANSON 1977). Contrary to the suggestion
of MILIK (1976:31), however, no part of the
story as found in J Enoch is presupposed in
Genesis, since the Genesis story does not
even condemn the action of the ‘sons of
God’.as.sinful.. 0,
Attempts to identify the Watchers in
earlier material are hitherto inconclusive.
DaHooD (1966: 55) proposed that Ps 9:7
pnm Ow) be translated "root out their
gods” and derived O° from Ugaritic gyr
“to protect”. He identified the same root and
meaning in Mic 5:23; Jer 2:28; 19:15 and
Dan 4 among other passages. Others (Mur-
RAY 1984; BARKER 1987) have gone farther
in suggesting that the Watchers were
heavenly beings, venerated in the pre-exilic
Jerusalem cult but deliberately suppressed in
most of the Masoretic Bible. None of the
proposed identifications of the noun TY in
the Hebrew Bible before Daniel is compel-
ling, however. The idea of protecting deities
or angels was widely known in the ancient
world and re-appears in Daniel 10-12, but
——
we do not have any reliable instance of the
use of YY in that context. Some biblical
precedents for the notion of angelic beings
as ‘watchful ones’, but with different termi-
nology, have been proposed. The most note-
worthy is Zech 4:10 which refers to seven
“eyes of the Lorp which range through the
whole earth”. The Watchers, however, never
have this function in Daniel or the non-ca-
nonical literature. A more helpful biblical
passage is found in Ps 121:4: “Behold, he
neither slumbers nor sleeps, the guardian of
Israel”, with reference to ~ Yahweh himself
(Protectors). The “angels who keep
watch" (1 Enoch 20:1) share this divine
characteristic, and the class of heavenly
beings known as Watchers may have. been
named in this way. Their function overlaps
with that of the Ton in so far as they can
convey a divine message to earth, but they
were apparently conceived as a distinct class
of angelic beings.
IV. Interest in such intermediary beings
was widespread in pagan as well as Jewish
circles in the Persian and Hellenistic
periods. According to Hesiod, Works and
Days, 252-53: "Zeus has thrice ten thousand
spirits, watchers of mortal men, and these
keep watch on judgements and deeds of
wrong as they roam, clothed in must, all
over the earth” (The word for watchers here,
.$9Xaxec, js not the same as that used in
Daniel or Enoch). The most intriguing
pagan parallel to the Watchers is found in
the Phoenician History of Philo Byblios,
which refers to the ‘Zophasemin’ (often cor-
rected into Zophesamin = [RW BS) or
‘heavenly observers’, These creatures are
mentioned in the context of a cosmogony
and they are assigned no function which
might be compared to the Jewish Watchers,
but then Philo’s Hellenized account hardly
does justice to their role in Phoenician
mythology. No conclusions can be based on
such an enigmatic reference, however. Other
(inconclusive) pagan parallels which have
been suggested include "the many-eyed
Amesha Spentas" of Zoroastrianism and the
planetary gods of the Chaldeans in Diodorus
Siculus 2.30.
894
WAY
V. Bibliography
M. BARKER, The Older Testament. The Sur-
vival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult
in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity
(London 1987) 114; M. BLack, The Book of
Enoch or I Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden 1985)
106-107; M. DaAHOOD, Psalms 1 (AB 16;
Garden City 1966) 55; M. J. DAVIDSON,
Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of
1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian writings
from Qumran (JSP Sup 11; Sheffield 1992)
38-40; P. D. HANSON, Rebellion in Heaven,
Azazel and Euhemeristic heroes in | Enoch
6-11, JBL 96 (1977) 195-233; M. MacH,
Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engel-
glaubens in vorrabinischer Zeit (Tübingen
1992) 34; L. D. MERINO, Los ‘vigilantes’ en
la literatura intertestamentaria, Simposio
Biblico Espanol, Salamanca, 1982 (ed. N.
Fernandez-Marcos; Madrid 1984) 575-609;
J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford
1976); R. Murray, The Origin of Aramaic
‘ir, Angel, Or 53 (1984) 303-317.
J. J. CoLuins
WAY T1
I. The swearing formula /ty drk br 3b* ("As
the way of Beersheba lives", RSV), occur-
ring in Am 8:14, has caused problems to the
interpreters ever since antiquity (BARSTAD
1984:191-201; OrvaN 1991:121-127). The
main problem with this text concerns the
rendering of drk with ‘way’, ‘road’. Even if
drk may be translated also with *manner' or
‘custom’, both the use of the verb ‘to swear’
+ hy, as well as the context, indicates
strongly that we have a reference to some
kind of deity in this text.
II. In the world of the Bible, roads—and
more especially those used for pilgrim-
ages—could acquire such status that they
shared in the sphere of the gods. That is
why many scholars still adhere to the view
that in Am 8:14 the swearing is to the ‘pil-
grmage to Beer-sheba' (PAuL 1991:272).
They sometimes compare the text with the
Muslim practice of swearing by the pilgrim-
age route to Mecca. This custom, however,
represents something quite different, and
must be viewed within the broader context
of Muslim swearing usage in general, where
it is only attested in much later times. Also
the occurrence of ‘way’ as a possible divine
element in Akkadian (Surpu V-VI:191: "the
road, daughter of the great gods", /tar-ra-nu
DUMU.SAL DINGIR.MES GAL.MES) concerns a
different matter and must be viewed within
the broader context of deification of objects
which we may sometimes find in Mesopot-
amian religion. Even if such a usage is also
attested at Elephantine, it is hardly relevant
in relation to Am 8:14 (OLYAN 1991:127 n.
4).
III. Scholarly discussion has come up
with quite a number of different solutions to
the problem of drk in Am 8:14. Since ‘way’,
‘road’, or ‘manner’ appear not to provide us
with satisfactory readings of drk in Am
8:14, many scholars have emended the text
to read another word. This, too, has turned
out to be a problematic venture. One of the
most common emendations has been to read
ddk instead of drk (OLYAN 1991:121-135).
Yet there seems to be no need for changing
the text here (Dod). The crux can hardly
be solved on the basis of textual criticism.
The context clearly demands that the refer-
ence is to some kind of deity. This was
noted already by the Greek translator and is
reflected in the ho theds sou of the LXX.
Though the other deitics mentioned in Am
8:14 cannot be discussed in depth here, it is
important to stress that the goddess
—Ashima is not so problematic as some
scholars seem to believe (BARSTAD 1984:
157-181). A goddess Ashima is now also
attested in an Aramaic text as a part of a
Géttertriade (BEYER & LIVINGSTONE 1987:
287-88). There is sufficient evidence, then,
to make the claim that Hebrew drk may be
connected with some kind of a deity. It
appears from a survey of the occurrences of
drk in MT that we find also other texts
where drk apparently cannot be translated
with the traditional ‘way’, ‘road’, ‘manner’
(HALAT 223). Many scholars see a connec-
tion between these texts and the possibility
that drk in Hebrew, as in Ugaritic, can also
mean ‘dominion’, ‘might’, ‘power’. Also in
895
WAY
Phoenician the word drk occurs in the mean-
ing ‘dominion’ (Cross 1979:43-44).
The appearance of our word in an Ugar-
itic divine epithet is interesting. In RS
24.252 (lines 6-7) Anat is called b'It mlk b'lt
drkt b'lt 5mm rmm, ‘the Lady of Royalty,
the Lady of Power, the Lady of Heavens on
high’ (PARDEE 1988:101). We should note,
however, that there is no attestation of a
deity drkt in ‘Ugaritic, only the feminine
noun meaning 'power', 'might'. We note
with interest that in later Judaism words for
‘power’, ‘might’, and the like are often used
as a substitute for the name of -Yahweh
(UnBACH 1979:80-96).
There is a possible connection between
drk of Am 8:14 and the goddess Derceto
(BARSTAD 1984:196-197). Several scholars
have pointed to a connection between b'lt
drkt and b'lt mm rmm (for the latter expres-
sion, see also KA/ 15) in the Ugaritic text
and the much later Hellenistic legend of
Derceto and her daughter Semiramis, in par-
ticular related to the city of Ashkelon (PAR-
DEE 1988:103; Gese RAAM 214). Despite
the great distance in time, the lexicographic
similarities cannot be mere coincidences.
The cult of the goddess Derceto is attested
at several cities in the Hellenistic world.
This may explain the presence of such a
name or epithet also at Beersheba. Here, we
must take into account the close contacts
between the different regions of Syria/Pales-
tine in antiquity. We know that there were
contacts between Philistine cities, including
Ashkelon, and Ugarit (DoTHAN 1989:60).
Ashkelon and Beersheba are not very far
from each other, and Philistine material
remains have indeed been found at Beer-
sheba (AHARONI 1975:151). Clearly, the
cult at Beersheba must have been an import-
ant one (Scuoons 1986:61-74).
Still it would be wrong simply to identify
the drk of Beersheba mentioned in Amos
with the Hellenistic deity Derceto. The re-
lationship between Ugarit, Bersheba and
Ashkelon may point to a possible diffusion
of the cult of a deity referred to by the name
or epithet drk, ‘power’, ‘dominion’. This,
however, does not help us much. The mas-
culine/female forms drk/drkt may be com-
parable to e.g. mlk/mlkt, or b'U/b'lt, or "dn/dt
and be used ‘originally’ as generic or epi-
thetical terms, appearing as a divine name
only in later times. It is one thing to be able
to say something about the origin and ety-
mology of drk in Am 8:14, but it is quite
another matter to identify the kind of deity
we find behind this designation. Thus, the
"Power of Bersheba' may be a local —Baal,
or a local Yahweh. The local character of
monarchical Yahwism is now attested be-
yond doubt in extrabiblical sources (cf.
'Yahweh of Samaria’ and ‘Yahweh of
Teman’ at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud). The fact that
the ancient Near Eastern cults were basically
local cults should not be underrated. Again
and again we may witness how deities rising
to fame and spreading over large areas were
mixed with local cults, and sometimes total-
ly absorbed. Thus, the ‘same’ name for dif-
ferent deities in different regions does not
necessarily guarantee any stability or consis-
tency in matters theological. Morcover,
speculations about the etymology of divine
names or epithets do not yield much infor-
mation about the nature of the deity in
question. For such reasons, we are hardly
allowed to say anything very definite about
the mysterious drk of Am 8:14.
III. Bibliography
Y. AHARONI, Excavations at Tel Beer-
Sheba. Preliminary Report of the Fifth and
Sixth Seasons 1973-1974, Tel Aviv 2 (1975)
146-168; *H. M. BARSTAD, The Religious
Polemics of Amos (VTSup 34; Leiden 1984)
(& lit]; K. BEvER & A. LiviNGSTONE, Die
neuesten aramiischen Inschriften aus Taima,
ZDMG 137 (1987) 285-296; F. M. Cross,
A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription
of the Persian Period from Byblos, JEJ 29
(1979) 40-44; M. DorHAN, Archaeological
Evidence for Movements of the Early ‘Sea
Peoples' in Canaan, Recent Excavations in
Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (ed.
S. Gitin & W. G. Dever, AASOR 49;
Winona Lake 1989) 59-70; *S. M. OLYAN,
The Oaths in Amos 8,14, Priesthood and
Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson
& S. M. Olyan; JSOT SupplSer 125;
896
WILD BEASTS
Sheffield 1991) 121-149 [& lit]; D. PARDEE,
Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e
campagne (1961) (RSOu IV; Paris 1988); S.
PauL, Amos. A Commentary on the Book of
Amos (Minneapolis 1991); A. ScHoors,
Berseba. De opgraving van een bijbelse stad
(Kampen 1986); E. E. UnBACH, The Sages.
Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem
1979).
H. M. BARSTAD
WILD BEASTS ts
I. siyyim, sg. si (< “S*), is a plural
derivative from the feminine noun siyyd,
which appears as an adjective to ’eres ‘land’
with the meaning 'dry' and as a noun with
the meaning ‘dry land’ (cf. sa@y6n Isa 25:5;
32:2). The word is certainly attested only in
Isa 13:21; 34:14; and Jer 50:39; it is poss-
ibly to be found in Pss 72:9; 74:14 (for its
reflection in the ancient versions see MUL-
LER 1989:990). In understanding the occur-
rence of siyyim in Isa 23:13 its homonyms
siyyim I ‘ships’ (Num 24:24; Isa 33:21;
Ezek 30:9; Dan 11:30) and siyyim II 'desert-
dweller’ are employed. The Qumran evi-
dence for siyyim (4QShir? 1:5 [par. 4QShir^
10:2]) and for si (4QWiles 3:4) does not
contribute to the determination of the sense
of the word.
II. In the conceptual world of the
ancient Near East the 'steppe/desert' and
‘ruins/ruined places’ along with mountains
and swamps were the habitations of the
‘counter-human world’. Not only were
definite ‘desert animals’ such as ostriches,
gazelles and antilopes at home in the desert,
but the desert also served as the habit of
various fabulous creatures which did not
belong to any definable species. These were
rather exponents of the powers that were
associated with this sterile and barren realm.
In addition to the iconographic evidence (cf.
the tomb paintings from Beni Hasan in
Egypt in KEEL 1984:67 fig. 89), there are
numerous texts which describe the negative
qualities of desert and ruins. Thus for
example in the Sefire Treaty Inscription KA/
222A:32-33: "... Its (ie. Arpad's) grass
shall become desiccated, and Arpad shall
become a desolate mound (cf. ysmn, Hebrew
yésimón Deut 32:10; Ps 68:8, etc.), [a habi-
tation. of wild animals], of gazelles, of
jackals, of hares, of wild cats, of owls, of ...
and of magpies!". [n like manner Ashur-
banipal once characterized the Syrian desert
as "a place of thirst and hunger, where no
bird of the heavens has ever flown, where
no onager (or) gazelle has ever grazed"
(Prism A III 87-90, cf. III 105-110 etc. [M.
WEIPPERT, Die Kämpfe des assyrischen
Königs Assurbanipal gegen die Araber, WO
7 (1973-1974) 39-85, esp. 43-44]).
IH. The siyyfm are evidently demonic
beings (of the desert/dry land), whose exact
definition is uncertain. Ges.!? and HALAT,
for example, arrange the evidence in the fol-
lowing manner: a type of desert animal (Isa
13:21; 23:13; 34:14; Jer 50:39; Ps 74:14; in
Ps 72:9 to be read perhaps as sárím [Ges.!?
681]); desert animals (cf. the Arabic isogloss
dajtina ‘wild cats’) or dwellers of the
steppe/desert (Ps 72:9?) or demons (HALAT
956).
It is characteristic of siyyfm that the
lexeme is found in descriptive oracles of
doom in Isa 13:21; 23:13(?); 34:14 and Jer
50:39, and in Pss 72:9(?); 74:14(?) in the
context of descriptions of enemies/chaos
monsters (fabulous sea creatures). The crea-
tures listed in the oracles of doom against
Babylon (Isa 13:19-22; Jer 50:33-40) and
Edom (Isa 34:9-15) represent a counter-
human world, which reaches out when
people fall victim to God's judgement, and
their places of habitation become desolate.
The topos of the 'topsy-turvy/counter-human
world' belongs to the ancient Near East in
general (see e.g. the 'Balaam'-Inscription
from Tell Deir ‘Alla, Combination I, sen-
tences xxiv-xxx [according to the scheme of
WtiPPERT 1991:159-160, 172-174)), and in
this case it is present in the etymology and
semantics of the word siyyim (= nisbe for-
mation of siyyd ‘dry land’). ‘Desert’ and
‘dry land” are to a certain extent synonyms
(e.g., Zeph 2:13 ‘arid as the desert’ [siyyd
kammidbár]. They are a favourite habitat of
sinister creatures. Thus the sinister animals
897
WIND GODS
which, together with demons, are listed in
Job 38:39-39:30 inhabit all manner of ac-
cursed and ruined cities and regions. The
animals which appear together with the
siyyim in Isa 13:21; 34:14 and Jer 50:39
possess the same Sinister connotations:
bénót ya'áná (ostriches) and *iyyfm, in addi-
tion to the ranním (*jackals'?/' wolves'?) and
fé&irím of Isa 13:21f; 34:13f. They are
joined in Isa 34:14 by the demon -Lilith.
These beings populate former human settle-
ments, after they have been abandoned and
returned to the desert whence they came (Isa
13:20; 34:13; Jer 50:39; cf. Jer 9:11; 51:37,
and often).
Like Isa 23:13, Ps 72:9 and Ps 74:14 are
controversial pieces of evidence in under-
standing the siyyim. It is possible that in
both cases their embodiment of the chaotic
or sinister forces is emphasized: In Ps 72:8-
11 are to be found, among the beings/
powers that must submit to the universal
rule of the (Davidic) king (v 8), the siyyfm
(v 9, another reading: sdarim ‘enemies’ or
şārâw ‘his enemies’, c.g, BHS; H.-J.
Kraus [BKAT XV/2 (1978) 656), and
others), his ‘enemies’ (v 9), the ‘kings of
Tarshish’, the ‘islands’ and the kings of
South Arabia (v 10), indeed ‘all kings’ and
‘all peoples’ (v 11). If one does not want to
stay with the interpretation of siyyim as
‘(sinister) desert beings’, that give up their
opposition to the rule of the reigning
Davidic king, then the interpretations of
LXX ('Ai80ioreg) and Vg (Aethiopes),
namely '(human) steppe-dweller' (also a
nisbe form of siyyd) comes into consider-
ation. In contrast, the phrase /é‘am lésiyyim
in Ps 74:14 is incomprehensible in the MT.
If one were to read in its place /éamlése
yam *to/for the sharks’ or more probably (?)
l&am_ siyytm "to/for the nation of desert
beings’, then the siyyfm would receive the
carcass of —Leviathan (v 14) as food. If this
is the case, then there would exist in Ps
74:14 the opposition ‘fabulous desert crea-
tures :: fabulous sea creatures’.
Like the §éirim, the siyyim are not a
zoologically identifiable species. The term is
rather a‘collective designation for demonic
desert beings (perhaps ‘those that belong to
the dry land > desert beings’, cf. the trans-
lation bestiae in Isa 13:21 Vg), who repre-
sent a ‘counter-human world of devastated
habitations’ (MULLER 1989).
IV. Bibliography
G. FLEISCHER, MS, TWAT 6 (1989) 991-
994; C. FreveL, *j7, TWAT 8 (1995) 701-
709; B. JaNowskKi & U. NEUMANN-
GorsoLKE, Das Tier als Exponent
dämonischer Mächte, Gefährten und Feinde
des Menschen. Das Tier in der Lebenswelt
des alten Israel (ed. B. Janowski et al.; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1993) 278-282 [& lit.]; *O.
KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob. Eine
Deutung von Ijob 38-41 vor dem Hinter-
grund der zeitgenössischen — Bildkunst
(FRLANT 121; Göttingen 1978) 63-81;
KEEL, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bild-
symbolik und das Alte Testament. Am Bei-
spiel der Psalmen (Zürich/Einsiedeln/Köln/
Neukirchen-Vluyn 41984) 53-67, esp. 66-67;
*H.-P. MOLLER, “S, TWAT 6 (1989) 987-
991; T. SrAuBLI, Das Image der Nomaden
im Alten Israel und in der lkonographie
seiner seBhaften Nachbarn (OBO 107; Fri-
bourg/Góttingen 1991) 259-268; G. WANKE,
Dämonen ll, TRE 8 (1981) 275-277 [& lit.];
H. WtiPPERT, Schöpfer des Himmels und
der Erde. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des
Jeremiabuches (SBS 102; Stuttgart 1981)
52-54; M. WEIPPERT, The Balaam Text from
Deir ‘Alla and the Study of the Old Testa-
ment, The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-
Evaluated (eds. J. Hoftijzer & G. van der
Kooij; Leiden 1991) 151-184.
B. JANOWSKI
WIND-GODS
I. In the OT and NT the winds (71%,
mvevpata, Gvepoi) are either ruled as such
by God personally (Exod 10:13 and 19; Jer
49:36; 51:1; Hos 13:15; Ps 135:7) or perso-
nified as his servants (C°D870, àyyehor : Ps
104:4; Rev 7:1). They are four in number
(Jer 49:36; Dan 7:2; Rev 7:1; cf. e.g. 1 Chr
9:24; Dan 8:8; Mark 13:27, where 'the four
winds’ = the points of the compass), and are
conceived of as (a) winged being(s) (2 Sam
898
WIND GODS
22:11; Ps 18:11; 104:3). They are addressed
(Cant 4:16) but not venerated. The follo-
wing specific winds are mentioned in the
OT: the NƏS or north wind (e.g. Ezek 1:4,
LXX PopéadPoppac), the EP or east
wind (e.g. Gen 41:6, 23, 27, LXX vótog),
the EmN or ‘sea-wind’, which is rather a
north-west wind in Egypt (Exod 10:19,
LXX àxó 00Aócong. but would be a west
wind in Palestine, and the jQ° or south
wind (Cant 4:16, LXX vótoc). Moreover, to
the 3z or south and PƏS as points of the
compass there correspond in the LXX the
Greek wind names Aiy and annAitng, e.g.
at Gen 13:14 and Exod 27:11. In the NT
occur: Boppàg for the north (Luke 13:29),
evpaxvAwy for the north-east wind (cf.
Latin euroaquilo; variants: evpo/vKAvdSov),
Aiy for the south-west, vétocg for the south
resp. south-west wind, and y@pog for the
north-west (cf. Latin corus, caurus), these
latter four in Acts 27:12-14. In LXX and NT
the great absentees are the Greek names
evpoc for the east wind, and Cédupoc for the
west or north-west wind.
IIl. In Ancient Egypt the four winds had
been personified at least since the Pyramid
Texts (e.g. nr. 311) as servants standing
behind -*Re, who could ‘look with two
faces’, that is have a positive or negative
effect. In the Book of the Dead ch. 161 they
are identified resp. with -*Osiris, Isis, Re
and Nephthys. Usually -Amun of Thebes is
the lord of the winds, but they obeyed to
various other gods as well. In Greco-Roman
Egypt they are depicted as winged and with
one, two or four feathers on their head, eit-
her having a human body and one or more
anima] heads, or having an animal body and
one or more ram's heads. In Ancient Baby-
lonia ^Hadad was the god presiding over
weather and storms in general. The separate
winds are often mentioned after the so-cal-
led -'Olden Gods'. In the myth of Adapa
the hero is summoned to appear before
-*Anu, because he has broken a wing of the
South Wind Sutà, who cannot blow any-
more. In the Greek world the four winds are
either the sons of Astraeus (son of the Titan
Crius) and Eos (Hesiod, Theog. 375-380;
Apollodorus 1, 2, 4), or of Zeus (Iliad 2,
145-146), who appointed Aeolus as their
ruler (Od. 10, 21), but they also obeyed
directly to Zeus and Poseidon, or to Artemis
in Aulis. The hurricanes, however, were eit-
her the offspring of Typhon/Typhoeus
(Hesiod, Theog. 869-880) or as Harpies the
granddaughters of Oceanus (Hesiod, Theog.
265-269). It is mostly Boreas, ‘the king of
the winds’ (Pindar, Pyth. 4, 181-182), and
Zephyrus who play further roles in mytho-
logy. Both are reported to have fathered hor-
ses (Jliad 16, 148-151; 20, 221-229), which
has led some to believe that they themselves
were also so conceived of. But on the cedar
Cypselus-chest Boreas is depicted apparent-
ly as a man with snakes as feet (Pausanias
5,19,1), which reminds of Typhon as descri-
bed by Hesiod (Theog. 825), and later the
winds are generally portrayed as winged
men, so Boreas on a red-figured vase by the
Pan-painter (Sth cent.). On the famous
Tower of the Winds in Athens, properly a
water horologium, the eight winds are also
depicted as winged men, of whom four are
bearded, Skiron (NW, with uptumed kettle),
Boreas (N, with conch), Kaikias (NE, with
hailstones) and Euros (SE, without attribute,
but wrapped up in his cloak), whereas the
others are not, Zephyros (W, bare-footed,
with flowers), Lips (SW, bare-footed, with
syrinx), Notos (S, with upturned vase) and
Apeliotes (E, with fruits).
A 'priestess of the winds’ occurs already
in Linear B times. At Titane (Sicyonia) the
four winds were venerated one night each
year by a sacrifice on their altar and by
secret rites performed at four pits (fó0poi,
Paus. 2,12,1). There was a special altar for
Zephyrus at Athens (Paus. 1,37,2), and well-
known is also the state cult of Boreas there
and of the winds in general at Delphi which
had both been founded in gratitude to the
role they had played in destroying a large
part of the Persian fleet at Chalkis in 480
BCE (Hdt. 7,178;189). Mostly, however, the
winds were invoked and sacrificed to in
order to appease them (Xenophon, Anab.
4,5,4). The EvSdavepor at Athens (Dionysius
Hal, On Dinarchus 11), who had a special
899
WINE — WISDOM
altar there (Arrianus, Anab. 3, 16, 8), and
the "Avepoxoitat at Corinth (Eustathius
1645, 42) were perhaps priest(esse)s who
just did that. Maybe Sophocles the Athe-
nian, who could charm unseasonable winds
(Pilostratus, Life of Apollonius 8,7,8), was
one of them. Herodotus 2,119 says that
Menelaos even sacrificed humans in Egypt
to change the unfavourable weather
(arAoia). Similarly, in Rome a temple was
devoted in 259 BCE to the Tempestates by L.
Cornelius Scipio, who owed them his victo-
ry over the Carthaginians near Corsica (CIL
1,2,9; Ovid, Fasti 6, 193-194). They were
the objects of thanksgiving after a safe
return home (Plautus, Stichus 402-403; cf.
Cicero, Nat.Deor. 3, 51).
III. The pagan veneration of winds as
gods or demons is not alluded to in the
Bible, except for the mention of -*Baal-Zap-
hon, the 'Lord of Mount -Zaphon' (to the
north of Ugarit), and hence 'Lord of the
North’ or ‘of the north wind’, who occurs as
a deity of navigation in Ugaritic ritual texts.
This mountain was believed to be the loca-
tion of the palace of Baal, the meeting place
of the gods (cf. Isa 14:13). Baal-Zaphon was
one of the gods of the storm and the sea,
and appears in Graeco-Roman shape as
~Zeus Kasios.
IV. Bibliography
H. HUuNGER, Lexikon der griechischen und
rümischen Mythologie (Vienna 71975) 426-
427; D. KunrH, Wind, LdÁ 6 (Wiesbaden
1986) 1266-1272, esp. 1268 F; F.
LASSERRE, Winde. Windrosen, KP 5, 1375-
1380; M. P. NiLssoN, Geschichte der grie-
chischen Religion (München 21955) 116-
117; P. SrENGEL, Der Kult der Winde,
Hermes 35 (1900) 627ss; J. TRAvLos, Bild-
lexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen
(Tübingen 1971) 281-288; D. WACHSMUTH,
Winddimonen, -kult, KP 5, 1380-1381.
G. MussiES
WINE - TIRASH
WISDOM maon Lodia
I. Wisdom, sometimes in scholarly lit-
erature referred to as ‘Lady Wisdom’ or
‘Woman Wisdom’, is the name of a biblical
goddess. She figures prominently in one
canonical book and several deuterocanonical
writings of the OT: Prov 1-9, Sir, Bar, and
Wis. Although modern interpreters have
often treated her as a literary personification,
it can be argued that what later came to be
considered a mere figure of speech started
its Career as a ‘real’ deity. Wisdom, in Heb
hokmá (rarely hokmót as sing. fem., Prov
1:20; 9:1) and in Gk sophia, is the goddess
of knowledge, shrewdness (both implied in
the semantic range of /iokmá), statecraft, and
the scribal profession. The Heb and the Gk
names are abstract nouns in the feminine
gender, corresponding to German ‘die Weis-
heit' or French ‘la Sagesse'. Her name sums
up what the goddess stands for and suggests
that scribes and rulers must excel in intellec-
tual qualities.
II. We cannot provide much evidence
for the existence of a goddess by the name
of Wisdom in the ancient Near East. The
only possible evidence is in the Aramaic
Ahiqar-story, found on papyrus leaves on
the Nile island of Elephantine. From two
fifth-century BCE papyrus leaves, the follow-
ing fragmentary passage can be recon-
structed tentatively: "From heaven the
peoples are favoured; [Wisdom (hkmh) is
of] the gods. Indeed, she is precious to the
gods; her kingdom is eternal. She has been
established by Shamayn (?); yes, the Holy
Lord has exalted her" (Ahiqar 94-95 =
LINDENBERGER 1983:68; OTP 2, 499).
KOTTSIEPER translates somewhat differently:
"... Among the gods, too, she is honored;
[she shares with her lord] the rulership. In
heaven is she established; yea, the lord of
the holy ones has exalted her" (TUAT
3:335-336). The Assyrian provenance of the
Ahiqar story and collection of sayings is
clear from its references to seventh-century
BCE Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esar-
haddon as well as to the Assyrian god
Shamash. The exaltation of a deity, as re-
ferred to in the passage quoted, means his or
her promotion to a higher rank and is quite
characteristic of Mesopotamian mythology.
Thus the goddess Inanna boasts in a hymn
that she received lordship over heaven,
900
WISDOM
earth, ocean, and war, for the god Enlil has
“exalted” her (ANET 578-579). According to
LINDENBERGER (1983), Wisdom, in the
Ahiqar passage, would be “the special prov-
ince of Baal Shamayn, one of the high gods
of the Aramaeans". The reading of Shamayn
as a divine name, however, is conjectural,
and we may prefer Kottsieper’s version
which implies a co-rulership of Wisdom and
the god El. Lindenberger suggests north
Syria as the home of Ahiqar. Like the
Ahiqar story as a whole, the home of this
goddess called Wisdom must be 7th century
BCE Mesopotamia or perhaps Syria. Possibly
the Aramaic-speaking scribes shared the cult
of Wisdom with their Hebrew-speaking col-
leagues. Unfortunately, the Ahiqar passage
is too fragmentary to warrant further conjec-
tures.
Elsewhere in the ancient East scribes also
had their female patron deity. The Sumer-
ians called her Nisaba, giving her the beauti-
ful title of "Mistress of Science” (HAUSSIG
1965:115-116; SJÖBERG 1976:174-175), while
the Egyptians referred to Seshat as “fore-
most in the library" or "she who directs the
house of books" (RARG 699). Nisaba had a
local cult, unlike Seshat.
Scholars have often referred to the Egypt-
ian goddess, Maat, as an equivalent of, if
not model for, Wisdom. However, the evi-
dence produced by authors like KAYATZ
(1966) and WINTER (1983:511-514) is not
convincing (Fox 1995). There is evidence,
though, for the hellenistic goddess —Isis to
be the Book of Wisdom’s model for Sophia
(KLOPPENBORG 1982). Isis, like Sophia, is
both a savior involved with the endangered
life of individuals, and a goddess associated
with the king. “As many as are in prison, in
the power of death ... and having called
upon you to be present, are all saved”, says
a hymn to Isis (Isidorus 1:29.34 in Torti
1985:77); Sophia, in the same way, is with
the prisoner (Wis 10:14). The triad God -
Sophia - king Solomon (with Sophia being
the spouse of both God and king: Wis 8:3.9)
is probably patterned on the model of an-
other triad: Re/Osiris — Isis — king of Egypt.
III. The chronology of the biblical and
post-biblical writings, in which Lady Wis-
dom figures, is roughly as follows: (a) The
earliest stratum of Prov 1-9—presumably
10th or 9th century BCE (much earlier than
often suggested by scholars; the house with
pillars [9:1] echoes pre-exilic domestic
architecture); (b) Prov 1-9 in edited (canoni-
cal) form—date unknown (probably Sth cen-
tury BCE ?); (c) Sir—early 2nd century BCE;
(d) Aristoboulos—2nd century BCE; (e)
Bar—Ist century BCE; (f) Wis—lst century
BCE or CE; (g) / Enoch— st century BCE.
The wide range of dates enables us to fol-
low the career of an ancient Israelite deity
from polytheistic, pre-canonical times to the
monotheism, or qualified monotheism, of
early Judaism.
Prov 1-9 is an ancient Israelite instruction
manual composed of short discourses and
poems used as texts for the training and
education of scribes. An early-Jewish revi-
sion seems to have attenuated its original
polytheistic orientation; however, the editor
proceeded with much tact. He no doubt be-
longed to those circles which in post-exilic
Israel developed their own, daring version of
early-Jewish monotheism. Unlike Second
Isaiah and the Deuteronomist (Isa 43:10; 44:
6; 45:5; Deut 4:35; 1 Sam 2:2), the editor
did not espouse an absolute and uncom-
promising monotheism which declared all
deities as simply inexistant. Rather, the
editor must have held a view expressed in
certain Psalms (Ps 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7.9):
Israe]’s god -Yahweh is not the only god,
but he is the supreme one. As an absolute
monarch, he rules over all the deities. For the
editor, one of these deities is Lady Wisdom.
Prov 1-9 provides a fairly complete pic-
ture of Lady Wisdom: She is Yahweh's
daughter and witnessed her father as he cre-
ated the universe (Prov 8:22-30); she guides
kings and their staff of state officials in their
rule and administration (8:14-16); she
teaches (no doubt, through human teachers)
young men wisdom, a wisdom no doubt to
be identified with the scribal art (1:20-33;
8:1-11.32-36; 9:1-6.11-12); she serves as the
‘personal deity’ of the student, for whom
she acts as lover (4:6; 7:4), protector (3:23-
25; v 26 may originally have referred to
Wisdom rather than to Yahweh), and guide
901
WISDOM
to success and wealth (3:16-17; 8:18). Aban-
doned by the personal goddess, the individ-
ual is lost (1:27-28). Although she may be
angry with her protégé, she appears general-
ly as a kindly, caring, assuring, motherly
figure.
Prov 8 is one of the most developed
mythological texts of the Bible, reminiscent
of the kind of discourse characteristic of the
Homeric Hymns, Unfortunately, this text, in
some of its details, is not as clear as we
would like. In 8:22-31, Lady Wisdom
describes her career in three stages: she was
begotten by Yahweh (22; not “created”, as
some translations have it); she witnessed her
father’s creative activity (vv 27-30); she
established her relationship with humans (v
31). Only the middle one of these stages is
fairly straightforward: witnessing how the
world was created, Wisdom, as an infant (v
30; Hebr 'àmón; see LANG 1986:65-66),
learned what constitutes the universe. She
may also have acquired the (magical?) skills
necessary to perform acts of creation. Ac-
cordingly, she is the wisest being one can
imagine (cf. Wis 9:9). One aspect of the
wisdom she acquires is no doubt the ‘nature
wisdom’ elsewhere referred to in the biblical
tradition and identified as knowledge about
sky, earth, and sea, complete with beasts,
birds, reptiles, fish (cf. king Solomon's wis-
dom in 1 Kgs 4:32-33; see also Wis 7:17-
20). Thus, Lady Wisdom is uniquely
qualified and authorized to teach. However,
no precise idea is given about how the con-
tact with the humans is established. The text
as it stands now refers only to the playful
frolicking of the wise infant who takes
delight in "the sons of men" (v 31). Did
Wisdom teach in a playful manner, instruct-
ing children in "nature wisdom" and pre-
sumably how to write their ABCs? Did the
mythological text end here or was some-
thing omitted in the process of canonical
editing? Was there the report of the heaven-
ly ascension of a human person (like Par-
.menides of Elea) whom the goddess (in Par-
menides' myth, the Greek goddess of
wisdom, Dike; see Diels & Kranz
196411:227-246) instructs in cosmic know-
ledge? Leaving aside such issues, we may
suggest that Prov 8 reflects the apprentice
scribe’s cosmic initiation: symbolically pres-
ent at creation, the novice draws upon cre-
ation’s fresh and inexhaustible powers; re-
freshed, empowered and instructed, he can
now assume political and administrative
responsibilities of cosmic dimensions.
Even more problems are involved in the
birth of Lady Wisdom. The two verbs used
to describe her origin are gdandni, "he has
begotten me” (Prov 8:22), and nésakkori (to
be vocalized thus), “he fashioned me (in the
womb)” (8:23). In the absence of a refer-
ence to a mother, are we to imagine a kind
of male pregnancy known from the creation
story in which -Eve comes out of Adam?
Or was Wisdom born from the head (or
mouth, cf. Sir 24:3) of her divine father just
as — Athena, in Greek mythology, sprang
from the head of —Zeus? And, moreover,
who is her divine father? Since Yahweh
seems to have become a creator god only
late in his career, possibly not before the 6th
century BCE (LANG 1983a:49; 1983b; W.
HERMANN, UF 23 [1991] 165-180), the
original, pre-canonical text may here have
spoken of El or Elohim as her father.
El(ohim) seems to have been the creator god
of ancient Israelite polytheism, and we
would expect Elohim, rather than Yahweh,
to be the wise creator of Prov 3:19-20. In
Ugaritic tradition, at any rate, El is the
creator (KTU 1.16:V.26) and he is also
called “wise” (KTU 1.3 V:30; 1.4 IV:41),
possibly on account of his manual dexterity
(and magical power?) to create. El is of
course also the creator in a Phoenician
inscription from Karatepe, dating from ca.
720 Bce (l qn ’rs “EI creator of the
earth”; KAI 26 A:18; cf. P. D. MILLER,
BASOR 239 [1980] 43-46). Prov 30:4 seems
to imply that El(ohim) was Israel’s creator
god and Yahweh the creator’s son (as in
Deut 32:8-9, in the reading of Qumran and
LXX). Thus in the pre-canonical view, Wis-
dom was Yahweh's sister!
Problematic, too, remains the precise
meaning of Wisdom’s speaking at the city
gate and at the crossroads (Prov 1:20-21;
902
WISDOM
8:2-3). It has been suggested that she may
have shrines there (BARKER 1992:61). At
any rate, she seems to be connected with
‘liminal’ places. In Greece, the goddess
Hekate presided over the entrances and
crossroads where she had shrines; the
Romans called her Trivia (JOHNSTON 1991):
so Wisdom may be Hekate’s Hebrew equiv-
alent. Liminal places are conspicuous or
even dangerous and need divine protection.
We do not know whether the cult of Lady
Wisdom involved the existence of particular
shrines. Nor do we know of any ritual activ-
ities, such as reciting prayers or giving
offerings, by which some of the Israclites
may have expressed their devotion to the
goddess. The canonical re-interpretation of
Lady Wisdom from a 'Yahweh-alone' per-
spective or from monotheism proper would
certainly involve the destruction of shrines
and the prohibition of any ritual forms re-
lated to the goddess. Understood as a deity
strictly subordinated to Yahweh and having
neither shrine nor receiving ritual respects,
Lady Wisdom would not endanger mono-
theism.
Why did the Yahweh-alone editors revise,
but not discard Prov 1-9 altogether? Retain-
ing this semi-polytheistic piece of literature
as a school text, they did not act differently
from Christians in late antiquity. For many
centuries, Christians never established their
own curriculum for schools. Before the
Middle Ages, Christians learned how to read
and write on the basis of pagan literature
such as the poetry of Homer or Virgil.
Teachers were not known to be innovators;
they relied on the received wisdom of their
trade.
Prov 1-9, as a school text, remained a
widely known piece of literature through
many centuries, and we can find its echoes
in several early Jewish writings. Ben Sira
identifies Wisdom and -*Torah: when the
Law is read in the synagogue, it is Wis-
dom's voice that people can hear (Sir
24:2.23). Although Ben Sira may echo some
features of the original mythology (Wis-
dom's birth out of the mouth of the crc-
ator?), he thinks of her as a poetic
personification. In Bar 3-4, Lady Wisdom is
a relatively pale figure, also understood as a
poetic personification of the book of Law.
Here Gunkel's intuition applies: “The sages
had a kind of female patron deity of whom
they sometimes spoke; Hebrew tradition
calls her ‘Wisdom’. For Israel's sages, this
figure was perhaps a mere personification.
Some of her features, however, betray her
former divine nature” (GUNKEL 1903:26).
In Aristoboulos and the book of Wisdom,
we find philosophical re-interpretations of
the figure. Both the work of Aristoboulos
and the book of Wisdom are in Greek;
therefore they call Lady Wisdom by her
Greek name, Sophia. They also re-cast
Sophia in philosophical terms. Identified
with pneuma (-*spirit; Wis 7:22-26) and
(intellectual) light (Aristoboulos, Fragment 5
= OTP 2, 841), Sophia is taken to be an
impersonal power emanating from God and
pervading his creation. She also resides in
the souls of prophets and leaders, inspiring
their divine utterances or guiding their deeds
(Wis 7:27; 10:16).
Interestingly enough, the book of Wis-
dom retains the personal language and can
portray Sophia as a goddess. Picturing
Sophia as a goddess, the book of Wisdom
draws upon both Prov 1-9 and the hellenistic
favourite goddess, Isis. Like Lady Wisdom
of the Book of Proverbs, Isis is a goddess
related to kingship and nature. In the Old
Greek version of Prov 8:30. Wisdom works
as harmozousa at creation, which presum-
ably means that she acts as a technician who
‘arranges’ or ‘structures’ things, putting
them together in the appropriate manner (cf.
Prov 9:1—Wisdom builds a house!). In the
book of Wisdom, Sophia acts as an 'artisan'
or *master builder', possibly at creation and
ever after (Wis 7:21[22]}; 8:4; 14:2). She
shares Yahweh’s throne as his consort (9:4),
and is also King Solomon’s spouse (8:9).
The mixture of personal/mythological
language — with — impersonal/philosophical
notions makes the book of Wisdom a most
attractive piece of literature. It allows for
two interpretations of Sophia, a more philo-
sophical one (for the elite, presumably) and
903
WISDOM
a more mythological one (for others). In
mythological terms, Sophia can be seen and
appreciated as a deity strictly subordinated
to Yahweh. Those ancient readers, to whom
this reading appealed, adopted a ‘monarchic
monotheism’—one which considers Yahweh
the king of all deities, thus permitting to
retain a certain amount of polytheistic sur-
vivals. This kind of ‘monotheism’ also
makes the Jewish religion not look too dif-
ferent from the polytheism of the hellenistic
world. Concerning the other, philosophical
reading, one can look beyond traditional
mythology and give it a new, more abstract
and sophisticated meaning. This side of the
book of Wisdom reveals how Jewish philos-
ophers began to play with their inherited
mythology as well as the traditions of
others. If these philosophers had lived at a
later age, perhaps that of Plotinus in the 3rd
century CE, they would have called Sophia
an hypostasis: a being that emanates from a
higher reality to which it owes its existence
and force, but one which also enjoys a cer-
tain independence. Was not -*Christ also
such an emanated divine being, sent from a
higher world? Here we can grasp one of the
reasons why early Christians relied on
Sophia, renamed -*Logos ("speech, utter-
ance"), for developing the Christology of the
gospel of John (John 1). In a similar vein,
Jewish Kabbalists perceived Torah as a
hypostasis (HOLDREGE 1989).
The little Wisdom myth told in J Enoch
represents a special case. In a polemical
piece the apocalyptic author relates how
Wisdom, not finding a place to stay among
humans, returns to her heavenly home:
“Wisdom went out to dwell with the child-
ren of men, but she found no dwelling
place. [So] Wisdom returned to her place
and settled permanently among the angels.
Then Iniquity went out of her rooms, and
found whom she did not expect. And she
[Iniquity] dwelt with them” (7 Enoch 42 =
OTP 1, 33). While the idea of Wisdom
searching for a home among mortals is
indebted to Sir 24, the idea of return and the
domination of Iniquity relies on pagan
mythology. Greek mythology knows the
story of the good goddess or goddesses who
leave the country because of human iniquity.
As they return to Mount Olympus, the land
is dominated by crime and misfortune: and
thus a new, less attractive era of human his-
tory begins, the Age of Iron. In Hesiod (Op.
197-201), the two goddesses forsaking the
earth are Aidos (Shame) and Nemesis
(Indignation); Theognis (Elegiae 1135-1142)
calls them Pistis (Trust) and Sophrosyne
(Wisdom); in Aratos, it is only one goddess,
—Dike (Justice). As injustice began to pre-
vail on earth, “Dike, full of hatred for the
human race, flew up to heaven, taking her
abode at that place where, at night, she can
still be seen by men” (Aratus, Phaenomena
133-135). Such is the Greek myth echoed in
1 Enoch.
Perhaps the best way to sum up the
career of the ancient Israelite Wisdom god-
dess is in terms of 'personification'. Origin-
ally, Wisdom was a mythological per-
sonification comparable to -*Heaven and
-*Earth as deities in ancient Greek religion.
Later, when Israel's religion came to be
dominated by mono-Yahwism and eventual-
ly by monotheism, she was reduced to a
merely poetic personification and thus lost
much of her earlier, mythological vitality.
Now, she represented God's Torah or his
spirit, and her person-like appearance was
designed to give vitality to an otherwise ab-
stract concept. However, philosophers such
as the author of the Book of Wisdom took
great care not to lose the mythological con-
nection which made for good literature and
also attracted those who adopted a view of
the divine world which retained its plurality
while placing Israel's God at the top. Chris-
tians were no doubt indebted to a two-deity
system which reckoned with a major god
with whom a minor, mediating deity was
associated. The minor deity could be identi-
fied as Yahweh (with El Elyon being the
high god: Deut 32:8-9 with note in BHS), as
the Son of Man (Dan 7:13-14) or as the
archangel Michael (Dan 12:1). The old
mythological tradition and the two-deity
system helped early Christians in their
attempt to define the nature and function of
904
WITNESS
Christ. Traces of a Sophia-Christology are
already present in the NT writings: “this
message is Christ, who is the power of God
and the Wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24; cf. 1
Cor 2:7; Eph 1:17; Col 2:3; but also Mt
11:19 and Lk 7:35; see further CHRIST
1970). It was especially in the development
of the idea of the pre-existence of Christ
that Jewish Wisdom speculation made itself
felt (see e.g. John 1:1-18; Scott. 1992). As
bricoleurs, the NT authors took elements of
the old myth to construct a new one.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Goddess of Life and
Wisdom, AJSL 36 (1920) 258-294; *M.
BARKER, The Great Angel: A Study of
Israel's Second God (London 1992) 48-69;
G. BAUMANN, Die Weisheitsgestalt in Pro-
verbien 1-9 (FAT 17; Tübingen 1996); C. V.
CAMP, Wisdom and the Feminine in the
Book of Proverbs (Sheffield 1985); F.
CHRIST, Jesus Sophia. Die Sophia-Christo-
logie bei den Synoptikern (ATANT 57;
Zürich 1970); H. Diets & W. Kranz, Die
Fragmente der Vorsokratiker vol 1 (Ziirich
1964!1); M. DIETRICH & O. Loretz, Die
Weisheit des ugaritischen Gottes El im Kon-
text der altorientalischen Weisheit, UF 24
(1992) 31-38; M. V. Fox, World Order and
MaAat: A Crooked Parallel, JANES 23
(1995) 37-48; H. GUNKEL, Zum religions-
geschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Tes-
taments (Göttingen 1903); H. W. HAUSSIG
(ed.), WbMyth 1/1 (Stuttgart 1965); B. A.
HOLDREGE, The Bride of Israel: The Onto-
logical Status of Scripture in the Rabbinic
and Cabbalistic Traditions, Rethinking
Scripture (ed. M. Levering; Albany 1989)
180-261; S. I. JOHNSTON, Crossroads, ZPE
88 (1991) 217-224; C. B. Kayatz, Studien
zu Proverbien 1-9 (WMANT 22; Neukir-
chen-Vluyn 1966); *J. S. KLOPPENBORG,
Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom,
HTR 75 (1982) 57-84; B. LANG, Monot-
heism and the Prophetic Minority (Sheffield
1983a); LANG, Ein babylonisches Motiv in
Israels Schdpfungsmythologie, BZ 27
(1983b) 236-237; *LANG, Wisdom and the
Book of Proverbs: A Hebrew Goddess
Redefined (New York 1986); LANG, Monot-
heismus, Neues Bibel-Lexikon 1l (eds. M.
Górg & B. Lang; Zürich 1995) 834-844;
*LANG, Lady Wisdom: A Polytheistic and
Psychological Interpretation of a Biblical
Goddess, A Feminist Companion to Reading
the Bible (eds. A. Brenner & C. Fontaine;
Sheffield 1997) 451-479; H. von Lips,
Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testa-
ment (WMANT 64; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1990); J. M. LINDENBERGER, The Aramaic
Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore 1983); J.
MARBÓCK, Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur
Theologie des Buches Sirach (Freiburg
1995), 52-87; C. L. Roczns, The Meaning
and Significance of the Hebrew Word °mwn
in Proverbs 8, 30, ZAW 109 (1997) 208-221;
G. ScuiMANOWSKI, Weisheit und Messias
(WUNT 2,17; Tübingen 1985); *M. Scorr,
Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, (JSNTSup
71; Sheffield 1992) 36-82; S. ScHROER, Die
personifizierte Sophia im Buch der Weisheit,
Ein Gott Allein (eds. W. Dietrich & M. A.
Klopfenstein; Freiburg/Gottingen 1994) 543-
558; SCHROER, Die Weisheit hat ihr Haus
gebaut (Mainz 1996); A. W. SJÖBERG, The
Old Babylonian Eduba, Sumerological Stu-
dies in Honor of T. Jacobsen (ed. S. J. Lie-
berman; Chicago 1976) 159-179; M. TOTTI,
Ausgewählte Texte der lsis- und Sarapis-
Religion (Hildesheim 1985); R. L. WILKEN
(ed.), Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and
Early Christianity (Notre Dame 1975), U.
WINTER, Frau und Göttin. Exegetische und
ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen
Gottesbild (OBO 53; Fribourg 1983).
B. LANG
WITNESS "v
I. As utilized in the biblical materials
relating to the legal sphere, the ‘witness’
(‘éd) was a person who had firsthand knowl-
edge concerning an event or fact and who
could provide either an affirmation or a refu-
tation of testimony presented (ie. Gen
31:45-52). The application of the role of
‘witness’? to members of the divine realm is
especially relevant to the biblical metaphor
of covenant. Ancient Near Eastern interna-
tional treaty forms, from which the biblical
905
WITNESS
ideal of covenant is derived, invoke exten-
sive lists of deities or elements of the natu-
ral world, e.g. heaven and earth, who serve
as witnesses to and as guarantors of the
treaty agreement.
II. Note that in the ancient Near Eastern
treaties the deities are not called or invoked
as ‘witnesses’ as such. They play the role of
witnesses. They should be compared, for
instance, to the witnesses in Assyrian legal
documents where it is stated that the trans-
action was made ‘before ina IGI(pan) of X,
X, ...'. In the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon
it is stated that the treaty is concluded ina
IGI(pan) of 4X ...” (SAA 2, 6 § 2). In these
treaties the function of the deities is defined
as follows: ‘May these gods be our wit-
nesses’ (lit.: ‘look for us’; DINGIR.MES an-
nu-te lid-gu-lu, SAA 2, 6 § 57:494). The
Aramaic treaty between Bar-Ga'yah and
Matiel is concluded ‘in front of (qdm) the
deities’ (KAI 222 A:7-12).
III. Because of the monotheistic ten-
dencies of the Hebrew texts, such lists of
deities are not found in the biblical accounts
associatėd with covenants, either between
human parties or between Israel and
—Yahweh, though there are a number of
instances where either deified elements of
the natural world or other objects are in-
voked as ‘witness’ (‘éd) to an agreement or
contract. In Gen 31:45-52, a -stone pillar
and a stone heap are invoked to witness a
parity treaty between Jacob and Laban. A
similar function is ascribed to an altar, guar-
anteeing an agreement among the tribes of
Israel (Josh 22:26-27); to an inscription (Isa
31:8); and to a stela (Isa 19:19-22). In the
context of the covenant between Israel and
Yahweh, a stone is invoked as ‘éd in Josh
24:27 and, in Deut 31:19.21, the ‘Song of
Moses’ stands as guarantor of the alliance.
As reflections of the ‘olden gods’, the
natural pairs standing behind the active dei-
ties of the pantheon, ‘Heaven and —Earth’
are called by Yahweh to stand as witnesses
(hiph. of ‘@d) to the covenant with Israel
(Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:29). Yahweh himself
is invoked as a witness in a number of dif-
ferent contexts. The deity is invoked as ‘éd
to the parity treaty in Gen 31:50 (cf. 1 Sam
20:23.42) and stands as witness between
Samuel and the people in 1 Sam 12:5. In the
prophetic materials, Yahweh is witness to
oaths (Jer 29:23; 42:5) and stands as witness
against those who violated the covenant
(Mal 2:14; 3:5). Yahweh's role as witness is
even extended beyond Israel in Zeph 3:8
(LXX) and Mic 1:2.
Despite the fact that Yahweh himself can
be invoked as ‘éd in the Hebrew traditions,
there are two instances where it is possible
that the witness referred to in the texts is to
be identified with a heavenly figure distinct
from Yahweh. In Ps 89:38, the royal oracle
(vv 20-38) concludes with a reference to a
‘witness in the heavens’ (‘éd bassahaq),
who might be identified with one of the
members of Yahweh’s heavenly court
(qédósim // béné ?élim; vv 6-7; -*Sons of
[the] god(s]). While it is possible that he
might be understood either as Yahweh him-
self or one of the members of his court, the
Canaanite parallel of Baal as intercessor for
the king before the high-god El in the
assembly suggests the former (KTU 1.15.ii:
11-28; 1.17.i:16-27; 1.2.i:21).
That the biblical traditions were ac-
quainted with the concept of a heavenly wit-
ness different from Yahweh, who could
serve as interpreter and intercessor for a
petitioner, is clear from Job 16:19-21. In this
passage, Job appeals to a ‘witness’
(‘éd/§ahéd) ‘in heaven’ // ‘on high’ (bas-
Sámayim // bammérómim; v 19) who would
serve as an ‘interpreter’ (mélis — Mediator I)
before God. As with the witness invoked in
Ps 89:38, this ‘éd probably reflects either the
concept of a personal deity or a specialized
function of one of the members of the di-
vine assembly. This figure is also commonly
identified with the 'redeemer' (—goó'el) of
Job 19:25 and the ‘arbiter’ (mékiah) of 9:33-
35, each of whom functions as a figure sep-
arate from, though subordinate to, Yahweh.
IV. Bibliography
F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1973) esp. 39-43; J.
B. Curtis, On Job’s Witness in Heaven,
JBL 102 (1983) 549-562; P. G. Mosca,
Once Again the Heavenly Witness of Psalm
89:38, JBL 105 (1986) 27-37; S. Mo-
906
WIZARD
WINCKEL, Hiob’s g0’é] und Zeuge im Him-
mel, Von Alten Testament: FS fiir Karl
Marti (ed. K. Budde; Giessen 1925) 207-
212; E. T. MULLEN, Jr., The Divine Wit-
ness and the Davidic Royal Grant: Ps 89:37-
38, JBL 102 (1983) 207-218; T. VEIIOLA,
The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38, JBL
107 (1988) 413-417.
E. T. MULLEN, JR.
WIZARD DT
I. The term yiddé‘6ni occurs 11 times
in the OT, always in parallellism with ’6b
‘ancestor, ancestral spirit, ghost’ (Lev 19:31;
20:6.27; Deut 18:11; 1 Sam 28:3.9; 2 Kings
21:6 // 2 Chron 33:6; 2 Kings 23:24; Isa
8:19; 19:3; Spirit of the dead). It is certain
that the word is a nominal form (supple-
mented with the afformative -6n [< *-àn]
and the genülic -f) The pattern is compar-
atively rare in Hebrew, though comparable
forms exist in gadméni ‘east of, earlier’,
^admóní ‘reddish’, hakméni ‘knowledge-
able’, nahdmani ‘comforting’ and rahadmani
‘merciful’ (BAUER & LEANDER 1922:501 y).
In contrast to the above-mentioned forms,
the middle radical of the root is geminated
in yiddé‘oni. This may be explained as a
‘numinous doubling’ (TROPPER 1989:318;
other explanations in BAUER & LEANDER
1922:501 y8), the emphatic pronunciation of
words and names having great religious
significance. This generally manifests itself
in writing as the doubling of a consonant.
As a consequence of the gemination, the
vowel in the first syllable shifts from /a/ to
/i/, (BAUER & LEANDER 1922:193 v). The
precise semantic nuance of the adjectival
formation -a/ónf is difficult to establish,
given its scarce attestation in Hebrew. It is
probable that adjectives of this type have a
more intensive, emphatic signification than
ordinary adjectives. Consequently yiddé‘oni
would have meant ‘extremely knowledge-
able, all-knowing’. Given that this term
always follows the term ’6b, it must orig-
inally have been an epithet of the deceased
ancestors or a designation of the dead in
general.
H. Throughout the ancient Orient, it was
believed that the dead possessed occult
powers inaccessible to the living. The
knowledgeability of the dead was attributed
on the one hand to experience gathered
through a long life, on the other hand to the
fact that, as numinous beings in the realm
beyond, they now had available to them pre-
viously inaccessible sources of knowledge.
On the basis of their comprehensive knowl-
edge the dead, like the gods, functioned as
dispensers of oracles in the ancient Orient.
IJ. Because the word yiddé‘dni ‘(all-)
knowing’ occurs exlusively as a parallel
term to "ób, no independent function for it
can be ascertained. The significance and
function of the Old Testament ’obét-ances-
tors applies equally to the yiddé‘dni. In the
(older) passages in which 'óbót-designated
dead ancestors or the spirits of the dead in
general (who were the object of cultic
veneration, magical incantation and con-
sultation in times of crisis) it may be said
that yiddé‘6ni also designated these ances-
tors and signified ‘the all-knowing ones’. In
Isa 19:3, for example, we read: “Then they
(scil. the Egyptians) will turn (in their
distress), consulting idols (’elilim), the
shades ("ittfm), the ancestors ("obót-) and the
‘knowing ones’ (yiddé‘onim).” As the
meaning of the word "ob subsequently
changed to ‘soothsaying spirit’, the word
yiddé6ni began to function as an epithet of
these soothsaying spirits as well which,
according to Lev 20:27, served certain
people as mediums: “Men or women in
whom there is either an "oób-spirit or a. yid-
dé'óni-spirt shall be put to death!” There is,
however, no evidence that the term
yiddé'óni ever designated the medium used
by such spirits (i.e. the soothsayers or-
magicians themselves) in the biblical period.
As with "ób, the consultation of the
yiddé‘oni was considered incompatible with
monotheistic Yahwism and elicited the
death penalty (Lev 20:27).
IV. Post-biblical tradition no longer
understood ’obdt and yiddé‘énim as sooth-
saying spirits, but rather as designations of
the soothsayers and magicians who dealt
with such spirits. The LXX, which generally
translates *6b with engastrimythos ‘ventri-
907
WORLD RULERS
loquist’, renders yiddé‘6ni with epaoidos
'conjurer', — gnóstés/gnóristés — '(knowing)
soothsayer’, feratoskopos ‘diviner’ and
engastrimythos ‘one who speaks from the
belly’. The Vulg. renders yiddé‘6ni similar-
ly: harioli, incantores, divini, divinationes,
haruspices. These interpretations influenced
all subsequent translations of the Bible,
including the most recent of them.
V. Bibliography
H. BAUER & P. LEANDER, Historische
Grammatik der Hebrilischen Sprache des
Alten Testaments (Halle 1922) M.
KLEINER, Saul in En-Dor. Wahrsagung oder
Totenbeschwórung (Erfurter Theologische
Studien 66; Leipzig 1995) 57-134; H.
ROUILLARD & J. TROPPER, Vom kanaanäi-
schen Ahnenkult zur Zauberei, UF 19
(1987) 235-254; B. B. SCHMIDT, /srael’s
Beneficient Dead. Ancestor Cult and Necro-
macy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tra-
dition (FAT 11; Tübingen 1994) 150-154; J.
TRorPER, Nekromantie. Totenbefragung im
Alten Orient und im Alten Testament
(AOAT 223; Kevelaer & Neukirchen-Vluyn
1989).
J.TROPPER
WORLD RULERS xoopoxpartopes
|. Kosmokrator, ‘lord of the world’,
‘world ruler’, occurs in pagan literature as
an epithet for gods, rulers, and heavenly
bodies. The LXX does not use the term, and
in the NT it occurs once, in Eph 6:12.
ll. Kosmokratór can occasionally be
used to refer to earthly rulers (C/G 5892; SB
4275, Ptolemaeus, Tetrabiblos — 175;
Hephaestio Astrologus 1,1). In the Historia
Alexandri Magni it is a common attribute
for the Macedonian king. Likewise, a num-
ber of gods such as ->Zeus, ->Helios, -»Her-
mes, and Serapis can be called kosmokratér
(see BAUER-ALAND 1988:905). In the
Mithracum under the thermae of Caracalla it
occurs as an epithet for the Zeus—-> Mithras
(or Serapis; see CUMONT & CANET 1918)—
Helios triad. The fact that hcaven, too, is
designated as Kosmokratór (Orphic Hymn
4,3) points to what is perhaps the most
important area, astrology (sometimes com-
bined with magic). The planets are called
kosmokratores (cf. Vettius Valens 171,6;
360,7; cf. also 278,2; 314,16; Jamblichus, de
myst. 2,3), not only because of their function
as an organising principle in space, but
chiefly because according to astrology they
exercise a fateful influence over man. Magic
promised release from this tyranny of the
heavenly bodies. It is therefore no accident
that the term Kosmokratór is included in the
Magical Papyri, usually as an invocation of
Helios (PGM II] 135; 1V,166.1599) but also
of other deities such as Serapis (PGM XIII
619) and Hermes (PGM V, 400; XVII bl;
see also IV 2198-2199).
III. In early Judaism the word hardly
occurs at all: kosmokratór is not to be found
in the LXX, nor in Philo, Josephus, or in
pseudepigraphic literature. The term occurs
only once in the relatively late (Ist - 3rd
century CE) 7. Sol, a haggadic-type folktale
about Solomon's building of the Temple
combined with ancient lore about magic,
astrology, angelology, demonology, and
primitive medicine. In this Jewish text re-
worked by Christians, which describes
Solomon's power over the spirits, Solomon
conjures up among other things 7 spirits,
bound up together hand and foot. Asking
them who they are, he receives the answer:
“We are heavenly bodies, rulers of this
world of darkness (kosmokratores tou
skotous)" (T. Sol 8.1). They tum out to be
planets (7. Sol 8,4). This is clearly linked to
pagan demonology and astrology (cf.
Jamblichus, de myst. 9,9), although the term
is now used in a completely negative sense.
Instrumental in this is not only the rejection
of the cult of the heavenly bodies, but
doubtlessly also the negative assessment of
the kosmos (‘6ldm), which in some parts of
early Judaism and early Christianity had
become synonymous with a world alienated
from God. Here, this is reflected in the
qualification of this territory as ‘darkness’.
The same concept and mode of expres-
sion are to be found in the (presumably
older) Deutero-Pauline Epistle to the Ephes-
ians. In the closing exhortation of the
908
WRATH
epistle, the Ephesians are called upon to
take up the ‘armour of God’ in order to be
able to resist ‘the Devil’s wily attacks’ (Eph
6:10-11). The following verse (Eph 6:12)
states the reason: “For we battle not against
flesh and blood, but against powers, against
forces, against the rulers of darkness in this
world (kosmokratores tou skotous toutou),
against the spirits of evil in the heavens”.
Here, the battle of the Christians has cosmic
dimensions; kosmokratores refers to the
demon world governed by the Devil.
In Irenaeus, the term has devcloped into a
direct reference to the Devil, “whom one
also calls. kosmokratór" (haer. 1.5,4). In
Rabbinic literature (cf. LevR 18/118a) the
Greek term occurs as a foreign word for the
angel of death, who is identical to the Devil
(sce Str-B 2:552).
IV. Bibliography
W. BAUER, K. & B. ALAND, Woórterbuch
zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, New York
19886) 905; F. CUMONT & L. CANET, Mithra
ou Serapis KOZMOKPATOP, CRAIBL 1918
[1919]. 313-328: M. DiBELiUS, Die Geister-
welt im Glauben des Paulus (1909) 163-
164, 230; W. MICHAELIS, Kpatéo KTÀ.,
TWNT 3 (1938) 913; LSJ 984; A. D. Nock,
Studies in the Graeco-Roman Beliefs of the
Empire, JHS 45 (1925) 84-101; Str-B 2,552.
R. FELDMEIER
WRATH ‘Opyn
I. A personified active principle of
Wrath has been seen in two passages from
the Pauline epistles. This supposed demon
was interpreted in the light of the Zoroas-
trian demon Aëšma, one of the most import-
ant helpers of the Evil Spirit in Zoroastrian
theology and possibly known to the Jews
under the name -»>Asmodeus (PINES 1982;
Boyce & GRENET 1991:425-426, 446).
IIl. Although Aêšma was certainly per-
ceived as a powerful demon by Zarathustra
himself (his name has been attested several
times in the Gáthàs) and is very prominent
in both Avestan and Pahlavi literature, the
identification of orgé as used by Paul (Rom
9:22; Eph 2:3) with a concept derived from
Zoroastrianism, seems to read more into the
texts than there is to be read. In Iran, Aesma
(Pahlavi XéSm) is represented as an evil
being, holding a bloody club (Avestan
xruui.dru-), and as the special adversary of
Sraosa, the god "Hearkening" (GRAY 1929:
185-187). [n the texts he is presented as an
evil-working demon and a destructive being,
as indeed all the Daevas are. There are no
passages whatsoever that indicate a special
destructive quality for Aésma (pace PINES
1982).
III. Pines has argued that the Zoroastrian
demon Aésma has influenced the concept of
orgé (Wrath) in Rom 9:22; Eph 2:3 (PINES
1982). These two passages from the Pauline
corpus are in fact dependent upon the OT
usage of the word /iárón, ‘wrath’, although
Paul seems to have created a new imagery
of wrath. A decisive argument against
secing any influence of Zoroastrianism on
the concept of wrath in Paul, is the fact that
wrath occurs quite frequently in Romans in
an eschatological context, in combination
with justice (e.g. Rom 3:5; 9:22), as an
essential element of the coming redemption,
and hence is intimately connected with God.
This is wholly alien to any Iranian system,
where AéSma is one of the main adversaries
of Ahura Mazda and is in fact described as a
demon who is chased away at the end of
time (Yt. 19.95). There is no actively per-
sonified demon Wrath to be found in the
Pauline corpus.
IV. Bibliography
M. Boyce & F. GRENET, A History of
Zoroastrianism lIl: Zoroastrianism under
Macedonian and Roman rule (HdO VIII.1.2.
2.3; Leiden 1991); L. H. Gray, The foun-
dations of the Iranian religions, Journal of
the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute 15 (1929)
1-228; S. Pines, Wrath and creatures of
Wrath in Pahlavi, Jewish and New Testa-
ment sources, /rano-Judaica: Studies relat-
ing to Jewish contacts with Persian culture
throughout the ages (ed. S. Shaked & A.
Netzer; Jerusalem 1982) 76-82; G.
STAHLIN, orgé E, TWNT 5 (1954) 419-448.
A. F. DE JONG
909
YAAQAN ^ YA'ÓQ
YAHWEH MT
I. Yahweh is the name of the official
god of Israel, both in the northern kingdom
and in Judah. Since the Achaemenid period,
religious scruples led to the custom of not
pronoucing the name of Yahweh; in the
liturgy as well as in everyday life, such
expressions as 'the —Lord' (ádónay, lit.
‘my Lord’, LXX xópiog) or 'the ^Name'
were substituted for it. As a matter of con-
sequence, the correct pronunciation of the
tetragrammaton was gradually lost: the
Masoretic form ‘Jehovah’ is in reality a
combination of the consonants of the tetra-
grammaton with the vocals of "ádónàáy, the
hatef patah of "ádoónày becoming a mere
shewa because of the yodh of yhwh
(ALFRINK 1948). The transcription ‘Yahweh’
is a scholarly convention, based on such
Greek transcriptions as Jaove/ laovar
(Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5, 6, 34,
5), Iofie/ IaBa1 (Epiphanius of Salamis, Adv.
Haer. 1,3, 40, 5 and Theodoretus of Cyrrhus,
Quaest. in Ex. XV; Haer. fab. comp. 5,3).
The form Yahweh (yhwh) has been estab-
lished as primitive; abbreviations such as
Yah, Yahû, Yô, and Yěhô are secondary
(Cross 1973:61). The abbreviated (or hypo-
coristic) forms of the name betray regional
predilections: thus Yw (*Yau' in Neo-Assyr-
jan sources) is especially found in a North-
Israelite context; Yh, on the other hand, is
predominantly Judaean (cf. WEIPPERT
1980:247-248). The alleged attestation of
Yw as an onomastic element on an arrow-
head dated to the 11th cent. BCE on the basis
of its script (F. M. Cross, An Inscribed
Arrowhead of the Eleventh Century BCE in
the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem,
Erlsr 23 [2992] 21*-26*, esp. n. 3), still
maintained by J. C. DE Moor (The Rise of
Yahwism {2nd ed.; Leuven 1997] 165-166),
is uncertain on epigraphical grounds (P.
BonpntEuirL, Fléches pheniciennes inscrites,
RB 99 [1992] 208; A. LEMAIRE, Epigraphic
palestinienne: nouveaux documents I] -
décennie 1985-1995, Henoch 17 [1996]
211). The form Yhw is said to be originally
Judaean (WEIPPERT 1980: 247), but its
occurrence in the northern wayfarer’s station
of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud shows that it was not
unknown among Northern Israelites either.
In the frequently attested Nabataean person-
al name ‘bd’hyw (variant 'bd?hy), the ele-
ment *hyw (hy) has been interpreted as a
spelling of the divine name Yahweh (M.
LipzBaRsk], ESE 3 [1915] 270 n. 1); it is
not certain whether it is a theonym or an
anthroponym, though, and a connection with
the tetragrammaton is unproven (KNAUF
1984). It is unclear whether an allegedly
northern Syrian deity leva (Porphyry, Adv.
Christ. fr. 41, apud Eusebius, Praep. Ev. ],
9, 21; cf. laó in Theodoretus, Graec. aff.
cur. Il 44-45 and Macrobius, Sat. 1 18-20) is
related to the god Yahweh. In the Mishna,
the divine name is usually written "^ in com-
bination with séwa’ and games (WALKER
1951).
II. The cult of Yahweh is not originally
at home in Palestine. Outside Israel,
Yahweh was not worshipped in the West-
Semitic world—despite affirmations to the
contrary (pace, e.g. G. GARBINI, History and
Ideology in Ancient Israel [London & New
York 1988] 52-65). Before 1200 BCE, the
name Yahweh is not found in any Semitic
text. The stir caused by PETTIINATO (e.g.
Ebla and the Bible, BA 43 [1980] 203-216,
esp. 203-205) who claimed to have found
the shortened form of the name Yahweh
(‘Ya’) as a divine element in theophoric
names from Ebla (ca. 2400-2250 BCE) is un-
founded. As the final element of personal
910
YAHWEH
names, -ya is often a hypocoristic ending,
not a theonym (A. ARCHI, The Epigraphic
Evidence from Ebla and the Old Testament,
Bib 60 (1979) 556-566, esp. 556-560).
MULLER argues that the sign NI, read yd by
Pettinato, is conventionally short for NI-NI =
i-li, ‘my (personal) god’; it stands for ili or
ilu (MULLER 1980:83; 1981:306-307). This
solution also explains the occurrence of the
speculated element *ya at the beginning of
personal names; thus dyà-ra-mu should be
read either as DINGIR-lí-ra-mu or as 4ili,-ra-
mu, both readings yielding the name
Iliramu, 'My god is exalted’. In no list of
gods or offerings is the mysterious god *Ya
ever mentioned; his cult at Ebla is a chim-
era.
Yahweh was not known at Ugarit either;
the singular name Yw (vocalisation un-
known) in a damaged passage of the Baal
Cycle (KTU 1.1 iv:14) cannot convincingly
be interpreted as an abbreviation for
‘Yahweh’ (pace, e.g., DE Moor 1990:113-
118). Also after 1200 BcE, Yahweh is
seldom mentioned in non-Israelite texts. The
assertion that “Yahweh was worshipped as a
major god” in North Syria in the eighth cen-
tury BCE (S. DALLEY, Yahweh in Hamath in
the 8th century BC, VT 40 [1990] 21-32,
quotation p. 29), cannot be maintained. The
claim is based on the names Azriyau and
Yaubi’di, attested as indigenous rulers from
north Syrian states in the 8th cent. BCE. The
explanation of these names offered by
Dalley is highly dubious; more satisfactory
interpretations are possible (VAN DER
Toorn 1992:88-90).
The earliest West Semitic text mentioning
Yahweh—excepting the biblical evidence—
is the Victory Stela written by Mesha, the
Moabite king from the 9th century BCE. The
Moabite ruler recalls his military successes
against Israel in the time of Ahab: “And
—Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo from
Israel!’ So I went by night and I engaged in
fight against her from the break of dawn
until noon. And I took her and I killed her
entire population: seven thousand men,
boys, women, girls, and maid servants, for I
devoted her to destruction (hhrmth) for
Ashtar-Chemosh. And 1 took from there the
^[r ]ly of Yahweh and I dragged them before
Chemosh" (KA/J 181:14-18). Evidently,
Yahweh is not presented here as a Moabite
deity. He is presented as the official god of
the Israelites, worshipped throughout
Samaria, as far as its outer borders since
Nebo (1231 in the Mesha Stela, 13) in the
Bible), situated in North-Western Moab,
was a border town.
The absence of references to a Syrian or
Palestinian cult of Yahweh outside Israel
suggests that the god does not belong to the
traditional circle of West Semitic deities.
The origins of his veneration must be sought
for elsewhere. A number of texts suggest
that Yahweh was worshipped in southern
Edom and Midian before his cult spread to
Palestine. There are two Egyptian texts that
mention Yahweh. In these texts from the
14th and 13th centuries BCE, Yahweh is
neither connected with the Israelites, nor is
his cult located in Palestine. The texts speak
about "Yahu in the land of the Shosu-
beduins" (tj $3$w jhw:; R. GIVEON, Les bé-
douins Shosou des documents égyptiens
[Leiden 1971] no. 6a [pp. 26-28] and no.
16a [pp. 74-77]; note WEIPPERT 1974:427,
430 for the corrected reading). The one text
is from the reign of Amenophis III (first part
of the 14th cent. BCE; cf. HERMANN 1967)
and the other from the reign of Ramses II
(13th cent. BCE; cf. H. W. FAIRMAN, Pre-
liminary Report on the Excavations at
‘Amarah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan,
1938-9, JEA 25 [1939] 139-144, esp. 141).
In the Ramses II list, the name occurs in a
context which also mentions Seir (assuming
that s*rr stands for Seir). It may be tentative-
ly concluded that this “Yahu in the land of
the Shosu-beduins" is to be situated in the
area of Edom and Midian (WEIPPERT 1974:
271; AXELSSON 1987:60; pace WEINFELD
1987:304).
In these Egyptian texts Yhw is used as a
toponym (KNAUF 1988:46-47). Yet a re-
lationship with the deity by the same name
is a reasonable assumption (pace M. WEIP-
PERT, "Heiliger Krieg" in Israel und Assy-
rien, ZAW 84 [1972] 460-493, esp. 491 n.
911
YAHWEH
144); whether the god took his name from
the region or vice versa remains undecided
(note that R. GIvEoN, “The Cities of Our
God" (II Sam 10:12), JBL 83 [1964] 415-
416, suggests that the name is short for
*Beth-Yahweh, which would compare with
the alternance between —Baal-meon and
Beth-Baal-meon). By the 14th century BCE,
before the cult of Yahweh had reached
Israel, groups of Edomite and Midianite
nomads worshipped Yahweh as their god.
These data converge with a northern tradi-
tion, found in a number of ancient theo-
phany texts, according to which Yahweh
came from Edom and Seir (Judg 5:4; note
the correction in Ps 68:8(7]). According to
the Blessing of Moses Yahweh came from
Sinai, “dawned from” Seir, and “shone
forth” from Mount Paran (Deut 33:2).
Elsewhere he is said to have come from
Teman and Mount Paran (Hab 3:3). The
references to “Yahweh of Teman” in the
Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions are extra-bibli-
cal confirmation of the topographical con-
nection (M. WEINFELD, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
Inscriptions and Their Significance, SEL 1
[1984] 121-130, esp. 125, 126). All of these
places—Seir, Mt Paran, Teman, and Sinai—
are in or near Edom.
If Yahweh was at home in the south,
then, how did he make his way to the north?
According to a widely accepted theory, the
Kenites were the mediators of the Yahwistic
cult. One of the first to advance the Kenite
hypothesis was the Dutch historian of re-
ligion Cornelis P. Tiele. In 1872 TIELE char-
acterized Yahweh historically as “the god of
the desert, worshipped by the Kenites and
their close relatives before the Israelites”
(Vergelijkende geschiedenis van de Egyp-
tische en Mesopotamische godsdiensten
[Amsterdam 1872] 559). The
adopted and elaborated by B. STADE
(Geschichte des Volkes Israels [1887] 130-
131), and it gained considerable support
ever since, also among modem scholars
(see, e.g., A. J. WENSINCK, De oorsprongen
van het Jahwisme, Semietische Studién uit
de nalatenschap van Prof. Dr. A. J. Wen-
sinck [Leiden 1941] 23-50; B. D. EERD-
idea was
MANS, Religion of Israel [Leiden 1947] 15-
19; H. H. RowLeY, From Joseph to Joshua
[London 1950] 149-160; A. H. J. Gun-
NEWEG, Mose in Midian, ZTK 60 [1964] 1-
9; W. H. SCHMIDT, Exodus, Sinai, Wüste
(Darmstadt 1983) 110-118; WEINFELD
1987; METTINGER 1990:408-409). In its
classical form the hypothesis assumes that
the Israelites became acquainted with the
cult of Yahweh through Moses. Moses’
father-in-law—Hobab, according to an old
tradition (Judg 1:16; 4:11; cf. Num 10:29)—
was a Midianite priest (Exod 2:16; 3:1;
18:1) who worshipped Yahweh (see e.g.
Exod 18:10-12). He belonged to the Kenites
(Judg 1:16; 4:11), a branch of the Midianites
(H. H. Row ey, From Joseph to Joshua
{London 1950] 152-153). By way of Hobab
and Moses, then, the Kenites were the
mediators of the cult of Yahweh.
The strength of the Kenite hypothesis is
the link it establishes between different but
converging sets of data: the absence of Yah-
weh from West-Semitic epigraphy; Yahweh-
's topographical link with the area of Edom
(which may be taken to include the territory
of the Midianites); the ‘Kenite’ affiliation of
Moses; and the positive evaluation of the
Kenites in the Bible. A major flaw in the
classical Kenite hypothesis, however, is its
disregard for the ‘Canaanite’ origins of Isra-
el. The view that, under the influence of
Moses, the Israelites became Yahwists
during their journey through the desert, and
then brought their newly acquired religion to
the Palestinian soil, neglects the fact that the
majority of the Israelites were firmly rooted
in Palestine. The historical role of Moses,
moreover, is highly problematic. It seems
more prudent not to put too much weight on
the figure of Moses. It is only in later tradi-
tion that he came to be regarded as the
legendary ancestor of the Levitical priests
and a symbol of the ‘Yahweh-alone’ move-
ment; his real importance remains uncertain.
If the Kenite hypothesis is to be main-
tained, then, it is only in a modified form.
Though it is highly plausible that the Ken-
ites (and the Midianites and the Rechabites
may be mentioned in the same breath) intro-
912
YAHWEH
duced Israel to the worship of Yahweh, it is
unlikely that they did so outside the borders
of Palestine. Both Kenites and Rechabites
are mentioned as dwelling in North Israel at
an early stage; so are the Gibeonites, who
are ethnically related to the Edomites (J.
BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon and Israel [Cam-
bridge 1972] 14-27). Some of these groups
were not permanent residents of North
Israel; they came there as traders, Already in
Gen 37:28 Midianite traders are mentioned
as being active between Palestine and Egypt
(KNAUF 1988:27). If Yahwism did indeed
originate with Midianites or Kenites—and
the evidence seems to point in that direc-
tion—it may have been brought to Trans-
jordan and Central Palestine by traders
along the caravan routes from the south to
the east (J. D. SCHLOEN, Caravans, Kenites,
and Casus belli, CBQ 55 [1993] 18-38, esp.
p. 36).
II. Explanations of the name Yahweh
must assume that, except for the vocal-
isation, the traditional form is the correct
one. The hypothesis which says that there
were originally two divine names, viz. Yahu
and Yahweh, the former being the older one
(MAYER 1958:34), is now generally aban-
doned in light of the epigraphic evidence
(Cross 1973:61; pace KLAWEK 1990:12).
The significance of the name Yahweh has
been the subject of a staggering amount of
publications (for an impression see MAYER
1958). This "monumental witness to the
industry and ingenuity of biblical scholars"
(Cnoss 1973:60) is hardly in proportion to
the limited importance of the issue. Even if
the meaning of the name could be estab-
lished beyond reasonable doubt, it would
contribute little to the understanding of the
nature of the god. The caution against over-
estimating etymologies, voiced most elo-
quently by James Barr, holds good for di-
vine names as well. From a perspective of
the history of religion, it is much more
important to know the characteristics which
worshippers associated with their god, than
the original meaning of the latter’s name.
Having said that, however, the question of
the etymology of Yahweh cannot be simply
dismissed. The following observations are in
: order.
In spite of isolated attempts to take yhwh
as a pronominal form, meaning ‘Yea He!’
(from *ya huwa, S. MOWINCKEL, HUCA 32
[1958] 121-133) or 'My One' (cf. Akk ya'u,
H. CAZELLES, Der persónliche Gott Abra-
hams, Der Weg zum Menschen, FS A. Deiss-
ler Ted. R. Mosis & L. Ruppert; Freiburg
1989} 59-60), it is widely agreed that the
name represents a verbal form. With the
preformative yod, yhwh is a finite verbal
form to be analysed as a 3rd masc. sing. im-
perfect. Analogous finite verbal forms used
as theonyms are attested for the religion of
pre-Islamic Arabs. Examples include the
gods Ya'üq (he protects’, WbMyth I 479)
and ~Yagut (‘he helps’, WbMyth I 478).
Much earlier are the Akkadian and Amorite
instances of verbal forms used as divine
names: “IkSudum (‘He has reached’, ARM
13 no. 111:6) and Esuh (‘He has been vic-
torious’, H. B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal
Names in the Mari Texts [Baltimore 1965]
215) are just two examples (Cross 1973:
67). Morphologically, then, the name
Yahweh is not without parallels.
The interpretation of the theonym as a
finite verb is already found in Exod 3:14. In
reply to Moses’ question of what he is to
say to the Israelites when they ask him
which god sent him, God says: “I aM wHo I
AM”, and he adds: “Say this to the people of
Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’”. The ex-
planation here offered is a sophisticated play
based on association: the root HWH is under-
stood as a by-form of HYH, ‘to be’ and the
prefix of the third person is understood as a
secondary objectivation of a first person:
yhwh is thus interpreted as ’°hyh, ‘I am’.
Since the significance of such a name is elu-
sive, the reconstructed name is itself the
subject of a further interpretation in the
phrase "ehyeh "áser "ehyeh, 'I am who J am’.
Its meaning is debated. Should one under-
stand it as a promise (‘J will certainly be
there") or as an allusion to the incompar-
ability of Yahweh (‘I am who I am’, i.e.
without peer)? Even in the revelation of his
name, Yahweh does not surrender himself:
913
YAHWEH
He cannot be captured by means of either an
image or a name. The Greek translation 6
öv (LXX) has philosophical overtones; it is
at the basis of a profound speculation on the
eternity and immutability of God—both of
them ideas originally unconnected with the
name Yahweh.
Since the Israelite explanation is evident-
ly a piece of theology rather than a reliable
etymology, it cannot be accepted as the last
word on the matter. Comparative material
from Akkadian sources has been used to
make a case for the thesis that *yahweA is in
fact an abbreviated sentence name. Among
Amorite personal names, there are a number
in which a finite form of the root Hwy (‘to
be, to manifest oneself) is coupled with a
theonym. Examples are Yahwi-ilum, Yahwi-
Adad (ARM 23, 86:7), and Ya(th)wium (=
lahwi-ilum, e.g. ARM 23, 448:13). These
Amorite names are the semantic equivalent
of the Akkadian name IbaSSi-ilum (‘God has
manifested himself). The objection that
these are all anthroponyms, whereas
Yahweh is a theonym, is not decisive.
Cuneiform texts also recognize a number of
gods whose names are in fact a finite verbal
form with a deity as subject: 4Ikrub-Il (‘El
has blessed’) and “I8mélum (2 *Tíme-ilum,
‘God has heard’) can be quoted in illus-
tration. STOL has made a strong case for
regarding these names as those of deified
ancestors (M. StoL, Old Babylonian Per-
sonal Names, SEL 8 [1991] 191-212, esp.
203-205).
Some scholars believe that Yahweh, too,
is the abbreviated name of a deified ances-
tor. Thus DE Moor consitrues the original
name of the deity as *Yahweh-El, ‘May El
be present (as helper) (1990:237-239). In
support of this speculated form he adduces
the name Jacob (Ya'ágob), which is short
for Y'qb-^1, *May El follow him closely’ (cf.
Yahqub-el, H. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal
Names in the Mari Texts [Baltimore 1965]
203-204; S. Aurruv, Canaanite Toponyms
in Ancient Egyptian Documents {Jerusalem
1984] 200), and such names as Yahwi-Hu in
Mari texts. DE Moor draws the conclusion
that originally Yahweh was “probably the
divine ancestor of one of the proto-Israelite
tribes” (1990:244), Yet though theoretically
possible, it is difficult to believe that the
mayor Israelite deity, venerated in a cult that
was imported into Palestine, was originally
a deified ancestor. Though such gods are
known, they are never found in a leading
position in the pantheon. Their worship
tends to remain local, as an ancestor is of
necessity the ancestor of a restricted group.
There are admittedly ancient Near Eastern
deities with a composite name who never
were ancestors. Examples include rkb’! (tra-
ditionally vocalized as ~Rakib-el) from
Sam/’al (KAT 24:16), and Malakbel. ‘Aglibol,
and Yarhibol from Palmyra. Morphological-
ly, however, these names do not compare
with a speculated *yahweh-DN, since the
first component of the name is a substantive.
The names just mentioned are best inter-
preted as ‘Charioteer of El’ (cf. 7SS7 1 70),
‘Messenger of Bel’, ‘Calf of Bol’, and "Lord
of the Source’ (cf. J. Horruzer, Religio
aramaica [Leiden 1968] 32-38; for the inter-
pretation of the name Yarhibol. cf. Akk
yarhu, “water hole, pond’, CAD I/J 325),
respectively. In addition to the morphologi-
cal difference with a hypothetical *yahweh-
DN, Rakib-el and his likes are names of
subordinate deities; there is no example of
such gods heading the pantheon.
Related to the thesis that *yahweh is an
abbreviated theonym is the suggestion that it
is an abbreviation of a liturgical formula.
The solution proposed by Cross is an
example. He speculates that the longer form
of ‘Yahweh’ is extant in the title > Yahweh
Zabaoth. The séba'ót (transcribed as
Zabaoth in many English Bible translations)
are the —host of heaven, i.e. the council of
the gods. The name Yahweh Zabaoth is
itself short for *Du yahwi saba'ót, 'He who
creates the (heavenly) armies', according to
Cnoss (1973:70). Since in his view this is in
fact a title of El, the full name might be
reconstructed as *//-du-yahwi-saba’ét. The
analysis of Cross goes back to his teacher
W. F. Albright (W. F. ALBRIGHT, review of
B. N. Wambacq, L’épithéte divine Jahvé
Seba'ót, JBL 67 (1948) 377-381). D. N.
FREEDMAN quotes from Albright's notes for
an unpublished History of the Religion of
914
YAHWEH
Israel listing a number of reconstructed cult
names such as *’él yahweh yifrda’él, ‘El-
creates-Israel' (on the basis of Gen 33:20)
and "'el yahweh rühót, "'El-creates-the-
winds’ (FREEDMAN ef al. 1977-82:547).
Instead of a reconstructed form *yahweh-'el,
then, Albright reckons with a form "'El-
yahweh—which could be complemented by
various objects. DIJKSTRA, too, argues that
the original form is El Yahweh, ‘El who
reveals himself'—a form still reflected in
such texts as Ps 118:27 (M. DUKSTRA,
Yahweh-E] or El-Yahweh?, "Dort ziehen
Schiffe dahin...": collected communications
to the XIVth congress of the International
Organization for the Study of the Old Testa-
ment [BEATAJ 28; ed. M. Augustin & K.-
D. Schunk; Frankfurt am Main etc. 1996]
43-52).
Leaving aside for the moment the
problem implied in the identification of
Yahweh with El, the interpretation of
Yahweh as an abbreviated sentence name
(and possibly a liturgical formula) is not
without difficulties. Since the idea that a
human ancestor could rise to the position of
national god flies in the face of the compar-
ative evidence, a presumed El-Yahweh or
Yahweh-El must of necessity be a divine
name followed or preceded by a verbal form
characterizing the deity. By implication,
then, the proper name of the god has been
replaced in the Israelite tradition by a verb
denoting one of his characteristic activities.
Such a process is unparalleled in ancient
Near Eastern religions—unless one con-
siders such Arab deities as Ya‘tq and
Yagit, epithets of another deity, which
would suggest a South Semitic rather than a
West Semitic background for Yahweh. Iso-
lated verbal forms such as proper names,
however, arc not uncommon in the Semitic
world, as witnessed by e.g. the name
*Yagrusu of Baal’s weapon. Solving the
enigma of the tetragrammaton by positing
another divine name is really a last option.
A solution which explains the name in the
form it has come down to us is to be pre-
ferred.
A problem hitherto unmentioned is the
identification of the root lying at the basis of
the form yhwh, and that of its meaning.
Though some have suggested a link with the
root Hwy, resulting in the translation ‘the
Destroyer’ (e.g. H. GRESSMANN, Mose und
seine Zeit (Göttingen 1913] 37), it is gen-
erally held that the name should be connec-
ted with the Semitic root Hwy. Also schol-
ars who do not regard the tetragrammaton as
an abbreviated theonym usually follow the
Israelite interpretation insofar they interpret
Yahweh as a form of the verb ‘to be’; opi-
nions diverge as to whether the form is
basic or causative, i.e. a Qal or a Hiph'il.
The one school interprets ‘He is’, i.e. ‘He
manifests himself as present’, whereas the
other argues in favour of a causative mean-
ing: ‘He causes to be, calls into existence’.
The first interpretation has an exponent in
VON SopDEN. Adducing comparative material
from Akkadian sources, he urges that the
verb should be taken in its stronger sense ‘to
prove oneself, to manifest oneself, to reveal
oneself’ (VON SODEN 1966). A represen-
tative of the second school is ALBRIGHT. He
takes *yahweh as a causative imperfect of
the verb Hwy, ‘to be’. Yahweh, then, is a
god who ‘causes to be’ or ‘brings into
being’. In this form, the verb is normally
transitive (W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the
Gods of Canaan [London 1968} 147-149).
A major difficulty with the explanations
of the name Yahweh on the basis of Hwy
interpreted as ‘to be’, however, is the fact
that they explain the name of a South Sem-
itic deity (originating from Edom, or even
further south) with the help of a West-Sem-
iic etymology (KNAUF 1984a:469). The
form of the name has the closest analogues
in the pre-Islamic Arab pantheon; it is natu-
ral, therefore, to look first at the possibility
of an explanation on the basis of the Arabic
etymology. The relevant root nwy has three
meanings in Arabic: 1. to desire, be passion-
ate; 2. to fall; 3. to blow. All three have
been called upon for a satisfactory expla-
nation of the name Yahweh. The derivation
of the name Yahweh from the meaning ‘to
love, to be passionate’, which resulted in the
translation of Yahweh as ‘the Passionate’
(GorreIn 1956) has made no impact on OT
scholarship. Hardly more successful was the
915
YAHWEH
suggestion that Yahweh is ‘the Speaker’,
also based on the link of the name with the
root HWy (cf. Akk awá, atmáü; BOWMAN
1944:4-5).
A greater degree of plausibility attaches
to those interpretations of the name Yahweh
which identify him as a storm god. Thus the
name has been connected with the meaning
‘to fall’ (also attested in Syriac), in which
case the verbal form is seen as a causative
(‘He who causes to fall’, scil. rain, lightning,
or the enemies by means of his lightning,
see BDB 218a). Another suggestion is to
link the name with the meaning ‘to blow’,
said of the wind (cf. Syr hawwe, ‘wind’).
This leads to the translation "er fáhrt durch
die Lüfte, er weht” (J. WELLHAUSEN, /sra-
elitische und jüdische Geschichte [3rd ed.;
Berlin 1897] 25 note 1; KNAUF 1984a:469;
1988:43-48). Especially the latter possibility
merits serious consideration. In view of the
south-eastern origins of the cult of Yahweh,
an Arabic etymology has a certain likeli-
hood. Also, his presumed character as a
storm god contributes to explain why
Yahweh could assume various of Baal’s
mythological exploits.
The interpretation of the name of Yahweh
is not entirely devoid of meaning, then,
when it comes to establishing his character.
If yhwh does indeed mean ‘He blows’,
Yahweh is originally a storm god. Since
Baal (originally an epitheton of Hadad) is
of the same type, the relationship between
Yahweh and Baal deserves to be analyzed
more closely. In the Monarchic Era, Baal
(i.e. the Baal cult) was a serious rival of
Yahweh. The competition between the two
gods (that is, between their respective priest-
hoods and prophets) was especially fierce
since the promotion of the cult of the Tyrian
Baal by the Omrides. Because there was no
entente between Yahweh and Baal, Yahweh
could hardly have inherited traits of a storm
god from Baal. Inheritance is too peaceful a
process. Yahweh’s ‘Baalistic’ traits have a
dual origin: some are his of old because he
is himself a storm god, whereas others have
been appropriated—or should we say
confiscated—by him. Examples of the latter
include the designation of Mount Zion as
'the recesses of —Zaphon' (Ps 48:3), the
moüf of Yahweh's victory over Yam
(Sea; for a thorough study see J. Day,
God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea:
Echoes of A Canaanite myth in the Old Tes-
tament [Cambridge 1985]) and Mot (W.
HERRMANN, Jahwes Triumph über Mot, UF
11 [1979] 371-377), and the Baal epithet of
— ‘Rider upon the Clouds’.
Owing to the emphasis on the conflict
between Yahweh and Baal, it is insufficient-
ly realized that Yahweh himself, too, is “a
deity who is originally conceived in the
categories of the Hadad type” (METTINGER
1990:410). According to the theophany
texts, the earth trembles, clouds drop water,
and mountains quake at the appearance of
Yahweh (Judg 5:4-5). Though such a
response of the elements to Yahweh’s mani-
festation need not imply that he is a storm-
god, the latter hypothesis offers the most
natural explanation. When Yahweh comes to
the rescue of his beloved, he is hidden all
around by darkness, thick clouds dark with
water being his canopy (Ps 18:12[11]). As
he lifts his voice the thunder resounds (Ps
18:14[13]). Like Baal, Yahweh is perceived
as ‘a god of the mountains’ (1 Kgs 20:23), a
characterization presumably triggered by the
association of the weather-god with clouds
hovering above the mountain tops.
Though few scholars would contest the
fact that Yahweh has certain traits normally
ascribed to Baal, it is often argued that orig-
inally he was much more like El than like
Baal. In the patriarchal narratives of Gen-
esis, El] names such as >E] Olam and >E]
Elyon are frequently used as epithets of
Yahweh. Various scholars have drawn the
conclusion that E] and Yahweh were ident-
ified at a rather early stage. This ident-
ification is sometimes explained by assum-
ing that Yahweh is originally an El figure
(thus, e.g. H. NiEHm, Der hóchste Gott
{BZAW 190; Berlin/New York 1990] 4-5).
Cross has argued that Yahweh is originally
a hypocoristicon of a liturgical title of El.
Yahweh Zabaoth, allegedly meaning ‘He
who calls the heavenly armies into being’, 1s
916
YAHWEH
not a name but an epithet. According to
Cross, the god to whom it applies in the
first place is El, since El is known in the
Ugaritic texts as the father of the gods. The
latter are conventionally referred to as ‘the
sons of El’ (Cross 1973). DE Moor, who
also holds that Yahweh is an abbreviated
sentence name originally belonging to a
human being. links Yahweh with El as well.
Though *Yahwch-El was the name of an
ancestor, the deified ancestor was also "an
aspect of El” (DE Moor 1990:244). In order
to solve the apparent contradiction, DE
Moor explains that the deified kings of
Ugarit, who ‘joined’ (rk, KTU 1.15 v:17)
El at their death, merged with the god
(1990:242).
Speculations about the original identity of
Yahweh with El need to be critically
examined, however. There are problems
conceming both the nature of the identi-
fication, and the divine type to which
Yahweh belongs. It is insufficiently realised
that, at the beginning of the Iron Age, El's
role had become largely nominal. The
process of El's retreat in favour of Dagan
(the major god at Ebla in the late third mil-
lennium) and later Baal (the major god at
Ugarit in the middle of the second millen-
nium) had long been under way. By the
beginning of the Iron Age, the cult of El
survived in some border zones of the Near
East. In most regions, however, including
Palestine, El's career as a living god (i.c. as
a cultic reality and an object of actual de-
votion) had ended; he survived in such
expressions as ‘dt-’l (‘the council of El’) and
bny-'l (‘sons of El’, i.e. gods), but this was a
survival only in name. This fact explains
why there are no traces of polemics against
El in the Hebrew Bible. It can therefore be
argued that the smooth identification of El
as Yahweh was based, not on an identity of
character, but on El’s decay. His name was
increasingly used cither as a generic noun
meaning ‘god’ or, more specifically, as a
designation of the personal god. In both
cases, Yahweh could be called ël (on the
identification of Yahweh and El see VAN
DER TOORN 1996:320-328).
Along with the name, Yahweh inherited
various traits of El. One of them is divine
eternity. Ugaritic texts call El the ‘father of
years’ (ab §nm) and depict him as a bearded
patriarch; Yahweh, on the other hand, is
called the -*'Ancient of days’, and also is
wearing a beard (Dan 7:9-14.22). Like El,
Yahweh presides over the ->council of the
gods. Compassion is another common trait:
El is said to be compassionate (dpid),
whereas Yahweh is called “merciful and
gracious” (Exod 34:6; for these and other
similarities see M. SMITH, The Early History
of God [San Francisco 1990] 7-12). In some
biblical passages, the parallels are con-
sciously explored. Thus GREENFIELD has
shown that Deut 32:6-7 applies to Yahweh
various motifs and images originally asso-
ciated with El. El (here Yahweh) is said to
be Israel’s ‘father’ and ‘creator’; he is ‘wise’
and ‘eternal’ and has lived for ‘the years of
many generations’ (J. C. GREENFIELD, The
Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature, The
Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter &
F. Kermode; Cambridge, Mass. 1987] 545-
560, esp. 554).
An aspect of Yahweh that may be traced
back to El, though only with great caution,
is his solar appearance. Even though the
theophany texts depict Yahweh primarily as
a warrior storm-god, there are elements in
their description which seem to assume that
Yahweh is a solar deity. The Psalm of
Habakkuk mentions God's ‘splendour’
(hód). and possibly his ‘shine’ (séhilld, v 3);
God’s appearance comes with brightness
(nógah) and rays of light (qarnayim, v 4).
Likewise Deut 33:2 speaks about Yahweh
‘shining forth’ (ZRH) and lightning up (vP'.
hiphil; for the terminology cf. F.
SCHNUTENHAUS, Das Kommen und Erschei-
nen Gottes im Alten Testament, ZAW 76
[1964] 1-22, esp. 8-10). The closest extrabi-
blical paralle] is found in a Hebrew text
from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in which the moun-
tains are said to melt when EI shines forth
(wbzrh 21 [...] wymsn hrm, “when El shines
forth [...] the mountains melt”; M. WEIN-
FELD, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Inscriptions and
Their Significance, SEL 1 [1984] 121-130,
917
YAHWEH
esp. 126; S. Aurruv, Handbook of Ancient
Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem 1992] 160-
162). Also outside the theophany tradition
there is evidence of Yahweh as a solar god.
Thus the word 'ór, —'light', is sometimes
used as a divine title (Ps 139:11, cf. J. Hor-
MAN, Analysis of the Text of Ps 139, BZ 14
[1970] 37-71, esp. 56-58; for other solar lan-
guage applied to Yahweh see M. Swrru, 77e
Early History of God [San Francisco 1990]
115-124, Ch. 4: Yahweh and the Sun [but
cf. the review by S. B. PARKER, Hebrew
Studies 33 (1992) 158-162]; J. G. TAvLoR,
Yahweh and the Sun (Sheffield 1993]).
A further link between El and Yahweh is
the identity of their consort. Texts from
Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom refer to
Yahweh ‘and his -*Asherah’ (w’§rth).
Though several scholars argue that this
'Asherah' is merely a cult symbol or a
designation for ‘sanctuary’ (cf. Akk aSirtu),
the interpretation of the word as a divine
name is to be preferred (pace J. A. EMER-
TON, New Light on Israelite Religion: The
Implications of the Inscriptions from
Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, ZAW 94 [1982] 2-20; see
M. Dietrich & O. LonETZ, Jahweh und
seine Aschera [UBL 9; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1992] 82-103). In the light of these data, the
suggestion to emendate II?ZN in Deut 33:2e
into MAS (‘and at his right hand Asherah’;
H. S. NyBeErG, Deuteronomium 33,2-3,
ZDMG 92 [1938] 320-344, esp. 335; see
also M. WEINFELD, SEL 1 [1984] 121-130,
esp. 124) remains a distinct possibility.
Since Asherah is traditionally the consort of
El in the Ugaritic texts, the pairing of
Yahweh and Asherah suggests that Yahweh
had taken the place of El (cf. M. DDKSTRA,
El, YHWH, and their Asherah: On Continu-
ity and Discontinuity in Canaanite and
Ancient Israelite Religion, Ugarit: Ein ost-
mediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient
[ALASP 7; ed. M. Dietrich & O. Loretz;
Münster 1995] 43-73, who finds here
confirmation for the view that Yahweh is a
particularized form of EI).
Under northern influence, Yahweh came
also to be paired with -*Anat, possibly to be
identified with the -*Queen of Heaven
mentioned in Jer 7:18; 44:17.18.19.25. Her
link with Yahweh is evident from the name
Anat-Yahu, attested in Aramaic texts from
the Jewish colony at Elephantine (VAN DER
ToorN 1992). Considering the fact that the
only other male deities with whom Anat is
paired are Baal and -Bethel (the deified
baetylon, cf. also Sikkànu ['stone stela', Ug
skn] a thconym surviving in the name
Sanchunjathon - 171222), no influence from
the cult or mythology of El is apparent here.
Though Yahweh was known and wor-
shipped among the Israelites before 1000
BCE, he did not become the national god
until the beginning of the monarchic era.
Due to the religious politics of Saul,
Yahweh became the patron deity of the
Israelite state (VAN DER Toorn 1993:531-
536; 1996:266-286). As David and Solomon
inherited and enlarged Saul’s kingdom, they
acknowleged the position of Yahweh as
national god. David brought the ark of Yah-
weh from Benjamin to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6);
Solomon sought the blessing of Yahweh at
the sanctuary of Gibeon, the national temple
of the Saulide state (1 Kgs 3:4; VAN DER
Toorn 1993:534-535). Evidence of the pre-
dominant role of Yahweh in the official cult
during the Monarchic Era are the theophoric
personal names, both the biblical and the
epigrapical ones. The divine name Yahweh
is by far the most common theophoric ele-
ment (J. H. TiGay, You Shall Have No
Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light
of Hebrew Inscriptions [Atlanta 1986]; S. I.
L. NORIN, Seine Name allein ist hoch. Das
Jhw-haltige Suffix althebräischer Personen-
namen [Malmó 1986]; J. D. FowLER, 77:eo-
phoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew.
A Comparative Studv [Sheffield 1988]).
The practical monolatry of Yahweh
should not be taken for a strict monotheism.
Not only did the Israelites continue to rec-
ognize the existence of deities besides
Yahweh, they also knew more than one
Yahweh. Though at the mythological level
there is only one, the cultic reality reflected
a plurality of Yahweh gods (McCCARTER
1987:139-143). Extrabiblical evidence from
Kuntillet ‘Ajrud mentions a ‘Yahweh of
918
YAHWEH
Samaria’ and a ‘Yahweh of Teman’; it is
possible that the two names designate one
god, viz. the official god of the northern
kingdom (‘Samaria’, after its capital). Yet
the recognition of a northern Yahweh is mir-
rored by the the worship of a Yahweh of
Hebron and a Yahweh of Zion. Though the
constructions béhebrén and bésiyyén are
normally translated ‘in Hebron’ and ‘in
Zion’, a comparison of the name Milkashtart
(‘Milku of Ashtart’) with the expression milk
b'ttrt (*Milku in Ashart') suggests that such
expressions as yhwh bésiyyón (Ps 99:2) and
yhwh bélebrón (2 Sam 15:7) should be
understood as references to local forms of
Yahweh (M. L. BARRÉ, The God-List in the
Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of
Macedonia [Baltimore/London 1983] 186
note 473; cf. 1 Sam 5:5 Ddagén béasdéd,
‘Dagan of Ashdod’). The religious situation
in early Israel, therefore, was not merely one
of polytheism, but also of poly-Yahwism.
The Deuteronomic emphasis on the unity of
Yahweh (-*One) must be understood against
this background.
IV. Bibliography
L. E. AXELSSON, The Lord Rose up from
Seir (ConB OT 25; Lund 1987); B.
ALFRINK, La prononciation ‘Jehova’ du Té-
tragramme, OTS 5 (1948) 43-62; R. A.
Bowman, Yahweh the Speaker, JNES 3
(1944) 1-8; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth
and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass/London
1973) 44-75 [cf. pp. 60-61 n. 61 for lit.]; M.
DaAHooD, The God Yà at Ebla?, JBL 100
(1981) 607-608; O. EissrELDT, El and
Yahweh, JSS 1 (1956) 25-37; D. N. FREED-
MAN, M. P. O'CoNNoR & H. RINGGREN,
Hwr jhwh, TWAT 3 (1977-82) 533-554; S.
D. GorrEIN, YHWH the Passionate, VT 6
(1956) 1-9; R. S. Hess, The Divine Name
Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources?, UF
33 (1991[1992]) 181-188; A. KLAWEK, The
Name Jahveh in the Light of Most Recent
Discussion, Folia Orientalia 27 (1990) 11-
12; E. A. KNAUF, Yahwe, VT 34 (19842)
467-472; KNaAUE, Eine nabatiische Parallele
zum hebräischen Gottesnamen, BN 23
(1984b) 21-28; KNAUF, Midian (Wiesbaden
1988) 43-48; R. MavER, Der Gottesname
Jahwe im Lichte der neuesten Forschung,
BZ n.s. 2 (1958) 26-53; P. K. MCCARTER,
Jr., Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite
Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data,
Ancient Israelite Religion (FS F. M. Cross;
ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson & S. D.
McBride; Philadelphia 1987) 137-155; *T.
N. D. METTINGER, The Elusive Essence:
YHWH., El and Baal and the Distinctiveness
of Israclite Faith, Die Hebriiische Bibel und
thre zweifache Nachgeschichte (FS R. Rend-
torff zum 65. Geburtstag; ed. E. Blum, C.
Macholz & E. W. Stegemann; Neukirchen
1990) 393-417; J. C. bE Moor, The Rise of
Yahwism (Leuven 1990); H.-P. MULLER,
Gab es in Ebla cinen Gottesnamen Ja?, ZA
70 (1980) 70-92; MÜLLER, Der Jahwenamen
und scine Bedeutung. Ex 3,14 im Licht der
Textpublikationen aus Ebla, Bib 62 (1981)
305-327; A. MURTONEN, The Appearance of
the Name yhwh outside Israel (StOr 16/3;
Helsinki 1951); M. S. Surru, Yahweh and
other Deities in Ancient Israel: Observations
on Problems and recent Trends, Ein Gott
Allein (eds. W. Dietrich & M. A. Klopfen-
stein; Freiburg/Góttingen 1994) 197-234; W.
VON SODEN, Jahwe, 'er ist, er erweist sich’,
WO 3/3 (1966) 177-187 [reprinted in Bibel
und Alter Orient (ed. H.-P. Müller; BZAW
162; Berlin & New York 1985) 78-88]; K.
VAN DER Toorn, Anat-Yahu, Some Other
Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen
39 (1992) 80-101; VAN DER TOORN, Saul
and the Rise of Israelite State Religion, VT
43 (1993) 519-542; vAN DER TOORN, Fami-
ly Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel
(SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996); N. WALKER,
The Writing of the Divine Name in the
Mishna, VT | (1951) 309-310; M. WEIN-
FELD, The Tribal League at Sinai, Ancient
Israelite Religion (FS F. M. Cross; ed. P. D.
Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson & S. D. McBride;
Philadelphia 1987) 303-314; M. WEIPPERT,
Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtau-
sends, Bib 55 [1974] 265-280, 427-433;
*WEIPPERT, Jahwe, RLA 5 (1980) 246-253.
K. VAN DER TOORN
919
YAHWEH ZEBAOTH
YAHWEH ZEBAOTH MNS mT
I. “Yahweh Zebaoth” occurs 284 times
as a divine name in the Heb Bible; 121 of
these occurrences can be characterized as
free, non-formulaic usage. This expression
had a prominent function as a cultic name of
Yahweh in Shiloh and Jerusalem. Serving as
an important divine epithet in the Zion-
Zebaoth theology of the Jerusalemite
temple, it is attested from the premonarchic
period to ‘postexilic times. The Zebaoth
designation is an important signpost in the
religious history of ancient Israel and has
therefore been the subject of intensive
scholarly discussion (surveys in SCHMITT
1972:145-159 and ZoBEL 1989:880-881).
Apart from an attempt to trace it to non-
Semitic origins, assuming the Eg dbity “the
one of the throne-seat", as the etymon
(GónG 1985), there is almost general agree-
ment that the word séba’6r derives from the
Semitic root sp’, found in e.g. Akk sa@bum
(Mari sdbfim), “people”, pl. "soldiers",
“workers” (AHW 1072) and Heb saba’,
“army; host”. The Zebaoth designation is
handled in three different ways in the LXX
(OLoFSSON 1990:121-26). Often the trans-
lation is pantokratór, the. -*"Almighty", a
rendering which is also used for -*Shadday.
Especially in Isaiah, the LXX simply tran-
Scribes the Heb with Sabaoth. In a number
of other cases we find kyrios tón dynameón,
"the Lord of Powers". All of these trans-
lations describe -*Yahweh as a deity of
great power, the second taking the Zebaoth
element as a personal name, the third as a
plural of an appellative with the meaning
“power”. :
The syntax of the Heb designation is a
problem, since personal names in general
are usually treated as determinate nouns.
The occurrence of the proper name Yahweh
in a construct relation stands out as excep-
tional. Hence attempts to understand the
juxtaposition as a verbless clause (“Yahweh
is Zebaoth"), as a verb plus its object ("He
who creates armies"), or as two nouns in
apposition, the Zebaoth element then being
taken as a Heb counterpart of Akk abstract
feminine nouns with -ūtu, denoting func-
tions (GAG § 56 s.59a; CAZELLES 1985:
1125 “Yahweh, the warlike”) or as an inten-
sive abstract plural denoting "power",
coming close to Almightiness (EISSFELDT
1950 = 1966). The traditional understanding,
viz. as a construct relation, “Yahweh of
géba’ér" seems the most probable solution
and is made less problematical by the epi-
graphic attestation of analogues such as
“Yahweh of Teman” and “Yahweh of
Samaria” in Kuntillet Ajrud. But, even if
this is the case, the construct relation itself
allows for various interpretations of the
Zebaoth element. Thus it has been suggested
that the construct relation may bear an
adjectival meaning: “Yahweh of Zebaoth-
ness", "Yahweh Militant”. The argument
that sébá'ót is an abstract plural meets with
an obstacle since it is well attested as a con-
crete plural, "hosts", "armies", a sense that
is found already in one of the Canaanite
glosses to the Amarna letters (nérsé-bd-ar,
"600hoss", FA 154:21, courtesy of C.
Grave). The referential meaning of such a
concrete noun in the case of the Heb
designation has been understood as alluding
either to: (a) the armies of Israel (cf. 1 Sam
17:45); (b) the heavenly hosts, whether the
hosts of stars or the heavenly council of
Yahweh (cf. Ps 89:9); (c) the "domesti-
cated" mythical forces of nature in Canaan;
or (d) all creatures on earth and in the
heavens (cf. Gen 2:1). The existence of two
distinct plural forms of the noun, saba’, both
masculine and feminine, should not be made
the starting point for semantic conclusions
(cf. S. SEGERT, A Grammar of Phoenician
and Punic [München 1976] 8$ 52.15).
IIl. The use of the Zebaoth designation
in Hebrew can be traced back as far as pre-
monarchic Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3.11; 4:4). On
the assumption that this was the cradle of
the concept of Yahweh as Yahweh Zebaoth,
certain cautious conclusions may be drawn
as to the religio-historical background of the
designation in question. There are increasing
indications which show that there was cultic
continuity at Shiloh from the Middle Bronze
ll period onward, including an isolated
cultic site during the Late Bronze period
920
YAHWEH ZEBAOTH
when there was no real settlement at Shiloh
(1. FINKELSTEIN, The Archaeology of the
Israelite Settlement [Jerusalem 1988] 212-
234). Given this early cultic activity, the
temple (hékdl) at Shiloh (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3)
must be understood against a Canaanite
background. The same may be true of the
Zebaoth designation of the god worshipped
there. While some scholars have attempted
to trace the Canaanite parentage of Yahweh
Zebaoth back to -*Resheph (r3p sbi, KTU
1.91:15, "Resheph the Soldier" or "Resheph
(the Lord) of the Army", LivERANI 1967),
or to -^Baal (Ross 1967:89-90), the evi-
dence points instead to the importance of the
>El traditions (METTINGER 1982a:128-35;
Seow 1989). We thus find certain El featu-
res in the deity worshipped at Shiloh, who
reveals himself in dreams (1 Sam 3), who is
able to bestow children (1 Sam 1:11), who
possesses the trappings of royalty (cf. the
personal names at Shiloh such as Ahimelech
and Ichabod), and who appears as ’é/ in cer-
tain personal names (1 Sam 1:1 with the
app.). The iconography associated with
Yahweh Zebaoth, the -*cherubim throne
(below), is congruent with this, since it
draws its inspiration ultimately from the
lion-paw throne of El. The fact that Yahweh
has a chariot of clouds (Pss 18:10-11; 104:3;
Isa 19:1) like Baal (cf. rkb *rpt, "the driver
of the clouds") does not invalidate the con-
clusion that the winged cherubim throne has
a background in the El traditions. Though
no genuine Canaanite precursor to the
Zebaoth designation has come to light, it is
nevertheless most likely that it derives from
the Canaanite milieu at Shiloh. The original
form of the name may even have been ’el
$ébà'ót, in which case this and ’el ‘elyén,
-—"Most High", should be seen as twin
designations of Yahweh as the supreme
Lord of the divine host or assembly.
It may also be that the Zebaoth notion
has an analogue or even its background in
the notion of army gods such as “the
Lulahhi gods" or "the Hapiri gods" (ANET
206; LIVERANI 1967). Note also that in Philo
Byblius, El is a deity accompanied by his
host, his "allies" or symmachoi (Euseb.,
Praep. Ev. 10.18 and 20), who assist him in
battle. The allusion to the heavenly host
(below) allows the Zebaoth designation to
be used with both warlike and more peace-
ful connotations. Readily apparent instances
of the former are to be found in texts which
use the designation as part of a play on
words with military overtones (1 Sam 17:45;
Isa 13:4; 31:4). Indeed, the martial character
of Yahweh Zebaoth is amply attested (1
Sam 4:4; Isa 10:23; 13:13; 14:24-27; 19:16;
22:5; 24:21-23; Jer 32:18; 50:25; Nah 2:14;
3:5; Pss 24:8.10; 46:8.12 and 59:6).
III. "Yahweh Zebaoth" occurs 284 times
in the Heb Bible (not counting the Qere in 2
Kgs 19:31). The distribution is noteworthy
(METTINGER 1982b:11-17). Jeremiah is a
special case since the MT's more frequent
attestation of the term (82 times) may have
to be drastically reduced on the basis of the
LXX (OrorssoN 1990:122-24). It is worthy
of note that attestations of the term are
clustered in books representing a tradition
linked to the theology fostered at the Jeru-
salem temple: Proto-Isaiah (56 times), Hag
(14 times), Zech (53 times), Mal (24 times),
Ps (15 times). The designation is completely
absent from the Pentateuch and Ezek and
occurs only sparsely in Sam - Kgs (11 times
in 1-2 Sam; 4 times in 1-2 Kgs). The
following contrast can be drawn: In Isa 1-39
(3 96 of the text of OT) there are 56 occur-
rences (20 % of the total of 284), while in
the Deuteronomistic Historical Work (28 %
of the text of the OT) there are 15 occur-
rences (5 % of the total), and these are
mainly found in the older source materials.
From this it may be inferred that the
designation was important in Jerusalem
during the zenith of the temple theology, but
was considerably less popular during the
exile (no occurrences in Ezek and only 15
times in the D-work), though to be sure the
term was in use during the exile (see
below). The fifteen occurrences in eight dif-
ferent psalms are found in hymns (Pss 46;
48; 84; 89), psalms of lament (Pss 59; 69;
80) and entrance liturgies (Ps 24). Of the
fifteen occurrences, ten are found in invoca-
tions, whether of lament or praise, a fact
921
YAHWEH ZEBAOTH
which reflects the cultic language of Jerusa-
lem and Shiloh (cf. 1 Sam 1:11). Neverthe-
less the relatively low number of attestations
of the formula in the Psalms is still a prob-
lem.
The strong linkage between the Zebaoth
designation on the one hand and Zion and
the temple, on the other, appears from a
number of texts. Isaiah’s temple vision is a
case in point, where the Zebaoth designation
occurs in a trishagion that probably comes
from the temple liturgy (Isa 6:3; cf. v 5).
Moreover, Yahweh Zebaoth is explicitly
called “he who dwells (haSsdkén) on Mount
Zion” (Isa 8:18;-cf. Joel 4:17.21; Ps 135:21),
and Jerusalem is called "the city of Yahweh
Zebaoth” (Ps 48:9, cf. the designation of
Zion as “the mountain of Yahweh Zebaoth”
in Zech 8:3). Several attestations in the
Psalms occur in the Zion hymns (Pss
46:8.12; 48:9; 84:2.4.9.13). The Isaiah
Apocalypse relates how Yahweh Zebaoth
established his royal reign over Zion (Isa
24:23) and follows with a description of the
banquet he holds on this mountain (25:6).
Connected with this latter notion is the por-
trayal of the nations as pilgrims of Yahweh
Zebaoth streaming to Zion (Zech 14:16-17),
bearing gifts (Isa 18:7).
The cherubim formula is especially
important here, since the original, complete
title would have been Yhwh séba'ót yoseb
hakkérfiibim, “Yahweh Zebaoth, who is enth-
roned on the cherubim” (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam
6:2; Isa 37:16). The few cases when the
cherubim formula occurs alone hardly
amount to proof that it was originally an
independent designation. This early con-
nection with the cherubim formula shows
that Yahweh Zebaoth was conceived as
enthroned in invisible majesty on the
cherubim throne in the Solomonic temple,
since comparison with Syro-Palestine pictor-
ial art of the Late Bronze Age and Early
Iron Age shows that the cherubim of the
Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 6:23-28) formed
an immense throne for the invisible deity
(note the prohibition of images), while the
ark served as the footstool of the cherubim
throne (1 Chron 28:2; cf. Pss 99:5; 132:7).
We are thus faced with a concept of deity
that is at one and the same time aniconic
(the throne is empty) and anthropomorphic
(the deity is conceived of as an enthroned
monarch; T. N. D. METTINGER, No Graven
Image? [Stockholm 1995]). The cherubim
throne forms the physical focal point of the
symbolism of the Solomonic temple, and the
invisible Yahweh Zebaoth occupies the con-
ceptual centre of the theology linked with
this sanctuary on Zion. Indeed, this theology
is appropriately described as a Zion-Zebaoth
theology (METTINGER 1982b:15, 24-37).
Two features of this concept of Yahweh
in this Zion-Zebaoth theology are of special
importance here: He is the one who is pres-
ent in his temple and he is king. (a) The
first-mentioned aspect is evidenced by the
formulations listed above that testify to the
connection between Yahweh Zebaoth and
Zion and the temple. The notion of the
Lorp of the temple dwelling on his holy
mountain and in his sanctuary is also articu-
lated in a number of passages without the
Zebaoth formula being used (Exod 15:17; 2
Sam 7:5; 1 Kgs 8:13; Jer 8:19; Pss 46:5-6;
48:1-3; 50:2; 68:17; 76:3; 132:13-14).
(b) The royal character of Yahweh
Zebaoth is evidenced, to begin with, by its
close connection with the cherubim throne
(see above). Moreover, a number of texts
explicitly express this royal connection.
"Yahweh Zebaoth, he is the King of glory"
(Ps 24:10). “Woe is me! ... For my eyes
have seen the King, Yahweh Zebaoth! (Isa
6:5). The “city of Yahweh Zebaoth” (Ps
48:9) is "the city of the great King" (v 3). In
Ps 89:9 the designation occurs in a context
where Yahweh is described as a king, sitting
on his throne (v 15), surrounded by his di-
vine council (vv 6-8). The use of the
Zebaoth designation in the prayer of
Hezekiah at the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem
(Isa 37:16) may be formulated to express a
deliberate contrast between Yahweh Zebaoth
and the great king of Assyria (cf. Isa
36:4.13). It is against the background of the
notion of Yahweh Zebaoth as king that
statements concerning his purposing and
planning are to be understood. "Yahweh
922
YAHWEH ZEBAOTH
Zebaoth has purposed and who will annul
it?” (Isa 14:27; cf. v 24). Isa 19:12 speaks of
“what Yahweh Zebaoth has purposed
against Egypt” (cf. v 17 and 23:9). In Isa
28:29 Yahweh Zebaoth is acclaimed as
“wonderful in counsel and excellent in wis-
dom”. These passages on the supreme
decrees of Yahweh Zebaoth all use the
terms yd‘as / ‘ésd, verb and noun respective-
ly, ‘plan’, ‘purpose’, a terminology that is
also used in connection with the messianic
king (Isa 9:5; 11:2). Thus, if the messianic
king is to be called “Wonderful Counsellor”
(Isa 9:5), this is even more true of the su-
preme king, Yahweh Zebaoth (Isa 28:29).
Finally, the formulaic expression “says the
King, whose name is Yahweh Zebaoth” (Jer
46:18; 48:15; 51:57) may be noted in this
connection.
A further important aspect of the Zion-
Zebaoth theology is the idea that the temple
is the point of intersection between heaven
and earth; the temple is the point at which
the dimensions of space are transcended (M.
METZGER, Himmlische und irdische Wohn-
statt Jahwes, UF 2 [1970], 139-158; cf. O.
Kee, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst
{SBS 84-85; Stuttgart 1977] 51-53). This
mythical concept of space explains passages
which in such apparent nonchalance locate
God simultaneously on earth and in heaven
e.g. Ps 11:4: “Yahweh is in his holy temple,
Yahweh's throne is in heaven.” In Ps 14
Yahweh looks down from Heaven (v 2) and
sends his help from Zion (v 7); in Ps 76 he
dwells on Zion (v 3) and utters his judgment
from heaven (v 9). Similarly in two almost
identical lines Yahweh is portrayed as
roaring from Zion in one case (Am 1:2) and
from heaven in the other (Jer 25:30; cf. Joel
4:16). By the same token, the Zion-Zebaoth
theology was not characterized by a trivial
and restrictive notion of divine immanence.
Passages such as Isa 6:1 and Ps 24:7-10
speak of a God whose grandeur cannot be
confined within the limits of the temple.
Against this background it should be
noted that the root $B’ appears in contexts
which draw upon both its royal and its ce-
lestial connotations. Like terrestrial kings,
the heavenly monarch has a court and coun-
cil. Among the Heb terms for the divine
council we find precisely saba’ (1 Kgs
22:19-23, Pss 103:19-22; 148:1-5; Dan 8:10-
13). The fact that the Zebaoth designation
occurs in passages in which the divine coun-
cil plays a role corroborates this association.
Ps 89:6-19 is an obvious case. Just as the
Davidic king is the highest of the kings on
earth (v 28), so Yahweh is the supreme
monarch in the divine assembly (vv 6-9) and
thus merits the designation Yahweh Zebaoth
(v 9). Isa 6, with the Zebaoth designation in
vv 3.5, is another example. Yahweh’s
question “who will go for us?” (v 8) con-
tains an allusion to the deliberations of the
divine council. The relative rarity of texts
that use the root in connection with the
heavenly host in a positive sense may have
something to do with the syncretistic
influences exerted by the astral cult during
the eighth century BCE. In the OT texts that
express criticism of these influences the
phrase séba’ hassamayim “the host of
heaven” referring to the stars, is often used
to refer to the object of worship of the il-
legitimate cult (Deut 4:19; 2 Kgs 23:4-5
etc.).
The Zebaoth designation also occurs in
various formulaic expressions, notably
“Yahweh Zebaoth is his name”, which ap-
pears in Amos (4:13; 5:27), Isa 40-55 (47:4;
48:2; 51:15; 54:5) and Jeremiah (10:16; 31:
35; 32:18; 46:18; 48:15; 50:34; 51:57). The
motifs connected with this formula are judg-
ment, creation and idolatry (CRENSHAW
1969; 1975). In the exilic community, the
formula fulfilled a confessional function,
referring to the power and majesty of God.
This usage was probably derived from pre-
exilic cultic usage.
While the designation was used in the
way just mentioned during the exile, it is
nevertheless strikingly rare in major works
from this period, such as the Deutero-
nomistic Historical Work (15 times) and
Ezekiel (0). The cognitive dissonance be-
tween the traditional faith of the Zion-
Zebaoth theology and the harsh historical
realities experienced by the nation including
923
YAHWEH ZEBAOTH
the downfall of the earthly abode of Yahweh
Zebaoth, the Solomonic temple, provoked
the development of new theological so-
lutions: the Deuteronomistic >name theol-
ogy and the Priestly theology of the divine
glory found in P and in Ezek (METIINGER
1982b). Nevertheless the Zebaoth designa-
tion again figures frequently in post-exilic
writings such as Hag (14 times), Zech (53
times) and Mal (24 times).
IV. The designation does not occur at all
in Ben Sira and only once in the Qumran
texts. A notable part of its postbiblical his-
tory takes place on gnostic soil, where it
represents part of a Jewish heritage.
"Sabaoth" 1s thus used by the sects criticized
by Ireneus and Epiphanius: the Sethites and
the Ophites (WAMBACQ 1947:43-45). A
Sabaoth conception plays an especially
important role in two documents from the
Nag Hammadi Corpus, viz. The Nature of
the Archons and On the Origin of the World,
where the enthronement of Sabaoth and the
creation of his throne/chariot are prominent
motifs (see FALLON 1978). In this gnostic
system one finds three, rather than two gods,
viz. the transcendent God, the evil god
laldabaoth, and his repentant offspring the
god Sabaoth. Whether another postbiblical
development is made up by relations
between Sabaoth and Sabazios is a moot
point (JOHNSON 1978 and 1984).
V. Bibliography
*O. BOoRCHERT, Der Gottesname Jahwe
Zebaoth, TSK 69 (1896) 619-642; H.
CAZELLES, Sabaot, DBSup 10 (Paris 1985)
1123-1127 (& lit]; J. L. CRENSHAW, YHWH
séb@é6t $émó. A Form-Critical Analysis,
ZAW 81 (1969) 156-175; CRENSHAW,
Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice: The
Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts in
the Old Testament (SBL DS 24; Missoula,
1975); S. DEMPSTER, The Lord is his Name.
A Study of the Distribution of the Names
and Titles of God in the Book of Amos, RB
98 (1991) 170-189; O. EissrELDT, Jahwe
Zebaoth, Miscellanea Academica Berolin-
ensia 11 2 (Berlin 1950) 128-150 = KS 3
(1966) 103-123; F. T. FALLON, The En-
thronement of Sabaoth. Jewish Elements in
Gnostic Creation Myths (NHS 10; Leiden
1978); J. Garcia TRAPIELLO, El epíteto
divino “Yahweh sabaot” en los libros histó-
ricos del AT, 28 Semana Bíblica Espafiola
(Madrid 1971) 67-128; M. GóngG, sb’wr -
ein Gottestitel, BN 30 (1985) 15-18; S. E.
JOHNSON, Sabaoth/Sabazios. A Cunosity in
Ancient Religion, Lexington Theological
Quarterly 13 (1978) 97-103; JOHNSON, The
present state of Sabazios research, ANRW II
17,3 (Berlin/New York 1984) 1584-1613; B.
LAYTON, The Gnostic Scriptures. A New
Translation with Annotations and Introduc-
tions (New York 1987), index under
Sabaoth; M. LivERANI, La preistoria
dell’epiteto “Yahweh séba'ót", AION 17
(1967) 331-334; V. MaaG, Jahwäs Heer-
scharen, Schweizerische Theologische Um-
schau 20 (1950) 27-52 - IDEM, Kultur,
Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesammelte
Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestament-
lichen Religionsgeschichte (ed. H. H. Sch-
mid & O. H. Steck; Góttingen 1980) 1-28;
*T. N. D. METTINGER, YHWH SABAOTH
- The Heavenly King on the Cherubim
Throne, Studies in the Period of David and
Solomon and Other Essays (ed. T. Ishida;
Tokyo/Winona Lake 1982) 109-138 =
1982a; METTINGER, The Dethronement of
Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod
Theologies (ConB OT Series 18; Lund
1982) = 1982b; METTINGER, In Search of
God. The Meaning and Message of the
Everlasting Names (Philadelphia 1988) 123-
157; S. OrLorssoN, God is My Rock. A
Study of Translation Technique and Theolo-
gical Exegesis in the Septuagint (ConB OT
Seres 31; Uppsala 1990) 119-126; J. F.
Ross, Jahweh séba'ót in Samuel and
Psalms, VT 17 (1967) 76-92; R. SCHMITT,
Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher
Wissenschaft (Gütersloh 1972) 145-159; C.
L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of
David’s Dance (HSM 44; Atlanta 1989) 11-
54; B. N. WAMBACQ, L'épithéte divine Jahvé
séba’ét (Paris/Bruges 1947); A. S. VAN DER
WOoUDE, N2X sába Heer, THAT 2 (1976)
498-507; H.-J. Zoper, MINDS séba’dt,
TWAT 6 (1989) 876-892 [& lit].
T. N. D. METTINGER
924
YAM — YEHUD
YAM ^ SEA
YA'ÜQ
I. A deity Ya'üq was worshipped by
pre-Islamic Arabs. The personal names
Ya‘Gqan (Num 33:31.32; Deut 10:6; 1 Chr
1:42) and 'dqàn (Gen 36:27) have been
interpreted as containing a reference to an
animal deity worshipped by the Edomites
(ROBERSTON SMITH 1912:455-483).
II. Islamic traditions refer to the cult of
a deity Ya'íig among the pre-islamic tribe of
the Hamdan. In the Yemenite village
Haiwan (North of San‘a), there was a cult-
centre. The Qur’an Sure 71:20-25 and Ibn
al-Kalbi’s Book of Idols (KLINKE-ROSEN-
BERGER 1942:35, 61) interpret the deity as
one of the idols of the contemporaries of
->Noah. The meaning of the name of this
deity could be derived from Arab ‘aga as
‘he hinders’, which indicates that Ya'áq was
probably the nick-name or an epithet of an
otherwise unknown deity (M. HÓFNER
WbMyth 1/1 479).
III. In. the Old Testament Jaaqan, and
Aqan are considered only as human beings.
The general theory behind the proposal—
animal-like personal names contain a remi-
niscence of animal or totemic worship—has
encountered serious criticism. Besides, the
tradition in Gen 36 links Aqan with the Hur-
rites. The names most probably do not refer
to an Edomite or Arabian deity (BARTLETT
1989:196).
IV. Bibliography
J. R. BaRrLETIT, Edom and the Edomites
(JSOT Sup! 77; Sheffield 1989); R. KLINKE-
ROSENBERGER, Das Gétzenbuch (Winterthur
1942); W. ROBERTSON SMiTH, Lectures and
Essays (London 1912).
B. BECKING
YARIKH — MOON
YEHUD *YT
I. The name Judah, yéhidd, occurs over
800 times in the OT and indicates (1) a per-
son, e.g. the fourth son of —Jacob; (2) the
tribe Judah; (3) the kingdom governed by
the dynasty of David; (4) a province in the
Persian empire. The etymology of the name
is still unsettled. The name has been con-
strued as containing a theophoric element:
c.g. J. HEMPEL (BHH Il, 898) interprets the
name as a hypocoristicon of yeüd-'él,
‘Praised be ~EI’. A. ALT (Der Gott der
Väter, KS I [München 1953] 5 n.1) sug-
gested that Judah originally was a place
name. The general tendency in OT studies,
however, is to interpret Judah as originally a
territorial or regional name which was later
used as a name for the eponymous ancestor
of the tribe living in that area (ZOBEL 1976-
80:514-517; AHLSTRÖM 1986; DE GEUS
1992:1034). This tendency leaves undecided
the problem from which root the name was
derived. The OT itself suggests a derivation
from YDH, 'to praise' (Gen 29:45; 49:8). E.
Lipinskt (VT 23 [1973] 380-381) surmised a
qatil-form connected with the Arab noun
wahda, ‘canyon’. A. R. MILLARD (The
Meaning of the Name Judah, ZAW 86
[1974] 216-218) proposed to construe the
name as a Hoph of YHD ‘to praise’. Such
proposals are hypothetical, though (ZOBEL
1976-80:516). NYBERG (1935) considered
Judah to contain the name of a deity Yhwd.
II. NyBerG (1935) interpreted the name
Judah on the basis of the view that the
ending -d in place names is an indication
that the city under consideration is a centre
of worship from time immemorial: e.g.
ba'álá, 'Baalah', Josh 15:9, ‘settlement of
->Baal worshippers’; rimménda, 'Rimmonah',
Josh 19:12, ‘settlement of Rimmon wor-
shippers’. Judah then would mean ‘settle-
ment of Yehud worshippers’. This interpre-
tation of the ending d has not been taken
over by other scholars. NyBERG's main
argument for the existence of the divine
name Yhwd is that it can be compared with
names as Abihud, Ahihud and Ammihud
(1935). These names, however, have their
first part as a theophoric element (-*Father;
- Brother; -Kinsman) construed with the
element hid, ‘highness; pomp; splendour’
(Nor, [PN 76-78, 148; HALAT 231).
Apart from the eponymous ancestor
Judah, the personal name seems to occur
925
YIDDE‘ONI — YOM
only in postexilic texts. In Ezra and Neh the | H. J. ZoBEL, Jehüdàh, TWAT 3 (1976-80)
name is born by six different persons. | 511-533.
Neither in the OT nor in later Jewish writ-
ings is Judah, the fourth son of Jacob cast in
the role of a heroic figure.
Ill. Bibliography YIDDE'ONI ^ WIZARD
G. W. AHLSTRÓM, Who were the Israelites?
(Winona Lake 1986) 42-43; C. H. J. pE | YIZHAR - OIL
Geus, Judah (Place), ABD 3 (1992) 1033-
1035; H. S. NYBERG, Studien zum Hosea- | YOM ^ DAY
buche (UUÀ 1935,6; Uppsala 1935) 76-78;
B. BECKING
926
ZAMZUMMIM Cii
I. Deut 2:20 presents the Zamzummites,
zamzummím, as the Ammonite designation
of the former inhabitants of the Ammonite
area. Since the Zamzummites are interpreted
as a tribe of the ~Rephaim related to the
Enakites (Giants), it can be assumed that
the Zamzummites are enfeebled spirits of
the dead (Pore 1981:170; HÜBNER 1992:
163-164). Their name is etymologically con-
nected to ZMM, ‘to contrive evil’ (HALAT
262; HÜBNER 1992:212).
II. Unlike the Rephaim, the Zamzum-
mites are not mentioned in texts outside the
OT. The only information concerning their
character can be inferred from the etymol-
ogy of their name which might indicate that
they were evil spirits. HÜBNER compares
them to -*Og, the —Molekh of —Bashan
and interprets the Zamzummites as original-
ly underworld spirits (1992:163-164).
In Deut 2:20-23, it is related that
— Yahweh had driven out the Zamzummites
in order to give their territory to the Am-
monites as a parallel to the way He will give
the territory of the Canaanites to the Israel-
ites. Most probably, this notice—being
drenched in deuteronomistic ideology—does
not contain historically trustworthy infor-
mation. The author has reshaped ancient
religious traditions on the Zamzummites.
In 1QGenAp 21:29, the zuzim, ‘Zuzites’,
a Canaanite tribe mentioned in Gen 14:5,
are indicated as zmwzny. Originally the
author of IQGenAp wrote zmwzgny, but
later a mém was added above the line to
give *ziimzammayé. Probably, the author of
1QGenAp could not identify the Zuzites and
equated them with the Zamzummites of
Deut 2:20.
III. Bibliography
U. HüBNER, Die Ammoniter (ADPV 16;
Wiesbaden 1992) 163-164, 212, 244; M.
Pore, The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit,
Ugarit in Retrospect (G. D. Young, ed.;
Winona Lake 1981) 159-179.
B. BECKING
ZAPHON [zs
|. In the Northwest-Semitic languages,
Zaphon is first attested in Ugaritic texts as a
designation for Jebel al-Aqra* to the north of
Ugarit. In the OT, Zaphon occurs in a gen-
eral sense meaning 'north (-wind)' and in a
special sense designating a divine mountain.
In this latter sense Zaphon is used as a syn-
onym for mount Zion (Ps 48:3). Etymologi-
cally, Zaphon can be derived from sdpd ‘to
spy’ (EISSFELDT 1932; BONNET 1987). Less
likely are derivations from sd@pan ‘to hide’
(DE SAVIGNAC) or from stip ‘to float’
(LiPINSKI 1987-89).
II. 40 km to the north of Ugarit, Jebel
al-Aqra‘ rises to the height of about 1770
meters. The identification of Jebel al-Aqra'
with mount Zaphon in the Ugaritic texts,
first proposed by EISSFELDT (1932), is
unanimously accepted. Its peak being often
shrouded with clouds, Mount Zaphon was
regarded as a holy mountain in the mytholo-
gical and ritual texts of Ugarit.
This holiness of Mount Zaphon is not an
invention of Ugaritic mythology. In the
earlier Hurrian and Hittite traditions of
North-Syria, the mountains Hazzi (Zaphon)
and Namni/Nanni (Amanus?) are mentioned
in parallelism (RGTC 6 [1978] 106-107).
Mount Hazzi is already venerated as a di-
vine abode and also figures as a guarantor of
Hittite treaties (RGTC 6 [1978] 106) and
there are traces of a Hittite ritual adressed to
mount Hazzi (CTH 785; AOATS 3 [1974]
260-263; RGTC 6 [1978] 106). In relief 42
of Yazilikaya, Hazzi and Nanni serve as a
podest for the weathergod of heavens. This
927
ZAPHON
motif can also be found on sea] impressions
(VANEL 1965: nos. 34; 35; 52; 57; DUKSTRA
1991: pl. 13).
In the god lists of Ugarit, Zaphon is
regarded as a deity (KTU 1.47:15 [rest.];
1.118:14; RS 20.24:14 [Ug 5, 1968, 44-45,
379]) and thus entitled to receive offerings,
as the ritual texts show (KTU 1.27:11;
1.41:24 [rest.].34.42; 1.46:4.7.15 [rest.];
1.87:27.37.46; 1.91:3; 1.105:7.10; 1.109:10.
34; 1.130:23.25; 1.148:6.29; RIH 78/4:6
[Syr 57 (1980) 353-354.370]; 78/11:8 [Syr
57 (1980) 354-355.370)).
The god list KTU 1.47:] begins with 7
spn. This does not mean ‘divine Zaphon’ as
in KTU 1.3 11:29; 1v:19; 1.101:2), but is to
be understood as ‘gods of Zaphon’
(LipiNsk1 1971; BONNET 1987). It is also an
indication that Mount Zaphon had become
the place for the assembly of the gods who
had, according to the older tradition,
assembled on Els divine mountain. This
new role of >Olympus taken over by mount
Zaphon (cf. also KTU 1.4 vii:5-6) is further
stressed by dbh spn ‘offering (for the gods)
of Zaphon’ (KTU 1.91:3; 1.148:1).
In the Ugaritic mythological tradition,
Mount Zaphon receives its holiness from
Baal's palace built on its peak (KTU 1.3-4).
Nearly always in the mythological texts
Mount Zaphon is mentioned together with
Baal because mount Zaphon is his divine
abode (KTU 1.3 1:21-22; 111:29.47-iv:1; iv:
19-20.37-38; 1.4 1v:19; v:23.55; 1.5 1:10-11;
1.6 vi:12-13; 1.10 1127-37), a fact already
known from ritual (KTU 1.100:9) and relig-
ious (KTU 1.101:1-3) texts. From Mount
Zaphon, Baal brings rain to the land of
Ugart (KTU 1.101:1-9). After his death,
Baal was buried on mount Zaphon (KTU 1.6
1:115-18). The god Ashtar who tries to oc-
cupy Baal’s throne on Zaphon after his
death is not the right person to take Baal's
place (KTU 1.6 1:56-67). Also Anat, Baal’s
paredra in the Ugaritic mythological tra-
dition, is intimately linked to Mount Zaphon
as it is shown by her epithet ‘nt spn ‘Anat
from Zaphon’. This epithet, comparable to
the divine name -*Baal-Zaphon, occurs only
in ritual texts (KTU 1.46:17; 1.109:13-14.17.
36; 1.130:13). In mythological texts Zaphon
is qualified as Baal's mountain (KTU 1.3 iii:
29; iv:19 [rest.]; 1.16 1:6-7; 11:45; cf. 1.101:
2) his sanctuary (KTU 1.3 11:30; iv:20
[rest.]); the mountain of Baal's heritage
(KTU 1.3 11:30; iv:20 [rest.]); a place of
loveliness (KTU 1.3 iii:31; 1.10 11:31); a hill
of triumph (KTU 1.3 11:31; 1.10 111:28.31,
cf. 1.101:3) and a bastion (KTU 1.16 i:7-8;
11:45-46).
The above-mentioned conception of
Mount Zaphon as a deity is also indicated in
the mythological traditon of Ugarit. In meta-
phorical language, mount Zaphon bewails
the death of king Keret (KTU 1.16 1:6-11;
i1:44-49). Zaphon can also be named instead
of Baal because in the hands of Zaphon (=
Baal) are victory and triumph (KTU 1.19
11:34-36). Other mythological texts qualify
Zaphon as a divine mountain (KTU 1.3 iii:
29; iv:19; cf. 1.101:2).
In the first millennium, Zaphon appears
as a toponym in Neo-Assyrian texts (S
PaARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms [AOAT
6; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970] 304) and also in
a hieroglyphic Ptolemaic name-list, where
Zaphon means 'Syria' parallel to Phoenicia
(M. Gónc, BN 23 [1984] 14-17). In the
Phoenician tradition, Zaphon is mentioned
by Philo Byblios under its name Kassion,
derived from Hurrian Hazzi (Eusebius,
Praep.Ev. 1 10, 9, 11), as a divine mountain.
Furthermore Zaphon is a theophoric element
in the Punic onomasticon of Carthage and in
the Phoenician onomasticon of Egypt.
The aspect of the divine abode has also
been preserved in the Aramaic tradition. In
papyrus Amherst, a god is asked to bring
help from Zaphon (Pap. Amherst 63:12, 13
[ed. I. KorrsrePER (UBL 6; Münster 1988)
55-75]). Zaphon stands here for the divine
abode par excellence and it is not confined
to Jebel al-Aqra'. This is shown by its paral-
lel to the cave of Araá (less likely Ras en-
Naqura in southern Lebanon [RB 78 (1971)
84-92]: to be preferred is a place in Meso-
potamia [JAOS 111 (1991) 362-363]. In
8:3 and 13:15-16 papyrus Amherst mentions
Zaphon together with Baal.
In Greek texts, Zaphon lives on as
928
ZEDEQ
— Typhon, who is now a dragon defeated by
the weather-god (Apollodor I 6,3). Cultic
activity on mount Zaphon in honour of
Zeus Kasios is attested until the time of
Julian Apostata in 363 CE.
III. In the OT, Zaphon can also designate
a divine abode. The king of Babylon wanted
to sit "on the mountain of assembly on the
summit of Zaphon" (Isa 14:13). In this con-
text, Zaphon stands for the divige mountain
par excellence, wherever it is located. Ac-
cording to Ps 89:13, Zaphon and Amanus
(?), the ancient Hurrian-Hittite pair of divine
mountains, is said to have been created by
Yahweh. The case is different in Ps 48:3
where “mount Zion is (on) the summit of
Zaphon". Jerusalem's sacred mountain is
called Zaphon because Yahweh, as supreme
god of Israel, can only be enthroned on the
divine mountain par excellence. This aspect
also underlies Job 26:7 where Zaphon stands
for ‘heaven’, meaning Yahweh’s divine
abode. Comparable is Job 37:22 with the
description of Yahweh’s epiphany from
Zaphon (cf. Ezek 1:4).
IV. Bibliography
M. C. ASTOUR, RSP 2, 318-324 no. 89; *C.
BONNET, Typhon et Baal Saphon, Studia
Phoenicia 5 (OLA 22; Leuven 1987) 101-
143; R. J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain
in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4;
Cambridge, Mass. 1972) 57-79, 131-160; A.
Cooper & M. H. Pore, RSP 3, 410-413 no.
25; M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Ugaritisch
srt spn, srry und Hebraisch jrktj spwn, UF
22 (1990) 79-88; M. DuksrRA, The
Weather-God on Two Mountains, UF 23
(1991) 127-140; J. EBACH, Weltentstehung
und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos
(BWANT 108; Stuttgart 1979) 144-148; J.
EBACH, Kasion, LdA 3 (1980) 354; O. Eiss-
FELDT, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der
Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer (BRA
1; Halle 1932); W. FaAurH, Das Kasion-
Gebirge und Zeus Kasios, UF 22 (1990)
105-118; H. GrsE, RAAM 123-128; C.
GRAVE, The Etymology of Northwest Sem-
itic sapanu, UF 12 (1980) 221-229; V.
Haas, Hethitische Berggótter und hurriti-
sche Steinddmonen (Mainz 1982) 115-124;
R. HILLMANN, Wasser und Berg (diss. Halle
1965) 10-21, 24-30, 66-75, 158-194; A.
LAUHA, Zaphon. Der Norden und die
Nordvélker im Alten Testament (AASFB 49;
Helsinki 1943); K. KocH, Hazzi-Safón-
Kasion, Die Geschichte eines Berges und
seiner Gottheiten, Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsy-
rien und dem Alten Testament (eds. B.
Janowski, K. Koch & G. Wilhelm; OBO
129; Fribourg-Góttingen 1993) 171-223; E.
LIPINSKI, El’s Abode, OLP 2 (1971) 13-68;
LIPIŃSKI, şåpōn, TWAT 6 (1987-89) 1093-
1102; E. LIPIŃSKI & C. BoNNET, Diction-
naire de la Civilisation Phénicienne et Puni-
que (Turnhout 1992) 477; H. NIER, Der
höchste Gott (BZAW 190; Berlin 1990) 95-
117; H. PRIEBATSCH, Wanderungen und
Wandelungen einer Sage, UF 16 (1984)
257-266, W. ROLLIG, Hazzi, RLA 4 (1972-
1975) 241-242; R. J. DE SAVIGNAC, Note sur
le sens du terme Sáphón dans quelques pas-
sages de la Bible, VT 3 (1953) 95-96; DE
SAVIGNAC, Le sens du terme
Sáphón, UF 16 (1984) 273-278; W. H.
SCHMIDT, THAT 2 (1976) 575-582; C.
STEUERNAGEL & O. KEES, Kasion 2, PW 10
(1919) 2263-2264; E. von SCHULER, Hazzi,
WbMyth | (19832) 171-172; A. VANEL,
L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage (CRB 3;
Paris 1965); N. Wyatt, The Significance of
SPN in West Semitic Thought, Ugarit: Ein
ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten
Orient [ALASP 7; ed. M. Dietrich & O.
Loretz; Münster 1995] 213-237.
H. NIEHR
ZEDEQ PTX
I. The West Semitic deity Zedek,
‘Righteousness’, is found in the Bible only
in the personal names Melchizedek (Gen
14:18; cf. Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6; 6:20-7:17) and
Adonizedek (Josh 10:1.3), both Canaanite
kings of pre-Israelite Jerusalem. Zedek is
probably to be identified with the deity
known as JSar among the Amorites and
Kittu in Babylonia, and thus a hypostasis or
personification of the sun god Shamash’s
function (~Shemesh) as divine overseer of
929
ZEDEQ
justice. The cult of Zedek appears to have
been well established in pre-Israelite (Jebus-
ite) Jerusalem. Some aspects of this cult
apparently were translated into Yahwism; in
a number of texts Righteousness appears
either as a member of -Yahweh’s court or
as a personification of Yahweh's concern for
justice. In the postbiblical period, the
Righteousness tradition helped shape the
thinking of the apocalyptic community of
Qumran.
II. Evidence for the West Semitic deity
Zedek is mostly indirect but nonetheless
compelling. Most decisive is a statement by
Philo of Byblos that the Phoenicians had a
god named Sydyk, i.e. Zedek. Philo, who
claimed to get his information from the
Phoenician writer Sanchuniaton, noted that
the Phoenicians numbered among their gods
“Misor and Sydyk, that is, ‘Easy to loosen’
and Righteous (Misór kai Sydyk, toutestin
eulyton kai dikaion); they invented the use
of salt" (quoted by Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evangelica i.10.13; instead of Sydyk, some
manuscripts have Sydek or Sedek); the ren-
dering etAvtog for Misor is apparently
based on an erroneous etymology, deriving
the name from the root 5RH ‘loosen, release’.
The interpretation of Sydyk as an adjective
rather than a substantive should be under-
stood in the light of Philo’s euhemerism.
Philo goes on to say that Misor fathered
Taautos:(known to the Egyptians as Thoth
and to the Greeks as -*Hermes), the inven-
tor of writing, and that from Sydyk came
various lesser divinities or heroes, namely,
the Dioscouri (—Dioskouroi) the Cabeiri,
the Corybantes, and the Samothracians.
Patently, 'Misór' and 'Sydyk' correspond to
Heb mísór, ‘justice’, and sedeq, 'righteous-
ness’. Zedek is not directly attested else-
where as the name of a deity, but indirect
evidence comes from two sources: the Amor-
ite and Babylonian pantheons, and West
Semitic personal names.
The West Semitic god Zedek seemingly
corresponds to the deity known as Kittu in
the Babylonian pantheon and as [Sar in the
Amorite pantheon. In Mesopotamia the pres-
ervation of truth and justice was considered
to be the particular domain of the sun god
Shamash. Truth or Right was personified
and deified as the god Kittu ('Truth',
‘Right’; from Akk root kánu, cf. Heb root
KWN). Kittu was often invoked together
with the god Misharu (‘Justice’) (see CAD
K 471 s.v. kittu A 1b4; M/2 118 s.v. misaru
A 2d; cf. Heb root vsR). One or both of
these deities were described as ‘seated be-
fore Shamash’, i.e. Shamash’s attendant, or
as ‘the minister of (Shamash’s) right hand’.
While Misharu was always considered a
male deity, Kittu was identified sometimes
as the daughter of Shamash, sometimes as
the son of Shamash. Meanwhile, at Mari
offerings were made to the divine pair 9/Sar
u IMegar (ARM 24.210.24-25; cf. 263.5-6
where these same gods are listed separately
but contiguously; see P. TALON, Un nou-
veau pantheon de Mari, Akkadica 20 [1980]
12-17). As a theophoric element Isar is com-
mon in both Akk and Amorite personal
names (HurrwoN 1965:216). From the
interchangeability of the names Kittu, [Sar,
and Sidqu/Zedek in the pairing with
MiSar(u), it appears that the deity known as
Kittu in Babylonia was known further to the
West under the names [Sar and Sidqu/
Zedek—all three names having essentially
the same meaning but operative in different
linguistic communities. Additional support
for the identification of Sidqu and Kittu
comes from the Amonite royal name Ammi-
saduqa, which was translated in the Babylon-
ian King List as Kimtum-kittum, showing
an equivalence between the West Semitic
root SDQ and Akk kittu (cf. BAUMGARTEN
1979:235).
The god Zedek is attested frequently in
personal names. Admittedly, in numerous
West Semitic personal names the root SDQ
should be interpreted not as the name of a
deity but, similar to biblical Yahwistic per-
sonal names, as a nominal formation (e.g.
Zedekiah ‘My righteousness is Yahweh’) or
as a verbal formation (e.g. Jehozadak/
Jozadak, ‘Yahweh is righteous’). This is the
presumption with Israelite personal names,
whether from the Bible or from Heb inscrip-
tions (TicAv 1986), despite the ambiguity of
930
ZEDEQ
a name like */sdq which may be interpreted
either as ‘God/El/my god is righteous’ or as
‘God/EV/my god is Zedek’. In non-Israelite
contexts, however, the situation is less clear.
West Semitic personal names containing the
root SDQ are attested at many sites, includ-
ing El Amarna, Ugarit, Rimah, and Mari
(HurrMoN 1965; F. GRONDAHL, Die Per-
sonennamen der Texte aus Ugarit [Rome
1967] 187-188; S. DaLLey, C.. B. F.
WALKER & J. D. Hawkins, The Old Baby-
lonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah [British
School of Archaeology in Iraq; 1976] 262);
the greatest concentration of such personal
names occurs in texts from the Old Babylon-
ian kingdom of Mari. Two forms are at-
tested in syllabic cuneiform writing: sidq-
and saduq (besides the personal names listed
by HurrFMON 1965, additional names are
now attested from Mari: Sidqum-masi,
Sidqu-Istar, Sidqum-matar, Sidqgiya, Abi-
saduq, Bahli-saduq, Saduqi-AN; and from
nearby provincial Tell al Rimah [Karana]:
Saduq-4A8ar, Saduqgi). Although personal
names are notoriously difficult to interpret,
in some cases SDQ appears to be verbal or
nominal: Sidqu-Istar (‘Righteousness-is-
Ishtar’ or ‘Ishtar-is-righteous’), Sidqu-la-nasi
(‘Righteousness belongs to the prince’),
Bahli-saduq (‘Ba‘lu/Baal-is-righteous’; cf.
Ug "isdqQ, Hammi-sadug ('Hammu-is-
righteous’), Saduq-dAsar ('Aàar-is-right-
eous’; Rimah) But in other cases, based
upon comparative onomastic evidence, it is
difficult to avoid interpreting SDQ as a
theophoric element: Sidgi-epuh (‘Sidqu-is-
brilliant’), Sidqum-matar (‘Sidqum-is-out-
standing’), Ili-Sidqum/Sidgi (‘My god-is-
Sidqu’); so also for Ug Pi-Sidgi (‘Mouth/
Command of Sidqu' and Amama Rabi-
Sidqi ('Sidqu-is-great', EA 170:37). More
ambiguous are the personal names lh
sidqum/sidqi, Ili-sadug, and Saduqi-AN (cf.
Ugaritic alphabetic names ilsdg and sdqil).
On the one hand, Ili-saduq and Sadugi-AN
perhaps mean ‘El/My _ god-is-righteous’
(against M. Popre, El in the Ugaritic Texts
[Leiden 1955] 22, who interprets Ug sdgil
as ‘Zedek is [my?] god’). On the other hand,
to judge from comparative evidence, Ili-
Sidqum/sidqi almost certainly means ‘My
god-is-Sidqu'. Even the hypocoristic per-
sonal names Sidqan(a) and Sidqiya are prob-
ably theophornc. Ug adnsdq ('Sidqu-is-
[my?]-lord') and Amarna Rabi-sidqi ('Sidqu
is great; EA 170.37) witness to the con-
tinung devotion to Zedek in the West
through the end of the Late Bronze period.
Some scholars regard sadug as a theo-
phoric element (HUFFMON 1965:257), while
other posit sadoq as an alternative for Sidqu
or Sedeqg, primarily on the translation of
Ammi-saduqa in the Babylonian King List
as Kimtum-kittum (BAUMGARTEN 1979:235,
following J. Levy, The Old West-Semitic
Sun-God Hammu, HUCA 18 [1944] 435). In
the cases of Bahli-saduq, (H)ammi-saduq(a),
and Saduq-aSar, however, saduq is likely
only a divine epithet. By extension, the
hypocoristic personal names Saduqum,
Saduqqi, Saduqan(a) Saduqum (cf. Heb
Zadok) also need not have reference to the
cult of Zedek, though such is not excluded
either.
III. In the Bible the god Zedek appears
only in the personal names of two Canaanite
kings of Jerusalem, Melchizedek (Gen 14:
18) and Adonizedek (Josh 10:1.3), fueling
speculation that Jerusalem was a cult centre
for Zedek in pre-Israelite times. Melchi-
zedek is identified not only as ‘king of
Salem’ but also as ‘priest of God Most
High’ (él ‘elyén, Gen 14:18), today usually
understood to mean that Melchizedek was a
devotee of the god El, head of the Canaanite
pantheon. Others argue, however, that
Melchizedek was priest of the god Zedek
(see RowLEYv 1939:130, n. 50 for details).
One hypothesis suggests that Zedek is to be
identified with the god -*Shalem, whose
name is embodied in Jerusalem (H.
WINCKLER, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament {Berlin 31903] 224; cf. ROWLEY
1939:130-131, n. 50). Support for this hy-
pothesis may come from the Ugaritic per-
sonal name sdqgslm, should this name mean
‘Zedek-is-Shalem’ rather than the more
probable ‘Shalem is righteous’. Shalem cer-
tainly has connections with a solar cult,
aspects of which may have been incorpora-
931
ZEDEQ
ted into Israelite yahwistic religion. A long-
standing cult of Zedek at Jerusalem could
account at least partially for the fact that
even during the Israelite period Jerusalem
laid special claim to such ules as ‘the city
of Righteousness’ (Isa 1:21, 26) and ‘pasture
of Righteousness’ (Jer 31:23; cf. 33:16).
Although evidence of a solar cult in the
temple in Jerusalem has been exaggerated in
the past by some scholars, nevertheless
some form of a solar cult was practised in
the temple in Jerusalem right up to the time
when the temple was destroyed in the sixth
century BCE (Ezek 8:16). It is unclear that
this solar cult 1s traceable back to Jebusite
times, however; it may be that Manasseh
introduced this ritual only a century earlier
under Assyrian influence. Josiah’s reforms
ca. 620 BCE, during which “the horses that
the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun,
at the entrance to the house of the Lorp”
were removed and “the chariots of the sun”
burned (2 Kgs 23:11; cf. Deut 4:19), were in
part aimed at destroying the symbols of
Assyrian hegemony over Judah.
Some have hypothesized that Zadok had
been a priest in the Jebusite sanctuary at
Jerusalem prior to his appointment by David
as one of his two principal priests and that
Zadok’s name indicates an original con-
nection with the cult of Zedek (see ROWLEY
1939). This hypothesis rests upon extremely
tenuous evidence, as the discussion above
concerning extrabiblical personal names
indicates.
Aspects of the West Semitic god Zedek
were absorbed into Yahwism (see May
1937 and ROSENBERG 1965). Rather than
remaining as an independent deity, Sedeq,
‘Righteousness’, was translated as a quality
of Yahweh. Thus, at times Sedeq and
Yahweh are found in synonymous paral-
lelism: “Harken to me, you who pursue
Righteousness, you who seek Yahweh” (Isa
51:1); “They will be called the oaks of
Righteousness, the planting of Yahweh” (Isa
61:3); “Sacrifice sacrifices of Righteousness
and trust in Yahweh” (Ps 4:6). At other
times Righteousness seems to be used as
part of a compound name, "Yahweh-Right-
. Shamash
eousness" (Ps 17:1) or as substitute. for
Yahweh ("For unto Righteousness will judg-
ment return"; Ps 94:15). In some instances
Righteousness appears as a hypostasis of the
divine sovereign's invincible right hand/arm
by which he rules the world and protects his
devotees: “Righteousness fills thy (Yahweh’s)
right hand” (Ps 48:11); “I (Yahweh) will
support you with my right hand of Right-
eousness” Isa 41:10); “My (Yahweh’s)
Righteousness is near, my salvation has
gone forth, and my arms will rule the
peoples” (Isa 51:5). In Psalm 118 the two
typologies are joined; after a reference to
vindication through the “right hand of
Yahweh” (vv 15-16), the psalmist prays (vv
19-20): “Open for me the gates of Right-
eousness; | will enter them, praising Yah.”
This is the gate to Yahweh, through which
the righteous enter. Poetic parallelism here
allows no doubt that the “gates of Right-
eousness” is the semantic equivalent of “the
gate to Yahweh”; Yahweh is Zedek, the de-
fender of righteous persons. Jer 33:16 also
played upon this theme, declaring that in the
endtime Jerusalem will be known by the
name 'Yahweh-is-our-Righteousness'.
The original function of Righteousness as
an aspect of the solar deity, wbo searches
out and destroys injustice upon the face of
the earth but vindicates the righteous, is
only slightly veiled in Mal 3:19-20. The
image concerns the dawning of the day of
Yahweh, when the intense sun will consume
the wicked like stubble, while for those who
revere God "the sun of Righteousness
(sédáqd) shall rise with healing in its
wings." Vestigial images of a solar deity of
righteousness have been suggested also for
Mic 7:9; Isa 45:8, 19; and Hos 10:12.
Zedek and Mi8or as attendant deities of
also have their reflexes in
Yahwism as dual qualities of the God of
Israel. Isa 11:4 says that the Spirit of
Yahweh will possess the messianic king,
with the result that “he will judge the weak
with Righteousness, he will defend the poor
of the earth with Justice” (cf. Ps 45:7-8).
Other passages substitute the plural méSarim
for misér as the parallel word to Sedeq, but
932
ZEDEQ
the concept is the same: “He judges the
world with Righteousness; he judges the
peoples with Justice" (Ps 9:9). Ps 58:2 con-
trasts the righteous rule of Yahweh with the
chaotic rule of the false gods: “Do you truly,
O gods, speak Righteousness; do you judge
humans (with) Justice?” In Ps 98:9 even the
normally rebellious waters of chaos ac-
knowledge the kingship of Yahweh: “He
will judge the world with Righteousness,
and the peoples with Justice.” In Isa 45:19
Yahwch derides the gods of other nations
and proclaims that he alone is capable of
salvation: “I am Yahweh who declares
Righteousness, who announces Justice.”
The reflex of Zedek as one of a pair of
attendant deities is present in other passages
as well. In Pss 89:15 and 97:7 Zedek and
miipát—thc latter an. equivalent term for
miiór—are said to be the foundation of
Yahweh's throne. According to Isa 1:21
Zedek and misfpadt made Jerusalem their
home (cf. also Isa 1:26). Ps 85:11-14 embel-
lishes to its fullest the theme of attendant
deities, understood very likely as personi-
fications of Yahweh's qualities: “Steadfast
Love and Faithfulness meet; Righteousness
and Peace kiss; Truth springs up from the
carth; and Righteousness looks down from
the sky. Righteousness goes before him,
blazing a path.”
IV. The personification of Righteousness
continued to develop along several lines in
post-biblical Jewish literature (see BAUM-
GARTEN 1979); here mention can be made
only of the particular personification of
Righteousness in the apocalyptic literature
of Qumran. According to the War Scroll,
Zedek is a heavenly figure closely asso-
ciated with -Michael in the struggle to
overthrow the kingdom of wickedness;
when the victory is finally achieved, God
“will exalt the kingdom of Michael in the
midst of the gods,” while “Righteousness
shall rejoice on high” (IQM 17:7-8). More-
over, the solar (or astral) connotations of
Zedek were emphasized within the dualistic
mythopocic imagery of a battle between the
forces of light and the forces of darkness.
Righteousness is described in the imagery of
the sun (alternatively, a moming star), at
whose appearance darkness and wickedness
retreat (e.g. 1QM 1:8; IQMyst 5-6). Right-
eousness and light thus became symbols of
theophany.
Melchizedck, too, acquired a new escha-
tological role. In 11QMelch Melchizedek is
a heavenly figure—the archangel Michael in
a different guise, according to the majority
of scholars—one of two supreme figures
created by God to overthrow -*Belial and
his wicked followers. Melchizedek will be
assisted in this task by all gods of righteous-
ness, a topos derived from a sectarian read-
ing of Psalm 82 (AsTOUR 1992).
Members of the Qumran community at-
tached particular significance to dawn as a
time of prayer, and commonly referred to
themselves as ‘sons of Righteousness’ (béné
gedeq) and ‘sons of light’ (béné ’6r), Per-
haps the preference of the Qumran Zadokite
priesthood for béné Sadoq as an epithet re-
flected not so much a claim of superior
pedigree as a commitment to specific ideals.
Finally, the title of the enigmatic hero of the
Qumran sect, ‘the Teacher of Rightcous-
ness! (móreh hagsgedeq), took on added
meaning in light of the sect’s dedication to
personified Righteousness as a hypostasis of
God. (See also ->Dike.)
V. Bibliography
M. C. Astour, Melchizedek (Person), ABD
4 (1992) 684-686; *J. M. BAUMGARTEN,
The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personi-
fication of Sedeq in Jewish Apocalyptic,
ANRW II] 19 (1979) 219-239; C. F.
Burney, The Book of Judges (London
1918; reprinted New York 1970) 41-43; R.
FRANKENA, Tākultu: De sacrale maaltijd in
het assyrische ritueel (Leiden 1954) 98,
104; H. B. HuFFMon, Amorite Personal
Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and
Lexical Study (Baltimore 1965) 256-257; H.
G. May, Some Aspects of Solar Worship at
Jerusalem, ZAW 55 (1937) 269-281; *R. A.
RosENBERG, The God Sedeq. HUCA 36
(1965) 161-171; H. H. RowLeEY, Zadok and
Nehushtan, JBL 58 (1939) 113-141; J. H.
TicAv, You Shall Have No Other Gods:
Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew
933
ZEH-SINAI] — ZEUS
Inscriptions (HSS 31; Atlanta 1986) 79, 84.
B. F. BATTO
ZEH-SINAI > HE-OF-THE-SINAI
ZEUS Zevc .
| Zeus is the main divinity of the
Greek pantheon. His name is of undisputed
Indo-European origin, connected with Lat
lu-piter, Rigveda Dyaus (pitar) etc., derived
from the root *diwu-, "day (as opposed to
night)" (Lat dies), "(clear) sky". He is ident-
ified with local weather gods of Asia Minor,
with great sky gods (Zeus Beelsémén,
—Baalshamem) as well as local Ba‘alim of
Syria and Palestine, and with the Egyptian
Amun/Ammon. In the Bible, he appears in 2
Macc 6:2 (the temple in Jerusalem and the
sanctuary of Garizim are rededicated to
Zeus) and in Acts 14:12-13 (the inhabitants
of Lystra in Lycaonia call Barnabas Zeus,
Pau] ^Hermes; the priest of Zeus prepares a
sacrifice to them).
II. Zeus is the only major god of the
Greek pantheon whose IE ongin is undis-
puted. The Homeric and later epithet patër
is closely paralleled by Roman /u-piter and
Indian Dyaus pitar: his role as father must
be already IE, not in a theogonical or
anthropogonical sense (regardless of the fre-
quent epic formula "Zeus, father of men and
gods”), but as the Homeric variant Zeus
anax, "Lord Zeus", proves, as having the
power of a father in a patriarchal system.
This role, which implies unrestricted power
as well as its control by father-hke benig-
nity, continues as the fundamental role of
Zeus in all antiquity and finds expression
also in the standard iconography of a
bearded but powerful man (SIMON 1985:14-
34; ARAFAT 1990).
Accordingly, his cult is well attested in
the Linear B tablets from Pylos and Knossos
(GERARD-ROUSSEAU 1968:72-74; HILLER, in
ScHWABL 1978:1001-1009), Thebes and
Khania (HALLAGER 1992), though at least in
Pylos he seems to share his prestige with
Poseidon. The palaces of Pylos and Khania
had a sanctuary of Zeus; a Knossian tablet
attests a month name or, if already the
Mycenaean names of months derive from
festivals, a festival of Zeus; another one
derives from the epiclesis Diktaios, Zeus of
Mt. Dikte, which remained important in the
first millennium. A Pylos text attests the
common cult of Zeus, Hera, and Drimios
Son of Zeus: Drimios is unknown in the first
millennium (though a tablet from Khania
notes a common cult of Zeus and ~Dio-
nysos in the sanctuary of Zeus, and though a
triad of Zeus, Hera and Dionysos is attested
on Lesbos, Alcaeus frg. 129 L.-P., it would
be rash to identify Drimios with Dionysos),
but the connection of Zeus, Hera and a son
of Zeus suggests Hera as consort of Zeus, as
in later mythology.
The role of Zeus, the IE god of the bright
sky, is transformed in Greece into the role
of Zeus the weather god whose paramount
place of worship is a mountain top; such a
cult-place is specific to Zeus (see Herodotus
1,131,1). Among the many mountains con-
nected with Zeus (list: Cook 1926:868-987),
many are reflected only in an epithet which
does not necessarily imply the existence of a
peak sanctuary. Few such sanctuaries have
been excavated (e.g. on Mt. Hymettos in
Attica, LANGDON 1976); those attested in
literature are mainly connected with rain
rituals (Zeus Hyetios or Ombrios), though
the sanctuary on the Arcadian Mt. Lykaion
had an initiatory function as wel] (rain:
Pausanias 8,38,4; initiations BURKERT 1972:
97-108). As Zeus “the Gatherer of Clouds”
(nephelégeretés, a common Homeric epi-
thet), he was generally believed to cause
rain, both in serious expressions (“Zeus
rains”) and in the comic parody of Aristo-
phanes (Nub. 373). With the god of clouds
comes the god of thunder (hypsibremetés
“He Who Thunders High Up”) and of light-
ning (terpsikeraunos “He Who Enjoys
Lightning”); a spot struck by lightning is
inaccessible (abaton) and often sacred to
Zeus Kataibates ("He Who Comes Down").
As the Master of Tempest, he is supposed to
give signs to the mortals through thunder
and lightning and to strike evildoers, as he
struck the —Giants and the monstrous
934
ZEUS
?Typhon at the beginning of his reign.
This entire complex finds expression in
the myth that Zeus lives on Mt. Olympos,
together with all the gods of his household;
from a real mountain, ->Olympos was trans-
formed into a mythical place already before
Homeric poetry; the myth in tum provoked
cult on the mountain (Arch. Delt. 22 [1967]
6-14). As Master of Lightning, he has the
Cyclopes at his command, the divine black-
smiths who fabricate his main weapon.
The shift from Indo-European god of the
bright sky (according to the etymology) to
the Greek Master of Sky and Storms makes
Zeus a relative of the Weather Gods of
Anatolia and Syria with whom he later was
identified. This shift seems inconceivable
without Near Eastern influence which 1s also
tangible in the Hesiodic succession myth
(see below).
Already for the early archaic Greeks, and
conceivably the Mycenaeans (emphatically
sO KERENY] 1972:21-34), Zeus was a much
more fundamental deity. According to the
succession myth in the Hesiodic Theogony,
Zeus deposed his father Kronos, who in turn
had deposed and castrated his father Uranos;
after his accession to power, Zeus fought the
Giants and the monster Typhon who at-
tacked his reign, and disposed the actual
order of things by attributing to each divin-
ity his or her respective sphere: to his
brothers Poseidon and ~Hades-Pluton, he
allotted two thirds of the cosmos, to the one
the sea, to the other the netherworld; to his
sisters Hera, his wife, and ->Demeter, and to
his many divine children their respective
domains in the world of the humans; man-
kind had been preexistent to Zeus’ reign.
The main outline of this myth is known also
in Homer (Zeus is the son of Kronos,
Kronión or Kronidés, Rhea his mother 7l.
15,188, the —^ Titans are sons of Uranos, 7l.
5,898; the tripartite division of the world JL.
15,187; the deposition of Kronos and the
Titans Jl. 8,478. 14,200. 274. 15,225; the
fight against Typhoeus 7/. 2,780). The myth
makes Zeus the ruler ("King", anax or, after
Homer, basileus) both over the other gods
(whom he overrules by sheer force, if necess-
ary, e.g. /l. 8,18-27) and over the world of
man: the order of things as they are now is
the order of Zeus.
Closely related succession myths are
attested from Hittite Anatolia and from
Mesopotamia. In Hittite mythology, the suc-
cession passes through Anu, "Sky", who is
deposed and castrated by Kumarbi, and
finally to Teshub, the Storm God, who
would correspond to Zeus; other myths nar-
rate the attacks of Kumarbi and his fol-
lowers on Teshub's reign (HorFNER 1990).
Myths from Mesopotamia present a similar,
though more varied structure; the Babylon-
ian Enuma Elish moves from a primeval
pair Apsu and Tiamat to the reign of
Marduk, the city god of Babylon and in
many respects a Ba‘al and Zeuslike figure; a
later version of the Typhoeus myth (Apollo-
dorus, Bibl.1,6,3) locates part of it on Syrian
Mt. Kasion (Phoen. -Zaphon), seat of a
peak cult of —Ba'al Zaphon (Zeus Kasios,
ScHWABL 1972:320-321). The conception of
Zeus the kingly ruler of the present world is
as unthinkable without Oriental] influence as
is the figure of Zeus the Master of Storms.
But Zeus the king is no tyrant. One of his
main domains is nght and justice: he has
ordered the world, and any transgression of
this order is injustice, and Zeus watches
over it; if necessary, he punishes trans-
gressors (e.g. Salmoneus, who had made
himself into an image of Zeus). Human
kings are under his specia] protection, but
they have to endorse the justice of Zeus
(LLovp-JoNEs 1971; —Dike). Zeus himself
protects those outside ordinary social bonds,
i.e. the strangers, supplicants (Homer, Od.
9,296-298) and beggars (Od. 6,207-208; 14,
57-60); the cult attests Zeus Xenios, “He of
the Strangers” (SCHWABL 1972:341) and
Zeus Hikesios, "He of the Supplicants”
(ScHwaBL 1972:317-318). In order to pre-
serve the order he had set, he 1s himself sub-
ject to it; he has no right to change it out of
personal whim—therefore, he feels himself
liable to Fate (whom Homer can call "Fate
of Zeus”; BIANCHI 1953).
In many instances, human affairs follow
the plan of Zeus (the Trojan War, the return
935
ZEUS
of Odysseus), despite apparent setbacks. He
might hasten perfection, if asked in prayer
to do so (Zeus Telcios, "Hc who Perfects",
Aeschylus Ag. 973), and he might signal his
will, either asked for or unasked, in dreams,
augural signs, thunder and lightning (Homer
Il. 2,353. 3,242), but also by provoking
ominous human utterances (thunder and
utterance, phémé, combined in Hom. Od.
20,102-105). In cult, this function is ex-
pressed in rare epicleses like Phanter ("He
Who Signals”), Terastios (“He of the
Omina”), Phemios (“Who gives Oracular
Sayings”) or Kledonios.
In these cases, Zeus’ prophetic power is
occasional and subordinated to his main role
as guarantor of cosmic and social order. It
becomes central in the only Greek oracle of
Zeus, Dodona in Epirus (BOUCHE-LECLERCQ
2, 273-331; PARKE 1967: 1-163). The oracle
is reputed to be the oldest Greek oracle; it
was known already to Homer (/I.16,233-
234; Od.14,327-328) and was active until
late-Hellenistic times; though visited also by
cities, its main clients were private people
from North-western Greece. Zeus (surnamed
Naios; he had a cult also on nearby Mt.
Tomaros) is here paired with Dione, mother
of —Aphrodite in ordinary Greek myth.
Homer mentions the Selloi as prophets,
“barefoot, sleeping on the earth" (JJ. 16,234-
235). They disappear without a trace; in the
mid-fifth cent. BCE, Herodotus knows only
of priestesses ("Doves", Peleiades), and later
authors add that they prophecy in ecstasy,
Aristides, Or. 45,11. Zeus manifested him-
self in the sounds of the holy -*oàk-tree
(Od. 14,27-28, 19,296-297) in -*doves,
whose call from the holy oak-tree or whose
flight are used as divine signs (Herodotus
2,55-58); other sources know also divination
by lots (cleromancy), water vessels (hydro-
mancy), and by the sounds of a gong.
Zeus has but few major polis festivals;
and only a few month names attest to an
important early festival of Zeus—the Bronze
Age month Diwos (Knossos) to which cor-
respond the Macedonian, Aetolian and Thes-
salian Dios, the Attic Maimakterion, which
comes from the minor festival of a shadowy
Zeus Maimaktes (a storm god?), the Cretan
(V)elchanios which belongs to a typically
Cretan (Zeus) Velchanos (an originally inde-
pendent storm god? VERBRUGGEN 1981:
144). The relevant chapter in NiLssoN (1908:
3-35) devotes much space to weather festi-
vals, Lykaia and Buphonia. Of some interest
were the Koan sacrifice of a bull of Zeus
Polieus and the festival of Zeus Sosipolis in
Magnesia on the Maeander, both attested by
a Hellenistic law (Kos: SOKOLOWSK! 1969
no. 156; Magnesia: SOKOLOwSK! 1955 no.
32); they show the pomp with which Hellen-
istic poleis could celebrate the god whose
cult expressed their identity and hope; both
festivals emphasize the choice and import-
ance of the victim.
Athenian festivals of Zeus (DEUBNER
1932:155-178) are less self-asserting. To the
Koan and Magnesian festival, one might com-
pare the Diisoteria with a sacrifice and a pro-
cession for Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira;
again, it is a festival in the honour of Zeus
Saviour of the Town. But as to calendar and
to place, in Athens it was marginal: it was
celebrated outside the town in Piraeus, al-
though with the participation of the town.
Closer to the centre were the Dipolicia and
Diasia. The Dipolicia contained the strange
and guilt-ridden sacrifice of an ox on the
altar of Zeus Polieus on the acropolis
(Buphonia: BURKERT 1972:153-161); they
belong to the rituals around New Year.
Aristophanes thought it rather old-fashioned
(Nub.984): the ritual killing of the ox, the
myth which makes all participants guilty,
the ensuing prosecution of the killer with the
formal condemnation of axe and knife
enacts a crisis, not a bright festival.
The Diasia, “the greatest Athenian festi-
val of Zeus" (Thucydides 1,126.6), had an
even less auspicious character. The festival
took place in honour of Zeus Meilichios
who had the form of a huge snake. The cult
place was outside the town. with animal
sacrifice or bloodless cakes; the sacrificial
animals were entirely burnt. This meant no
common meal to release the tension of the
sacrifice; instead, we hear of common meals
in small family circles and of gifts to the
936
ZEUS
children; the community passes through a
phase of disintegration. The character fits
the date, Anthesterion 23 (February/March);
the main event of the month had been the
Anthesteria which had a similar, but even
more marked character of uncanny disinte-
gration.
This apparent paucity of polis festivals is
not out of tune with the general image of
Zeus. Though he often is called Polieus, he
has no major temple on an acropolis, unlike
the Roman Iupiter Capitolinus, though he
might be paired with Athena Polias. The
polis has to be under the protection of her
specific patron deity, Athena or Apollo.
Zeus, the overall protector, cannot confine
himself to one polis only - his protection
adds itself to that of the respective deities.
On the other hand, he is prominent as a
panhellenic deity from early times. Besides
Dodona, whose founding hero Deukalion,
father of Helen, discloses its panhellenic
aspirations (BOUCHE-LECLERCQ 1879-82:2,
280), his main Greek festivals are the
penteteric Olympia with the splendid sacri-
fice to Zeus Olympios and the ensuing pan-
hellenic agon. Their introduction in 776 BCE,
according to tradition, marked the end of the
isolation of the Dark Age communities: the
common festival took place at a spot outside
a single polis and under the protection of a
superior god. The analysis of the sacrifices
points to an origin in initiation rituals of
young warriors, related to the Lykaia
(BURKERT 1972:108-119) which, however,
had opened up itself at a time not too distant
from the Homeric poems with their own
universalist conception of Zeus.
Inside the polis, Zeus has his own
specific province and cares for the smaller
units whose lawful unification forms the
polis. His own domain is the agora: as Zeus
Agoraios, he presides over the just political
dealings of the community (see the law from
Erythrai, GRAF 1985:197-199); in this func-
tion, he can be counted among the main
divinities of a city, Hestia Prytaneia and
Athena Poliouchos or Polias (Crete:
SCHWABL 1972:257-258). On the level of
smaller units, he is one of the patrons of
phratries (Zeus Phratrios or Zeus Patr(o)ios,
sometimes together with Athena Phratria or
Patr(o)ia, see Plato, Euthyd. 302 d) or clans
(Zeus Patr(o)ios). In this function, he also
protects the single households; as Zeus
Herkeios (“He in the Yard"), he reccives
sacrifices on an altar in the courtyard
(Homer 7/.11,772-774, Od.22,334-336; every
Athenian family had to have one, Aristotle,
Pol. Ath.55, Nitsson 1965:403), as Zeus
Ephestios ("He on the Hearth”), on the
hearth of a house.
There are functions of Zeus on the level
of the family which easily are extended both
to individuals and to the polis. Since proper-
ty is indispensable for the constitution of a
household, Zeus is also the protector of
property, Zeus Ktesios; as such, he receives
cults from families (Thasos: Zeus Ktesios
Patroios), from cities (Athens: a sacrifice by
the prytancis in 174/173 BCE) and from indi-
viduals (Stratonikeia: to Zeus Ktesios and
Tyche) (Scuwanp,L I 326-327). In many
places. Zeus Ktesios has the form of a snake
(Athens, Thespiai): property is bound to the
ground, at least in the still agrarian concep-
tion of ancient Greece, and its protectors
belong to the earth (sce Ploutos, "Richess"
whose mother is Demeter, Hesiod, Th. 969,
and Ploutón, "The Rich One", one of the
many names of the god of the Nether
World). The same holds true for Zeus
Meilichios, "The Gentle One". On the level
of the individual, Xenophon attests his
efficiency in providing funds (anab. 7,8),
while in many communities, Zeus
Meilichios protects families or clans; in
Athens finally, he receives the polis festival
of the Diasia; here and elsewhere, he also
has the form of a snake (ScHWABL 1972:
335-337). And finally, one might add Zeus
Philios, protector of friendship between indi-
viduals as among an entire polis (GRAF
1985:204-205).
As the most powerful god, he has a very
general function which cuts across all
groups and gains in importance in the course
of time: Zeus is the ->Soter, the “Saviour”
par excellence. As such, he receives prayers
and dedications from individuals, groups of
937
ZEUS
every sort, and from entire towns (rarely
specified as Sosipolis, see above; the evi-
dence is too vast for a satisfactory col-
lection, SCHWABL 1972:362-364); the dedi-
cations reflect all possible situations of
crisis, from very private ones (where Zeus
rivals with Asklepios Soter, see c.g. Zeus
Soter Asklepios in Pergamon, Altertiimer
von Pergamon VIII:3 no. 63) to political
troubles (Athens: SEG 26 no.106,7), natural
catastrophes (earthquake BCH 102 [1978]
399) or military attacks (Delphi, Soteria
after the attack by the Gauls, SCHWABL
1972:363,19).
The Zeus cults of Crete fit only partially
into this picture (VERBRUGGEN 1981). Myth
places both his birth and his grave in Crete:
according to Hesiod, in order to save him
from Kronos, Rhea gave birth to Zeus and
entrusted the baby to Gaia who hid it in a
cave near Lyktos, on Mt. Aigaion (Theog.
468-500). Later authors replace Gaia by the
Kouretes, armed demons, whose noisy
dance kept Kronos away, and name other
mountains, usually Mt. Ida or, Mt. Dikte.
This complex of myths reflects cult in caves
which partly go back to Minoan times
(FAuRE 1964) and armed dances by young
Cretan warriors like those attested in the
famous hymn to Zeus from Palaikastro
(sanctuary of Zeus Diktaios) which belong
to the context of initiatory rituals of young
warriors (JEANMAIRE 1939:421-460); in the
actual oaths of Cretan ephebes, Zeus plays
an important role. In this function, Zeus can
exceptionally be young—the Palaikastro
hymn calls him xovpog, "youngster"; the
statue in the sanctuary of Zeus Diktaios was
beardless, and coins from Knossos show a
beardless (Zeus) Velchanos. There certainly
are Minoan (and presumably Mycenaean)
elements present in the complex, but it
would be wrong, as VERBRUGGEN (1981)
rightly points out, to separate Cretan Zeus
too radically from the rest of the Greek evi-
dence; both the cults of Mt. Lykaios and of
Olympia contain initiatory features.
Already in Homer (much more than in
actual cult), Zeus had reached a nearly over-
powering position. During the classical and
hellenistic age, religious thinkers developed
this into a sort of “Zeus monotheism”. Al-
ready to Aeschylus, Zeus had begun to
move away from simple human knowledge
("Zeus, whoever you are...”, Ag. 160-161)
to a nearly universal function (“Zeus is
ether, Zeus is earth, Zeus is sky, Zeus is
everything and more than that", frg. 105);
and Sophocles sees his hand in all human
affairs ("Nothing of this which would not be
Zeus", Trach. 1278). Its main document is
the hymn to Zeus by the Stoic philosopher
Cleanthes (died 232/231 BCE) (text: SVF I
121 no. 537; translation LONG & SEDLEY
1987:1,326-327); Zeus, mythical image of
the Stoic logos, becomes the commander
over the entire cosmos (“no deed is done on
earth ... without your office, nor in the di-
vine ethereal vault of heaven, nor at sea’)
and its “universal law”, and at the same time
the guarantor of goodness and benign pro-
tector of man (“protect mankind from its
pitiful incompetence”). This marks the high
point of a development—other gods, though
briefly mentioned, become insignificant be-
sides universal Zeus.
Neoplatonist speculation rather marks a
regress: in the elaborate chains of divine
beings, Zeus is never set at the very top—
the neoplatonists allegorize the succession
from Uranos over Kronos to Zeus and con-
sequently assign him to a lower level.
III. 2 Macc 6 relates how, in 168 BCE,
Antiochos IV Epiphanes sent an envoy to
Jerusalem in order to press the Hellenization
of Israel; foremost on his agenda was to re-
dedicate the temple of Jerusalem to Zeus
Olympios and the one on Mt. Garizim to
Zeus Xenios. 2 Macc 6:4-5 describes the
ensuing profanation of Temple and Altar,
while 1 Macc 1:54 dates the building of
bdelygma erémóseós, the altar (presumably)
of Zeus, on the main Altar of the Temple;
Judas Maccabee removed it in 165. From a
political point of view, the identification of
—Yahweh and Zeus, the main god of the
Greek pantheon, imposes itself; when
Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem, he dedicated its
main temple to Iupiter Capitolinus, the main
god of the Roman panthcon. Besides, hellen-
938
ZEUS
ized diaspora Jews identified their God with
Zeus: they used Hypsistos (-*Most High) as
Greek name of their God, while it had been
a poetic epithet of Zeus from the Sth cent.
BCE onward and his cultic epiclesis first in
Macedonia, then in the hellenized East
(COLPE 1975); the syncretist magical papyri
associate Jao (i.e. Yahweh) with Zeus, PGM
1 300. V 471 (Zeus Adónai lao, cf. IV
2771). Finally, the cult of Zeus Olympios
was widespread in Syria, Palestine and
Phoenicia (SCHWABL 1972:343-344) as
interpretatio Graeca of Ba‘al Shamem
(TEIXIDOR 1977:27; for Tyre Josephus, Ant.
8,145-147): seen from outside, this might
legitimate the identification of Zeus and the
Jewish supreme god (see the positive evalu-
ation of Antiochos’ programme in Tacitus,
Hist. 5,8,2); seen from inside, it makes the
Biblical protests all the more understand-
able. On Mt. Garizim near Shechem, the
capital of Samaria, the Samaritans had built
a temple to a nameless god (megistos theos)
after their independence from Jerusalem in
the 4th cent. BCE (Josephus Ant. 11, 322.
13,74-78); again, the hellenization of this
Ba‘al-like mountain god as Zeus is what one
would expect. According to a anti-Samaritan
tradition in Josephus Ant. 12, 262-263, the
Samaritans had themselves hellenized the
god as Zeus Hellenios in order to oblige
Antiochos IV; this same anti-Samaritan
point of view is manifest in the epiclesis
transmitted in 2 Macc 6:2, Xenios, "He of
the Foreigners’, instead of Hellenios of
Josephus.
The Lystra episode of Acts 14:12-13 fits
into the context of the local religions of
Asia Minor. After Paul and Barnabas had
manifested superhuman powers by healing a
lame man, the native Lystrans (speaking
Lycaonian, their indigenous language)
explained this with a well-known myth, the
visit of gods in human disguise. The myth is
widely attested (FLÜCKIGER-GUGGENHEIM
1984), but finds a very close parallel in the
story of Philemon and Baucis who were
visited by Zeus and Hermes in the shape of
men (Ovid, Metam. 8, 618-724). This
reflects local religious beliefs: in Ovid, who
follows a local histonan, Philemon and
Baucis are Phrygians, and the common cult
of Zeus and Hermes is well attested in the
region (MALTEN 1940).
V. Bibliography
K. ARAFAT, Classical Zeus. A Study in Art
and Literature (Oxford 1990); U. BIANCHI,
Dios Aisa. Destino, nomini e divinità
nell'epos, nelle teogonie e nel culto dei
Greci (Rome 1953); A. BoucHÉ-LECLERCQ,
Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquité, 4
vols. (Pars 1879-1882); W. BURKERT,
Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgrie-
chischer Opferriten und Mythen (Berlin/
New York 1972); C. CorPre, Hypsistos, KP
2 (1975) 1291-1292; ^A. B. Cook, Zeus. A
Study in Ancient Religion, 3 vols. (Cam-
bridge 1914, 1926, 1940); L. DEUBNER,
Attische Feste (Berlin 1932); P. FAURE,
Fonctions des cavernes crétoises (Paris
1964); D. FLÜCKIGER-GUGGENHEIM, Gött-
liche Gäste. Die Einkehr von Göttern und
Heroen in der griechischen Mythologie
(Bern/Frankfurt 1984); M. GERARD-ROUS-
SEAU, Les mentions religieuses dans les
tablettes mycéniennes (Rome 1968); F.
GRAF, Nordionische Kulte. Religionsge-
schichtliche | und epigraphische Unter-
suchungen zu den Kulten von Chios,
Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia (Rome
1985); E. HALLAGER et al., New Linear B
Tablets from Khania, Kadmos 31 (1992) 61-
87; H. A. HOFFNER Jr., Hittite Myths (ed. G.
M. Beckman; Atlanta 1990); H. JEANMAIRE,
Couroi et Courétes. Essai sur l'éducation
spartiate et sur les rites d’adolescence dans
l'antiquité hellénique (Lille 1939); K.
KERENYI, Zeus und Hera. Urbild des Vaters,
des Gatten und der Frau (Leiden 1972), M.
K. LANGDON, A Sanctuary of Zeus on
Mount Hymettos (Hesperia Suppl. 16;
Princeton 1976); H. LLovp-JoNss, The
Justice of Zeus (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1971,
1983); A. A. LonGc & D. N. SEDLEY (eds.),
The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. (Cam-
bridge 1987); L. MALTEN, Motivgeschicht-
liche Untersuchungen zur Sagenforschung.
I: Philemon und Baucis, Hermes 74 (1939)
176-206; 75 (1940) 168-176; M. P. Nirs-
SON, Griechische Feste von religiöser
939
ZION
Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen
(Leipzig 1907); Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion Y: Die Religion
Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Welt-
herrschaft (HAW VW:2:1; München 19653);
H. W. PARKE, The Oracles of Zeus (Oxford
1967); H. ScHwaBL, Zeus. Teil I (Epi-
klesen), PW 10 A (1972) 253-376;
ScHwWaBL, ZEUS, Teil I], PW Suppl. 15
(1978) 993-141]; E. Simon, Zeus, Teil II,
Archäologische Zeugnisse. Nachträge, PW
Suppl. Bd. 15 (1978) 1411-1481; SIMON,
Die Götter der Griechen, (München 19853);
F. SokoLowskl, Lois sacrées de l'Asie
mineure (Pans 1955); SokoLowskl, Lois
sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969); J.
TEIXIDOR, The Pagan God. Popular Relig-
ion in the Greco-Roman Near East (Prince-
ton 1977); M. TivERIOS et al., LIMC VIII.I
(1997) 310-470; H. VERBRUGGEN, Le Zeus
crétois (Pans 1981).
F. GRAF
ZION VS
]. Zion, a name for Jerusalem of uncer-
tain etymology, referred originally to the
fortified acropolis of the pre-Israelite city.
The ‘stronghold of Zion’ (mésudat sivyón, 2
Sam 5:7 = 1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kgs 8:1 = 2
Chron 5:2) was located on top of the south-
eastern hill, overlooking the Valley of Kid-
ron. David conquered it and renamed it for
himself (2 Sam 5:9), and the meanings of
both names—‘Zion’ and ‘City of David’—
were expanded as the city grew. :
Zion does not occur as a divine name in
the Bible, but it does designate a sacred
place, and the personification of Jerusalem
as siyyón, 'Zion', or bat siyyón, 'Daughter
Zion', draws on language traditionally asso-
ciated with the goddesses and female patron
spirits of the cities of Syria-Palesüne and
Mesopotamia.
H. Jt was characteristic of the religious
literature of Syria-Palesüne to depict a city
that served as the principal place of worship
of a major deity as a sacra] center with cos-
mic attributes, using language replete with
national ideology and mythological embel-
lishment. In Ugarit, for example, the seat of
the worship of the >Baal-zaphon, is repre-
sented in the tablets from Ras Shamra as an
impregnable fortress protected from invasion
by Baal’s presence in its midst.
Another common feature of Northwest
Semitic religious thought was the feminine
personification of a major city, which might
be described as a mother (metropolis) of the
people of the land: as is shown by the Phoe-
nician example of sr ?m sdnym, ‘Tyre,
mother of the Sidonians' (N. SLOUZSCH,
Thesaurus of Hebrew Inscriptions [Hebrew;
Tel Aviv 1942] 34). A city thus personified
might be worshipped as a goddess who was
thought of as the consort of the national or
city god. The Hellenistic concept of the
tyché poleos (‘luck of the city’; ~Tyche), a
goddess who was the benevolent patron
spirit of a city, seems to have been derived
in part from Semitic ideas.
In Mesopotamian religious literature, the
chief goddess of a city is typically repre-
sented as intimately associated with its
affairs and deeply concerned with the wel-
fare of its people. This perspective is ex-
pressed most characteristically in the motif
of the weeping goddess who grieves over
the ruin of her city: as e.g. in the great
Sumerian poem, ‘Lamentation over the
Destruction of Ur’, which addresses the god-
dess Ningal as queen and mother of Ur and
describes the fall of the city to the Elamites
in terms of her gnef and bereavement.
HI. In the Bible, Zion refers to the City
of David or Ophel; and, by extension, to the
city as a whole. So ‘Zion’ and ‘Jerusalem’
become synonymous: frequently occurring
as parallel terms in poetry. The name ‘Zion’
is commonly found in passages that refer to
Jerusalem as a sacred city: especially as the
city of > Yahweh and the place of his dwel-
ling or cultic manifestation. Zion language,
therefore, was an important part of the ideol-
ogy of the Jerusalem Temple. In mythic
terms, Zion could be described as a majestic
mountain of unique stature and a perpetual
source of life and prosperity. Because the
Zion ideology included an eschatological
component, this conceptualization held true
940
ZION —
even when the Temple lay in ruins and the
city was abandoned. Thus, a preexilic oracle
looked forward to the time when “the moun-
tain of the house of Yahweh will be estab-
lished at the head of the mountains” (Isa 2:2
= Mic 4:1); and a postexilic prophecy pro-
claimed that "all the land will turn into
something like a plain...but Jerusalem will
remain high on its site..." (Zech 14:10; cf.
Ezek 40:2: Rev 21:10). From Mount Zion
would flow the cosmic river of life (Ezek
47:1-12; Zech 14:8; cf. Joel 4:18), the
source of purification, healing and nourish-
ment for the people of Yahweh (Zech 13:1;
cf. Rev 22:1-2).
Jerusalem is sometimes described as a
mother to its people (cf. 4 Ezra 10:7; Gal
4:26), a concept associated with the name
Zion in the Bible, where it first receives
emphasis in Jeremiah 31 and Deutero-Isaiah
(Scuwurrr 1985:566). Thus, in Isa 49:14-18
Zion is portrayed as a mother whose child-
ren, having been taken from her (in the
Babylonian exile), will be brought home;
whilst in Isa 66:5-13 the vindication of
Zion/Jerusalem is prophesied under the
image of a woman who has laboured and
given birth to children who will now be
given to her to nurse and comfort.
Jerusalem is personified 26 times as bat
siyyén, ‘Daughter Zion,’ or bétilat bat
siyyón, ‘Virgin Daughter Zion’ (2 Kgs 19:21
= Isa 37:22; Lam 2:13; ->Virgin). They are
titles which represent the city as divinely
beloved and protected under the image of
the inviolable bride of Yahweh, a concept
drawn upon in prophetic literature when the
city is threatened (Isa 1:8; 10:32; Jer 4:31;
6:2,23). The notion of the city’s marriage to
Yahweh is also used in a condemnatory
way: e.g. when Daughter Zion is denounced
as an adulteress because of Jerusalem's
traffic with foreign powers and their gods.
Under this image the destruction of the city
ZUR
is presented as condign punishment: and the
grief of Daughter Zion is expressed in a way
reminiscent of the weeping goddesses of
Mesopotamian city lament. This is best
exemplified by the Book of Lamentations
where Daughter Zion is portrayed as a great
lady whose majesty has departed (Lam 1:6):
betrayed by her lovers and forsaken by her
husband, she weeps in captivity over the
loss of her children (Lam 4:2). The Bible
also contains the promise of a time of sal-
vation for ‘Captive Daughter Zion’ (Isa
52:2). When her fortunes are restored, she
will rejoice (Zeph 3:14; Zech 9:9) and
avenge those who abused her (Mic 4:6-13).
Though the personifications of Jerusalem
as a mother to its people and as the ag-
grieved Daughter Zion are reminiscent of
similar motifs in the writings of surrounding
nations, there is no indication that they were
regarded in Israel as anything other than
literary devices or, in particular, that Zion
was thought of as a goddess who might be
honoured by her own cult.
IV. Bibliography
F. W. Donns-ArLsopP, Weep, O Daughter
of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre
in the Hebrew Bible (BeO 44; Rome 1993)
esp. 75-90; A. FITZGERALD, The Mythologi-
cal Background for the Presentation of
Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as
Adultery in the OT, CBQ 34 (1972) 403-
416; A. FITZGERALD, btwlt and bt as Titles
for Capital Cities, CBQ 37 (1975) 167-183;
E. Orro, $iyyón, TWAT 6 (1989) 994-1028
[& lit]; J. J. M. RoBERTS, The Davidic Ori-
gin of the Zion Tradition, JBL 92 (1973)
329-344 [& lit]; J. J. Scuwrrr, The Mother-
hood of God and Zion as Mother, RB 92
(1985) 557-569.
P. K. McCarTER
ZUR ~> ROCK
941
Ab 1, 327
Abaddir 158, 159, 818
Abaddon 1, 229, 236, 243, 553,
697, 768
Abarim 148
Abba 1, 792, 793
Abel 2, 180, 259, 350
Abomination 2-3, 113, 369,
371, 372, 534, 576, 584, 827,
847
Abraham (Abram) 2, 3-5, 6, 33,
56, 199, 288, 290, 297, 328,
348, 404, 439, 441, 450, 461,
499, 501, 554, 559-562, 57],
610, 629, 637, 710, 724, 748,
75], 810
Abyss 52, 72, 96, 119, 185,
186, 222, 237, 241, 243
Abyss and Streams 294
Accuscr 726-729
Acheloos 636
Achilles 86, 95, 116, 463
Actaeon 92
Adad (Adados) 10, 19, 125,
259, 378, 381-382, 504, 519
Adad-milki (Hadad-milki) 10,
379, 584
Adam 5-6, 35, 59-61, 74, 80,
81, 85, 131, 180, 209, 246,
275, 303, 316-317. 350-352,
475, 521, 564. 571, 597, 731,
787, 855, 865, 874, 902
Adamma 701, 703, 785
Adammateri 785
Adammu 785
Adamtum 786
Adapa 73-74, 830
Adat 6-7
Adda 161
Addirim 7
Addu 125
Adgarudu 32
Adnigkidu 32
Adodos 112, 642
Adoil 120
Adon 7-8, 828
Adonaios (Adoneus) 85
Adonay 7, 543, 910
Adonis 7-10, 65, 67, 215, 465,
532, 564, 651, 828, 833
INDEX
Adrammelech 10-11, 34, 379,
541, 606
Adrasteia 27
"Adversary 56, 58, 63, 244, 247,
726, 729, 745
Aeneas 11-12, 67, 858
Aeolus 899
Aesculapius 307
Aéshma 106, 106-107, 909
Aéshma daéuua 107
Agamemnon 93, 413, 565-566
Agathe Tyche 877
Agdistis 215
Aglibol 150, 914
Agreement 12-13
Agreus 777
Agush 375
Ah (Ah) 13, 223-225
Ahóroi 413-414
Ahriman (Ahreman)
170, 521, 581
Ahura Mazda 90, 106-107, 170,
389, 482-483, 486, 557, 909
Aiatos 858
Aidoneus 233, 815
Aidos 367, 904
Aiolos 537
Aion 13-14, 121, 367
Air 29-31, 82-84, 121-122, 815
Aither 35, 222, 665, 816-817
Aitolos 857
Al 14-17, 295
Alalu 294, 642-644
Alam 312
Alama 312
Alay 17
Aldebaran 17-18, 203, 648, 658
Alexander the Great 20, 29, 712
Alexikakos 734
Alilat 64
Aliyan 18-20, 505, 661
Aliyu 15
Al-Kawthar 491
Allah 3, 285, 585
Allat 567-568
Allatu 272
Allon 20
Almah 20
Almighty 18, 20-23, 268, 440-
442, 572, 649, 752, 920
106-107,
943
Aloeus 86
Altar 22,
118
Althaea 438
Altus 298
Alii 24
Alugqah 24
Al-Uzzah 568, 679
Am 24-26, 37, 329
Amalek 26, 274
Amaltheia 26-27, 461, 878
Amar.ud (Amar.uda.ak) 543
Amaunet 29, 3]
Ama-ushum 830
Ama-ushum-an 830
Ama-Ushumgal 830
Ama-ushumgal-anna 829,
830
Amazons 27-28, 86
Amenothes 493
Amesha spentas (Ameša spenta)
91, 894
Amm 25, 179
Ammezaddu (Ammizadu) 642-
643
Ammunki 642, 643
Amphitrite 659-660
Amphitryon 31
Amrar 53
Amun (Amon) 28-32, 95, 119-
120, 122, 153, 355, 481, 577,
611, 617, 644, 647, 689, 860,
934
Amun of Luxor 29
23-24, 87-89, 115,
Amun-Re 29, 355, 788,
818, 859
Amurru 32-34, 99-100, 518,
607
An 32, 101, 181, 208, 356, 357,
388, 431, 452, 498, 519, 586,
612
Anadatos 892
Anahita 482, 613
Anaideia 367
Anaitis 93
Anakim 34, 344, 697, 698
Anaktes 258
Anammelech (Anammelek) 10,
34-35, 541, 639
Ananke 35-36, 367
INDEX
cite, cee Ss a Supr D ul rev eerte ee M uesei eee
Anat 19, 25, 34, 36-43, 99-101,
110-112, 114, 116, 139, 140,
157, 168, 175, 177, 219, 263,
279, 293, 313, 331, 347, 361,
393, 416, 426, 505, 509, 522,
525, 599, 678, 692, 705, 756,
759, 773, 835, 891, 896, 918,
928
Anat-Ashtart 101
Anat-Bethel (Anatbaytil,
Anat-Bayt-el) 158, 174, 175,
679
Anat-Yahu
679, 918, 919
Ancestors 4, 8, 107, 135, 136,
180, 447, 448, 451, 460, 477,
692, 696, 700
Ancestral spirits 330, 644
Anchises 11, 67
Ancient of days 44-45, 275,
320, 350, 777, 800, 864, 917
Andromeda 111,654
Angel 1-2, 6, 45-50, 50-53, 81,
84, 107, 196, 244, 246, 266,
318, 324, 335, 338, 349, 373,
427, 501, 504, 542, 553, 554,
569, 595, 611, 706, 720, 746,
719, 799, 851, 893
Angel of Darkness 553
Angel of Death 1, 53,
244, 595, 597, 909
Angel of Iniquity 246
Angel of Light 731
Angel of Presence 324
Angel of Yahweh (Angel
of the Lord) 2, 6, 47, 50-52,
53-59, 242, 349, 350, 553,
554, 719, 780, 799, 85]
Angelos (Angeloi 47,
49-51, 78, 80, 407, 428, 557
Angels of God 350
Angels of Hostilities 553
Angels of Satan 731
Angelus interpres 81,
571, 688
Angra Mainyu 106, 170, 518
Anéan 433
Anshar 109, 205, 272, 301, 373,
502, 536, 546, 643, 868
Antaios 404
Antares 203, 648
Anthropos 59-62, 374
An.ti.bal 722
Antichrist 62-64, 249, 284, 303,
369, 375, 596, 731
Antigonus 712, 734
Anti-Lebanon 506, 507
34, 43, 106,
Antiochus IV Epiphanes 2, 44-
45, 369, 371, 374, 714
Antu 388
Anu 13, 34, 64, 205, 208, 272,
301, 331, 357, 388, 390, 545,
547, 571, 642, 643, 644, 647,
758, 759, 842, 868
Anubis 70, 476, 538, 962
Anukis 707
Anum 498, 518, 544, 612
Anunnaki (Anunnaku) 225,
506, 544, 575, 576, 583, 587,
643
Anzu 205, 520, 608, 628
Aoios 9
Apam Napat 482
Apantu 643
Apason 300
Apate 65
Apeilai 79
Apeliotes 899
Aphlad (Apladda) 379
Aphrodite 7-8, 11, 64-68, 85-
87, 93, 111, 139, 235, 263,
322, 385, 407, 435, 606, 641,
678, 734, 877, 936
Aphrodite Areia 66, 85
Aphrodite Euploia 67
Aphrodite Pandemos 65,
67
Aphrodite Urania 65
Apis 68-72, 120, 181, 424, 444,
650, 669
Apkallu 72-74, 300, 738
Apollo 1, 11, 74-77, 91-94,
116, 157, 265, 406, 408, 434,
435, 438, 493, 523, 609, 613,
625, 669, 670, 671, 702, 785,
857, 880, 937
Apollo Amyclaeus 435, 436
Apollo Daphnaios 236, 243
Apollo Pythaeus 436
Apollyon 1, 77
Apophis (Apopis) 513, 600,
737, 741, 745
Apsu (Abzu) 72-73, 77, 272,
300, 301, 356, 502, 643, 738,
868, 935
Apulunas 75
Aqan 77
Aqhat 38, 44, 219, 220, 361.
506, 525, 638, 639, 648, 693,
694, 776, 795, 807
Ara 367
Aranzi 870
Arbiter 373
Archai 77-80, 124, 240, 262
944
Archangel 52, 80-82, 246, 328,
338, 528, 558, 585, 688, 706,
865, 885, 886, 904
Archdemons 238
Archenemy 727, 730
Archer-God 702
Archistrategos 59, 81, 717
Archon 80, 82-85
Archontes 78, 82-85
Arcturus 18, 658
Ardat lili 520, 521, 852, 854
Ares 64, 67, 85-88, 117, 188,
369, 734
Arete 367
Argives 71
Argonauts 660
Ariel 88-89
Aries 18
Arinna 773
Arishu 739
Arkades 857
Arkas 857
Arm 89-90
Armada 97-98
Arrow 673, 674, 702, 703
Arsaphes 426
Arsay (Arsayu)
274
Arshtat 482
Arshu 168
Arsippus 702
Arsu 511
Arta 90-91
Artemis 65, 74, 91-97, 112,
115, 117, 221, 233, 340, 493,
613, 636, 659, 670
Artemis Alpheionia 659
Araunah
Arvad 97-98
Aryaman 578, 581
Arzareth 316
Aga 90, 170
Aga Vahista 891
Asakku 512, 628
Asalluhi (Asalluhe)
544
Asebeia 367
Asham 98-99, 76]
Asher 99
Asherah 7, 19, 33-34, 41-42,
53, 99-105, 139, 177, 316,
363, 371, 393, 415, 418, 525,
603, 637, 678, 679, 718, 720,
745, 756, 786, 847, 850, 918
Ashertu (Ashiratu, Ashir-
tu) 101, 280
Ashhur 105
37, 249, 272,
357, 543,
INDEX
eee
Ashima 105-106, 263, 307, 308,
347, 449, 895
Ashimbabbar 586
Ashnan 479, 683
Ashratu 33-34, 100
Ashtar 37, 109, 188, 761, 928
Ashtar-Chemosh 911
Ashtaroth 102, 112-113, 140.
583, 762
Ashtay 306
Ashtoreth 2, 42, 101, 113-114,
106, 140, 363, 525, 824
Askalaphos 86
Asklepios (Asclepius) 77, 238,
309, 493, 615, 636, 733, 734
Asklepios Soter 938
Asmodeus 106-108, 238, 688,
909
Asphaleia 367
Assembly 82, 356, 371, 373
Assembly of the gods 64, 205,
207
Assembly of the Stars 795
Assur (Ashshur) 97-98, 108-
109, 172, 314, 373, 536, 606,
607, 630, 651, 757, 822, 871
Astaphaios 85
Astarte (Athtart, Athtartu, Ish-
tart) 2, 6, 8, 39-40, 42, 109-
114, 139, 140, 189, 190, 263,
306, 307, 322, 403, 412, 416,
452, 510, 525, 564, 576, 613,
642, 678, 694, 705, 759, 761,
763, 847
Asteria 110, 403, 564
Astraeus 899
Astroarche 110
Astronoé 110, 308
A$vins 258
Atalanta 92
Atar 111
Atargatis (Atar‘ate) 6, 8, 39,
111, 114-116, 263, 340, 381,
676, 759, 805, 837
Athanasia 367
Athena 39, 66, 85-87, 92-94,
116-119, 616, 624, 626, 654,
659, 878, 879, 902
Athena Hippia 661
Athena Nike 625
Athena Phratria 937
Athena Polias 117, 119,
625, 937
Athirat (Athiratu) 53, 99-101,
104, 111, 177, 316, 756, 85]
Athtar 34, 104, 109, 266, 393,
394. 452, 756, 774
Atik 168
Atlas 157, 174, 406, 642, 739,
873
Aton 120, 355, 647
Atta 39-40
Attis 9, 215, 828, 833
Atum 29, 69-70, 119-124, 617,
647, 689, 745, 861
Augustus 1], 94-95, 124, 156,
171, 711, 713, 715, 735, 736
Authorities (Authority) 11, 29,
37, 46, 48, 55-56, 61, 77-80,
84, 124-125, 733, 865
Avenger 125, 386, 397
Aya 125-127, 275, 504, 607,
623, 737
Ayish 127
Ayya 479
Az 106
Azabbim 127-128
Azael 619, 894
Azag 707
Azarias 52
Azazel 128-131, 236, 246, 688,
732, 894
Azizos 369
Ba 29-30, 68-69, 223, 224, 231,
263, 690, 745
Baal (Balu) 132-139, 140, 141,
144, 145, 146, 147, 152, 162,
172, 176, 181, 182, 191, 202,
205, 208, 222. 228, 245, 246,
249. 265, 276, 278, 292, 294,
322, 341, 347, 361, 369, 387,
392, 419, 425, 430, 439, 465,
473, 475, 501, 506, 510, 512,
518, 519, 531, 563, 584, 587,
599-602, 644, 647, 661, 677,
685, 686, 692, 701, 704, 705,
708, 709, 718, 725, 737, 739,
743, 748, 762, 763, 788, 812,
835, 868, 880, 896, 921, 925,
940
Baal toponyms 140-141,
144-147, 149, 152
Baal-addir 134
Baal-berith 141-144136,
278
Baal-gad 144, 140, 145,
340
Baal-hadad 101, 322, 522
Baal-hamon 144, 134,
140, 322
Baal-Haran (Baal of
Haran) 686
Baal-hazor 145, 140
945
Baal-hermon (Baal of Her-
mon) 145-146, 140
Baal-judah 146, 140
Baal-malage 149
Baal-meon 146-147, 140,
912
Baal of Peor 3, 146, 147-
148, 876
Baal-perazim
148-149
Baal-roy 29]
Baal-sapanu 149
Baal-shalisha 149, 140
Baal-shamem (Baal-sha-
men) 134, 139, 149-151,
209, 279, 362
Baal-shamin (Baal
mayn) 134, 369, 901
Baal of Sidon 777
Baal-tamar 140, 151-152
Baal of Tyre 403, 540,
564
Baal of Ugarit 152
Baal-zaphon 132, 152-
154, 278, 611, 740, 928, 929,
940
Baal-zebub 136, 154-156,
239
Baal-zebu] 136, 155, 177
Baalah 140, 146
Baalat 6, 132, 139-140, 172,
505
Baalat of Byblos (Lady of
Byblos, Baalat-Gebal, Blt
gbl) 139, 149, 172, 386
Baaltak 172
Baalta-matim 172
Baau 645
Baboon 861
Bacchus 156-157253, 256, 257,
872
Baetyl 157-159, 174, 642
Baga 159-160
Baitylos (Baetylon)
918
Bakis (Bacis) 156, 625
Balsamos 15]
Banitu 822
Barad 160-161, 674, 703
Baraq 161
Barbelo 60
Barmarén 15]
Bashan 113, 161-163, 293, 338,
374, 412, 507, 583, 638, 639,
694, 697, 744, 927
Bashmu 744
Bashtu 137, 163-164, 367
127, 140,
Sha-
174, 642,
Bastet 93, 164-165
Bata 476
Bat qô! 421
Beast 45, 63, 165, 166, 167.
714, 715, 836, 873, 880
Beelzebul 155, 165, 239.
247, 421, 686, 731
Behemoth 165-169, 514, 515,
568, 741, 748, 853
Bel 51, 58, 127, 169, 132, 150,
171, 172, 532, 548, 549, 608,
609, 914
Bel dababi 727
Bel dini 727
Belet-Akkadi 171
Bélet-Babili (Lady of Baby-
lon) 172
Belet-ekallim 139, 171
Bélet-ili (Belit-ili) 139, 171,
221, 603
Bélet-mati 171
Belial 52, 63, 83, 169-171, 246,
247, 553, 572, 663, 731, 821,
853, 933
Beliar 52, 170, 171, 246, 572
Belit 171
Bellona 215
Belthis 650
Beltu (Belti) 139, 171-173, 650
Bendis 93
Benefactors 413
Bennu 120, 122
Berecynthia 94
Berith 142
Berouth 294, 642
Bes 70, 104, 173, 355, 493
Bes Pantheos 120
Bethel (Bayt-el) 4, 41, 71, 126-
127, 140, 144, 152, 157-159,
173-175, 449-450, 460, 637,
723, 753, 819, 918
Bhaga 160
Bia 35, 367, 725
Biaiothanatoi 414
Binah 840, 841
Birqu 519
Bitenosh 633
Blood 2, 37, 43, 175-176
Blood-sucker 887
Bilt bhtm 139
Boaz 179, 176-177
Boiotos (Boeotus) 857, 858
Bol 914
Boreas 670
Boshet 177
Boule 367
Breasts-and-womb 177-178, 750
246,
INDEX
Qm Ld T ome eo m e en UA ER eS UI
Brevis 336
Brother 91-93, 178-179, 220,
234, 259, 329, 383, 438, 748,
758, 760, 925
Bubastis (Bu bastis) 93
Buchis 18]
Bull 18, 27, 41, 68-72, 104,
112, 120-123, 147, 162, 178,
180-184, 191, 275, 378-380,
381, 398, 402, 424, 573, 574,
579, 580, 586, 599, 669, 861
Cabiri (Kabeiroi) 259, 307, 930
Cadmus 86
Caelestis 114, 340
Caesar 94, 712, 734, 735
Cai 2, 180, 246, 259, 317,
479, 572, 604, 683
Calf 41, 71, 102, 123, 180-182,
587, 600, 811
Calliope 523
Callisto 92, 636
Canis Major 698
Canopus 648
Capella 648, 658
Carmel 161, 182-185, 507, 563,
565
Castor (Kastor) 185, 258
Cat-goddess 93
Cautes 580
Cautopates 580
Cecrops 117
Cerberus 402
Ceres 156
Chaos 29, 35, 64, 119, 121,
167, 185-186, 244, 267, 645,
684-685, 690, 739-741, 745,
805
Chaos monster
745, 897
Chaotic powers 121, 737
Charis 367
Charites 65
Charon 67, 855
Cheiron 463
Chemosh 2, 89, 140, 159, 175,
186-189, 201, 327, 353, 576,
677, 824
Cherub (Cherubim) 47, 52, 181,
189-192, 335, 349, 370, 704,
743, 746, 765, 865, 921, 922,
924
Chief 2, 28-29, 78, 81-85, 104,
534, 558
Chief of the hosts 570
Children of heaven 720
Chimaera 265
266, 684, 685,
946
Choreia 654
Chosen One 864
Chousor 490, 49]
Christ 11, 23, 31, 58-59, 61-63,
171, 176, 192-200, 240, 262,
268, 303, 351, 420, 423, 469,
470-472, 494, 496, 502, 527,
528, 557, 559, 562, 633, 635,
680. 707, 710. 714, 722, 731,
734, 747, 781, 790, 814, 817,
819, 855, 865, 885
Chronos 14, 185, 367
Circe 409
City god 8, 29, 108, 126, 355,
777
Claudius 200, 711
Clay 73-74, 127, 200-202
Cloud 646
Cobra 743
Coeus 91
Commander 84
Conservator 736
Constellation(s) 17-18, 27, 202-
204, 585, 591, 592, 648, 649,
658, 691, 810, 811
Com 92, 115, 640, 650
Corn god 436
Corn goddess 233
Cosmic god 30, 457
Cosmic rulers 97
Cosmos 13-14, 23, 29, 35, 46,
68, 83, 106, 119-121, 124,
717
Council 45, 50-52, 82, 88, 96,
110, 204-208, 282, 326, 353,
371, 373, 428, 619, 663, 718,
719, 727, 797, 799, 917, 923
Council of E]. 353
Counselor 634
Creator 22, 29, 68, 90, 101,
119-122, 124, 149, 151, 167,
327, 328, 391, 416, 440, 441,
666, 669, 689, 690, 691
Creator of All 208-211
Creatrix of men 738
Crocodile 738, 741, 834
Cronus (Kronos, Cronos) 14-15,
26, 71, 112, 157, 158, 174,
233, 294, 344, 389, 391, 401,
407, 598, 620, 641, 642, 661,
662. 718, 764, 872, 873, 874,
935, 938
Cultic Objects 23. .
Curse 13, 57, 110-111, 211-
214, 367
Cybele (Kubileya) 4, 66-67, 94,
115. 214-215, 432, 724
Cyclopes 935
Cyclops 389, 873
Cycnus 86
Dad 259
Dada 10, 259, 261
Dadat 259
Dadu 259, 261
Dadudu 259
Dagan (Dagon, Dgn) 24, 133,
140, 172, 216-219378, 522,
538, 600, 642, 644, 762, 872,
917, 919
Daganzipa 272
Daimon (Daimones,
es) 340, 414
Daimon paredros 420
Dakdadra 837
Damater 786
Da.mu 175, 219
Damu 221, 828, 829, 832
Danaé 654
Danaids 857
Danaos 857
Dane! (Dan'il, Dan'ilu) 38, 135,
220, 276, 692, 693 ;
Daniel 3, 6, 45, 51-53, 58, 63,
80, 84, 219-220, 476, 609,
633, 662, 720, 800
Daózos 828
Daphne 93, 220-221
Darkness 83, 644, 645, 663
Datan 221
Daughter of Anu 759
Dawn 120, 123, 392, 745, 754,
755, 789
Dawn-goddess 393
Day 221-223, 294, 399, 400,
441, 511, 623, 645, 754
Day Star 223, 392
Dea Nutrix 177
Dea Roma 71
Dea Syna 111,114-116
Dead 8-9, 30, 46, 61, 81, 121,
147, 223-231, 418, 431, 454,
456, 650, 685, 692, 700, 737,
745, 753, 769, 770, 845, 847,
849
Death 1, 7-8, 15, 29, 33, 43, 51-
52, 61, 69-70, 84, 86, 96,
121, 128,135, 147, 170, 224,
2277, 231, 354, 359, 364, 453,
454, 54], 567, 586, 595, 597,
685, 690, 692, 693, 744, 747,
762, 768-770
Deber 231-232, 242, 333, 572,
605, 673-674, 703, 852
Daemon-
INDEX
Dedan 232-233
Deified Ancestor 807
Deimos 86
Demarous 112
Demeter 7, 65, 92-93, 233-235,
238, 273, 661, 694, 935, 937
Demetrius Poliorcetes 712, 734
Demiurge 2, 60, 84, 120-121,
186, 210, 398, 445, 669, 717,
747
Demon (Demons) 1, 19, 40, 50-
51, 74, 79-80, 82-84, 106-
108, 124, 128, 176, 200, 235-
240, 245, 268, 421, 426, 437,
471, 483, 506, 507, 514, 520,
557, 568, 572, 598, 670, 682,
684, 702, 708, 725, 731, 732,
738, 744, 882
Demonic being 1, 106, 562
Demos 66-67, 367, 710, 712
Derceto (Derketo) 112, 114,
217, 896
Derek 240
Desertgod 426, 752
Despoinai 661
Destiny 11, 77, 325, 333
Destroyer 48, 56-57, 123, 236,
240-244, 853
Destroying Angel 57, 242
Destruction 1, 6, 11, 13, 68, 72,
79, 83, 113, 124-126, 244,
572, 673, 674, 826, 852
Deucalion (Deukalion)
463, 537, 805, 937
Devil 83-84, 170, 235, 237,
244-249, 266, 328, 337, 377,
421, 521, 595, 726, 781, 909
Devourers 100
Dew 218, 249-250, 389, 789
Dew 107, 789
Dewy One 249
Diabolos 250, 726
Diadochi 712
Diana 91, 93, 95
Dikaiosyne 367
Dike 250-252, 367, 527, 665,
857, 904
Diktaios 934
Dinah 252
Dione 66, 112, 936
Dionysos (Dionysus) 9, 86, 92-
93, 118, 156, 252-258, 366,
438, 493, 537, 654, 805, 934
Dioscuri (Dioscures,
Dioskouroi) 87, 258-259,
307, 344, 565, 734, 930
Dirtak 837
112,
947
Ditanu (Ditan, Didanu)
233, 693, 694, 695
Divi filius 712
Divine ancestor. 497
Divine angel 428
Divine beings 235, 259
Divine ladies 325
Divine mother 841
Divus Julius 712, 713
Dod 89, 179, 259-262, 895
Dominion 38, 45, 83, 112, 262,
720
Dominus coeli 149
Domitian 713, 714
Doom 851, 854
Dove 64, 66, 263-264, 421,
790, 936
Doxa 265, 395, 399, 401
Draco 203, 265, 266, 258, 669
Dragon 52, 58, 63, 81, 86, 167,
203, 237, 247, 265-267, 512,
514, 548, 571, 645, 685, 714,
740, 744, 754, 879
Dream 51, 88
Drimios 934
Drug (Druj) 91, 170
Dryades (Dryas) 636, 637
Drys 637
Dumuzi 347, 452, 763, 829, 890
Dumuzi-Abzu 830
Dusares (Dushara) 150, 387,
430, 567, 676, 677, 724, 753
Dusk 754
Duttur 832
Dütu 163
Dynamis (Dynameis) 79-80,
124, 267-270, 275, 367, 528
232,
Ea 72-73, 125-126, 205, 208,
271, 275, 280, 300, 301, 357,
388, 543, 544, 546, 607, 623,
632, 643, 737, 738, 739, 842,
868
Eagle 38, 271-272
Earth 157, 166, 185, 272-273,
301, 343, 356, 364, 389, 509-
600, 604, 619-620, 628, 635,
641, 644, 669, 685, 708, 709,
737, 738, 810, 815, 857, 868,
904, 906
Earth goddess 454, 455
Eben 273, 818
Ebih 738
Echo 74, 111, 125, 614
Ed 273
Edom 273-274, 306, 521, 674,
912
INDEX
1 el
Ehad 274
Eileithyia 87
Eirene 250, 367, 857
El (IH, Hu) 133, 140, 141, 162,
173, 175, 178, 179, 181, 190,
205, 208, 217, 222, 228, 245,
246, 274-280, 281, 286, 287,
289, 290, 292, 293, 327, 332,
334, 339, 353, 377, 378, 393,
415, 426, 440, 446, 484, 487,
509, 518, 532, 587, 591, 599,
637, 642, 686, 689, 693, 718,
739, 750, 756, 765, 776, 800,
818, 819, 835, 850, 860, 866,
921, 931
El-berith (Il brt) 141-142,
280
El-creator-of-the-
earth 101, 276, 277, 280-
281, 391, 796, 902
El-gods 751
El-olam (Everlasting
God) 45, 288-291, 751, 916
El-qoneh 280, 281
El-roi (God of see-
ing) 291-292, 501, 751, 806
El-rophe 292-293
El-shadday 32-34, 314,
749, 750-752
Elat 509, 510, 850
Elders 22, 207, 281-282, 865
Elemental spirits 282, 792
Elements 11, 29-30, 45, 58, 91, .
102, 104, 380, 384, 394
Eleos 367
Eleutheria
Elijah 56-57, 155, 182, 193,
198, 282-285, 419, 475, 494,
563, 594, 596, 689, 765
Elilim 128
Elioun 15, 294, 642, 644
Elkunirsha (IIkunirsha)
104, 277, 280, 281, 299
Eloah 207, 285-288, 352, 360
Eloaios (Eloeus) 85
Elohim 120, 122, 125, 288, 700
Elos 15, 174
Elpis 367
Elwer 380
Elyon 14-16, 125, 278, 293-
299, 353, 439, 441, 751, 755,
796, 916
Elysian Fields 639
Emim 299, 698
Emmanuel 299-300, 508, 891
Emperor 70-72, 711-715, 733-
736
101,
Enak 344
Enbilulu 544
Ends of the earth 16, 126, 272,
300-301, 356, 502, 566, 672,
737
Energeiai 79
Engur 737
Eniautos 367
Enki 72, 126, 205, 272, 300,
356-358, 543, 546, 607, 632,
708, 737, 738, 833, 859, 871
Enkidu 168, 205, 310, 358, 432,
520, 820
Enkimdu 829
Enlil (Ellil, Mullil) 32, 49, 108-
109, 205, 208, 216, 217, 241,
272, 356-358, 388, 403, 424,
431, 432, 543, 545-547, 586,
593, 606, 608, 622, 627, 629,
630, 642-644, 647, 708, 783,
788, 789, 831, 833, 842, 868,
901
Enmerkar 829
Enmesharra 644
Ennead 31, 119, 121
Enoch 52, 220, 283, 301-304,
344, 349, 441, 571, 596, 633,
893
Enurulla 109
Enyalios 85, 87, 117
Enyo 117
Eos 393, 395, 873
Ephesia 93-95, 97
Ephialtes 86, 345
Epicurus 735
Epigeius 294, 642
Epimetheus 747
Epiphanes 9, 714
Equity 304, 578
Er 35
Era 379, 388, 389
Erebos 35, 185
Eremiel 1, 466
Ereshkigal 46, 181, 225, 272,
333-334, 452, 454, 486, 487,
622, 643, 777
Ergane 117-118
Erichthonios 117-118
Eridanus 343
Eridu 72-73, 126, 543
Erinyes 236, 238, 251, 397,
873, 884
Eris 86, 367
Eriunios Hermes 20
Eros 64-65, 120, 304-306, 524,
614
Erra 73, 241, 335, 621, 622
948
Ersetu 644
Esaldaios 60
Esau 26, 306, 460, 751
Esh 306
Esharra 868
Eshem 106, 157
Eshem-Bethel
158
Eshmun (Esmounos) 8, 105,
306-309, 465, 563, 564, 702
Eshmun-Melgart 158
Eshuh 913
Etemmu 187, 223, 226, 309-
312, 807, 826, 845
Eteokles 180
Eternal king 45, 540
Eternity 14, 121, 312-314
Euergetai 413
Euergetes 710, 711, 714, 735,
736
Eulabeia 367
Eunomia 251, 857
Euphrates 8, 160, 280, 314-316,
517, 568, 698, 707, 738, 750,
753, 867, 870
Euphrosyne 367
Euporia 367
Europa 111
Euros 899
Eusebeia 367
Euterpe 523
Eve 81, 131, 180, 246, 248,
316-317, 475, 551, 571, 603,
902
Evening star
754, 755-757
Everlasting God 317
Evil 22, 50, 62, 70, 77, 79, 82-
84, 106-107, 124, 542, 726
Evil impulse 318
Evil inclination 317-319
Evil One 245, 727
Evil powers 106, 873
Evil spirit 50, 84, 124, 344,
384, 393, 852-854, 893
Evil spirit of God 319-320, 882
Evil wind 319
Exalted ones 44, 320-321
Exousiai 77-80, 124, 321
Eyan 126
105-106,
110, 247, 511,
Face 80, 322-325, 591, 875
Face-of-Baal 340
Fadahel 55
Falcon 70, 426, 427
Fallen angel 53, 220, 302, 893
False gods 807
Falsehood 325-326, 553, 663,
888
Famihar spirit 326
Fate 30-31, 35, 326, 333, 337,
386, 393, 394, 665, 668, 688,
691, 826, 833, 854, 862, 935
Father 3-5, 7, 23, 26, 28. 33,
178, 259, 279, 326-328, 329,
383, 442, 468, 492, 529. 717,
925
Father of the Lights 328-329
Father of Years 44, 320, 32]
Faunus 778
Fear of Isaac 329-331, 770
Fertility deities 732
Fertility goddess 36, 678, 683
Field 225
Fiery angel 243
Fiery serpent 743
Fire 98, 331-332, 761, 815,
839, 843
First-born of death
486, 487, 853
Fish monster 742
Flame 155, 331, 335-336
Flood 72, 336, 388, 618, 632,
633, 707. 739, 798, 869, 874
Flying serpent 743
Fortuna 35, 336-337, 339, 408,
568, 877, 878
Fortuna Augusta 336
Fortuna Caesar 336
Fortuna Virilis 336
Fortune 202, 203, 339-34], 567,
568
Frangrasyan 482
Fufluns 156, 253
Fufluns Paxies 156
332-335,
Gabnunnim 338
Gabriel 51-52, 81, 338-339,
421, 570, 571, 800, 886
Gad 88, 144, 238, 567, 568,
820, 339-341
gadde 568
Gaga 373, 536
Gaia (Gaea, Ge) 174, 274, 294,
304, 343, 345, 389, 395, 641,
642, 60, 857, 879, 938
Gaius 341, 713-715
Gamos 64-65, 367
Gapnu 53
Gatharu (Gathru) 342, 668, 694
Gatumdu 789
Gauas 9
Gayomart 60
Geb 121, 611, 647, 748
INDEX
Gebirah 104
Gello 236
Gelos 367
Genius 638, 712, 715
Gepen 341-342
Geras 367
Gerousia 367
Gesh 375
Geshtinanna 832, 833
Gether 342-343
“Ghost 309, 343, 653, 807, 882
Giants (Gigantes) 52, 228, 239,
246, 265, 273, 301, 343-345,
397, 619, 625, 629, 638, 696,
699, 872, 873, 879, 893, 927,
934. 935
Gibborim 345-346, 796
Gibi] 331
Gihon 709
Gilgamesh 73, 168, 178, 345,
358-361, 394, 403-404, 431-
433, 453, 455, 506, 520, 619,
633, 708, 738, 744, 788, 796,
820, 829, 832
Gillulim 346-347, 722, 844,
847
Gingras 9
Girl 126, 347-348
Girra 331, 519
Girru 842
| Glaucus 620, 621
Glory 6, 45, 58, 81, 84, 190,
204, 322, 324, 348-352, 354,
363, 395, 422, 455, 481-483,
611. 689, 875, 924
Goat demons 237, 732
God 352-365, 365-369, 468
God of death 86, 673
God of fortresses 369-370
God of heaven 370-372, 388,
389, 391, 440-441, 718
God of hosts 812, 813
God of sailors 740
God of seeing (El-Roi) 372
God of the fathers 228, 288,
771, 772
God of the Ziziphus 859, 860
God of war 85-86, 117, 445
Goddess 372, 450, 452-456,
638, 676, 678-679, 692, 794,
705, 711-712, 718, 724, 725,
737, 739, 745, 750, 754
Goddess of love 64-65, 450,
758
Goddess of the wilderness 752
Goddess who is on a twig 859
Gods of heaven and earth 356
949
Go’el 296, 372-373, 906
Gog 62, 166, 373-375, 535-537,
876
Good Fortune 877
Good wind 319
Gorgon 118, 654
Governor 34, 77, 682
Graiai 654
Great Bear 17-18, 203
Great Goddess 66-67, 99, 112,
752
Great Gods 108, 258
Great Lady 100, 104, 111
Great Power 779, 780
Griffin 657, 743
Grigori 893
Gugalanna 181, 452
Gupanu-and-Ugaru 222, 891
Gush 375-376
Habur 431
Haburtu 431
Haby 377
Hadad (Hadda, Haddu) 132,
145, 161, 183, 212, 259, 277,
313, 377-382, 504, 532, 577,
607, 677, 686, 694, 758, 8U5,
833, 916
Hadad-Rimmon 379, 833
Hades 162, 185, 233-234, 345,
382-388, 397, 402, 435, 437,
466, 492, 571, 646, 767, 855,
873, 886, 935
Hadrian 4, 94, 713, 735
Hagar 56, 451, 452
Haharnum 644
Hahyáh 344
Haiashum 644
Hail 383, 674, 703
Haimon 858
Hairy demons 732
Halma 383
Ham 383-384, 628, 632, 764
Hamartia 384
Hammu 383
Haoma 384-385
Hapiri gods 921
Hapy 626, 707
Harab 272, 273, 643
Haran 3-4, 385, 748
Harbe 424
Harmakhis 426
Harmonia 64, 86-87
Haroéris 427, 647
Harpa/e 424
Harpies 899
Harpokrates 427
INDEX
Harran 748
Harranatum 385
Harsiesis (Harsiese,
70, 427, 880
Hathor 6, 70, 120. 123, 139,
164, 172, 181, 385-386, 456,
505, 603, 651, 791, 822, 859,
89]
Horsiesis)
Hathor-Tefnut 456
Havvat 317
Hawk 68, 126, 445
Haya 607
Hayin 386-387
Hazi (Hazzi) 378, 739, 927
Head of Days 864
Healing God 388, 292
Healing Goddess 739
Heaven 174, 178, 205, 222, 272,
301, 343, 356, 371, 388-390,
544, 557, 560, 585, 641, 643,
646, 685, 709, 717, 718, 738,
744, 857, 868, 888, 914, 938
Heaven-and-earth 222, 272,
273, 280, 294, 297, 389, 390-
391, 440, 511, 544, 560, 59,
643, 685, 691, 737, 738, 906
Heavenly beings 80, 391, 719,
720, 721, 722, 794, 797, 798,
810
Heavenly court 52, 721
Heavenly host 81, 720, 72]
Heavenly ones 795
Hebat 317, 391-392, 509, 758
Hebdomas 717
Hebel 2, 392, 430
Hebyón 377
Hecate (Hekate) 87, 83, 93, 95,
903
Hecatonchires 873
Hedone 367
Hegemonia 367
Heimarmene 35, 527, 665
Hektor 11
Helel 392-394
Helen 64, 258, 259, 366, 565,
566
Heliopolitanus 183
Helios 14, 93, 95, 184, 202,
203, 394-401, 412, 445, 493,
580, 655, 694, 810, 83, 84,
908
Helios Apollo 76
Hell 89, 639, 646
Hemera 222
Hemitheoi 414
He-of-the-Sinai
387-388, 724, 860
(Zeh-Sinai)
He-of-the-Thornbush 860
Heosphoros 393
Hephaestus (Hephaestos, Hep-
haistos) 64, 117-118, 256,
386, 646
Hera 64, 86, 91, 96, 112, 115.
381, 395, 401-402. 402, 412,
438, 493, 670, 702, 805, 815,
872, 879, 934
Hera Teleia 65
Heracles 86, 184, 343, 401,
402-405, 426, 493, 523, 558.
563, 564, 565, 621, 628, 785,
856, 858
Hercules 855
Herem 157, 405
Herem-Bethel 24,
824
Hermaphroditus 407
Hermes 20, 46, 50-51, 53, 65,
234, 355, 405-411, 435, 493,
526, 625, 862, 877, 888, 908,
930, 934
Hermes Trismegistus 405,
408
Hermon 133, 144, 145, 163,
411-412, 475, 506, 784, 824
Hero (Heros, Heroes) 72, 366,
412-415, 614, 618, 627, 633,
648, 649, 653, 658, 694, 712,
751, 784, 796
Heron 119, 655
Heron-Atum 119
Hesperides 402, 403
Hesperus 648
Hestia 407, 411, 937
Hibil 2
Hikanos 751
Hike 863
Hilaeira 258
Himeros 64-65
Hippopotamus 741, 748, 749
Hobab 415
Hokmah 415
Holy and Righteous 415
Holy gods 718, 719
Holy One 5, 100, 415-418, 718,
719-722, 798, 800
Holy One of God 792
Holy Ones 21, 56, 78, 81, 206,
633, 718-722, 792, 798, 800,
813
Holy Spirit 195, 268, 269, 418-
424, 550, 556, 571, 779, 789,
828
Holy tree 637, 638
Homonoia 367
159,
950
Hora (Horae, Horai) 65, 367.
646, 857
Horaios 85
Horakhty 427
Horeph 68, 424-425
Horme 367
Horon 110, 134, 140, 143, 201,
293, 661, 686, 745, 425-426
Horse-god 92
Horus 70, 110. 121. 166, 265,
354, 385, 426-427, 450, 556,
513, 577, 603, 647, 650, 690,
711, 748, 788, 862, 880
Hosia 428
Hosios kai dikaios 427-428
Host of heaven 78, 202, 203,
205, 206, 326, 371, 428-430,
590, 592, 678, 719, 796, 798,
811, 914
Hu 122, 816
Hubal 430
Hubur 300, 314, 316, 430-431,
708, 762, 876
Huh 644
Hulel (Hulelu) 492
Humbaba (Huwawa) 223, 43]-
432, 506, 784
Humban 432-434
Humut-tabal 431
Hunger 432
Hurmi 754
Hyacinthus 434-437
Hyades 17-18, 203, 658
Hyakinthides 434
Hybris 367
Hydra 267, 402, 881
Hygieia 77, 367, 626
Hyle 437
Hymenaios 437-438
Hyperion (Hyperion) 395, 873
Hyperochus 51
Hypnos 367, 438-439
Hypsistos 15-16, 293, 294. 295,
298, 642, 939439-443
Hypsouranios 460
Jaldabaoth 85, 924
lao 85, 493, 939
lapetos (lapetus, Japetos) 462,
463, 873, 874
Jasion 233
Tbaum 890
Ibis 68, 444-446, 861, 863, 864
Ibnahaz (Ibnahaza) 623, 837
Id 446, 707
Ida 26-27
Idiglat (digna) 870
INDEX
Idols 126-128, 446, 722, 807,
808. 844, 851. 887, 888, 907
Idris 304
Igigi 525, 544, 575, 583
Ikrub-E] (Ikrub-Il, Yakrub-El)
451, 914
Ikshudum 913
Ilaba 447
Ilahu (Ilh) 285, 360
Ilànu 845, 848
Ihm 360
Inb 217, 223, 226-228, 447-
448, 644, 645, 667, 807, 819
Ilishu 689
llluyankas 265. 796
Iimaqhá 274
Ilteri 843, 844
Tluwer (Ilumer) 150, 380, 518
Image 13, 60, 320, 353, 373,
448-450, 478, 822, 890
Imhotep 444
Immortals 395
Imperial family 713
Inanna 66, 67, 311, 348, 450,
452-456, 520, 612, 738, 829,
830, 831, 832, 833, 900
Inanna-Ninegalla 833
Indra 265, 384, 578, 708, 888
Informers 728
Iniquity 83, 904
Inšušinak 433
Intercessor 4, 373
Interpreter 75, 373, 895, 900
lolaos 564
Ion 625
Iphigeneia 93, 465
Irhan 315, 753
Iris 46, 53, 234
Isaac 4, 56, 93, 329
Isfet 690
Ishar 929, 930
Ishatu 331
Ishhara 450
Ishkur 378, 379, 522
Ishmael 291, 460, 501, 450-452
Ishmelum 914
Ishpant 623
Ishtar (I-tar, Eshtar) 15, 64, 109,
116, 126, 139, 163, 171, 177,
190, 263, 272, 307, 347, 356,
381, 388, 392, 449, 450, 452-
456, 520, 548, 567, 603, 607,
611, 612, 647, 678, 724, 758,
775, 811, 822, 829, 830, 842,
890
Ishtar of Nineveh 453,
611, 822
Ishtar of Uruk 612
Ishtaran 744
Ishum 98, 241, 331, 335, 555,
556, 761
Isis 66, 70, 95, 120, 172, 295,
325, 337, 354, 42, 444, 456-
458. 493, 526, 552, 577, 603,
610, 617. 647, 650, 651, 734,
788. 860. 879, 891, 899
Itaios 9
Hum 98
Itur-Mer 378
lustitia 25]
Jackals 459
Jacob (Jacob-E]) 4, 18, 178,
181, 210, 290, 306, 324, 348,
439, 441, 459-461, 505, 591,
673, 683, 751, 777, 791, 848,
886, 925
Jael 461
Jaghut 461-462
Jalam (Ya‘lam) 462
Jaldabaoth 717
Jaoel 571
Japheth 383, 462-463, 536, 633,
644, 764
Jason 11, 463-464, 565, 566,
858
Jephthah's daughter
466
Jerachmeel 467
Jeremiel 81, 466-467
Jesus 51, 61-62, 83, 178, 192,
237, 246, 262, 267, 282, 298,
299, 300, 328, 351, 367, 400,
402, 404, 421, 441, 467-473,
486, 494, 503, 528, 542, 549,
556, 559, 594, 624, 635, 714,
717, 730, 734, 789, 800, 810,
891
Jeush 473
Jezebel 19, 56, 473-474
Jordan 167, 283, 332, 474-476,
709, 790
Joseph (Joseph-El) 247, 302,
339, 353, 441, 476-477, 574,
666, 683, 812
Judah 7, 51, 102, 194, 199, 910,
477
Jupiter 84, 183, 202, 343, 368,
393, 410, 544, 662, 680, 707
Jupiter Capitolinus — 369,
937, 938
Jupiter Heliopolitanus 183
Jusaas 120
Justice 108, 250, 499, 608
93, 465-
951
Ka 30, 223, 224
Kabod 58, 190-192. 395, 478,
766, 875
Kaikias 899
Kairos 367
Kaiwan 449, 478, 722, 811
Kajjamànu 478, 722
Kakka 46, 53, 373
Kallinikos 734
Kamish 201
Kamosh 175
Kamrushepa 759
Kamutef 123, 456
Kanisurra 612
Karibu 181, 190
Kasios 138, 153, 154, 879
Kassion 928
Kathiratu 393
Kaukabta 679
Kek 354
Kelti 479
Kematef 29
Kenan 180, 479-480
Keres 254
Keret (Kirta) 99-100, 104, 110-
J11, 205, 207, 227, 233, 275,
276, 295, 638, 762, 928
Kese 480-481
Kesil 481, 619, 648, 649, 657
Khepri (Chepre) 69, 123, 689
Khnum (Chnum) 31, 647, 707
Khonsu 30, 481, 647
Khvarenah 481-483
Ki 272, 388
Kimah 483, 657
King 134, 149, 157, 166, 182,
188, 196, 198, 276, 283, 297,
299, 338, 347, 371, 374, 483-
486, 498, 508, 51, 538, 540,
545, 560, 563, 588, 591, 599,
689, 694, 898. 903
King of Babylon 13, 755
King of terrors 334, 486-488,
541, 853
King of Tyre 219, 246, 488
Kingu 868
Kinnartu 488
Kinnaru 488
Kinnor 112
Kinsman 329, 330, 925
Kinyras 7, 67, 112
Kiririsa 489-490
Kirris 9
Kisa 480
Kishar 109, 272. 301, 502, 643,
868
INDEX
oe eg ot a a a ee a ES eS
Kittu 577, 874, 829, 930, 93]
Kiyyün 478, 722
Klbt ilm. 331
Kneph 29
Kokabim 490
Kombabos 432
Konnaros 281
Kore 14. 233, 465, 694
Korybantes 259
Koshar (Kushara) 126, 490-491,
692
Kosharoth 490, 491-492, 858
Kosmokrator(es) 79, 82, 124
Kosmos 815
Kothar (Kuthar, Kotharu) 275,
375. 386, 490, 492, 695
Kothar-wa-Hasis (Kothar-wa-
Khasis) 168, 219, 386, 506,
692, 868
Kouretes 259, 938
Kouros 75
Kourotrophos 118
Kratos 625
Ktistes 734, 735
Kubaba (Kubebe, Cybebe) 67,
214, 432, 492
Kudur 672
Kuk 644
Kulitta 758
Kumarbi (Kmrb) 642, 643, 739,
935
Kuribu 181
Kuriotetes 79-80
Kussim 480
Kutur 672
Kyrioi 543
Kyrios 200, 268, 440, 467, 469,
492-497, 714
Laban
847
Labbatu 524
Labbu 684
Ladon 220, 221
Lady 41, 100, 109, 116, 498
Lady Folly 697
Lady of heaven
392, 678
Lagamal 498
Lagamar 498-499
Lah 499-500, 763
Lahab 500
Lahai-roi 451, 500-502, 806
Lahamu 272, 300, 502, 643, 868
Lahar 683, 707
Lahmu 272, 301, 502, 643, 738,
868
179, 330, 460, 498, 687,
39-40,
Lake 626
Lamashtu 236, 520, 521, 744,
852
Lamassu (Lamassatu) 163, 181,
449
Lamb 199, 207, 281, 471, 502-
504, 804, 865
Lamia 236, 504
Lamp 504-505, 810
Laodocus 50
Lares 778
Law 75-76, 195, 505, 634, 635,
641, 782, 856, 874
Lawless One 63
Laz 621
Leader 83-84, 88, 90, 96
Leah 18, 340, 477, 505-506,
630
Lebanon 8, 133, 144, 158, 161,
315, 348, 411, 498, 506-507,
638, 740, 783
Legion 239, 507-508
Lel 508-511
Lelwani 643
Lethe 367
Leto 91-92, 670, 671
Leukothea 412
Leviathan 37, 135, 137, 166-
168, 237, 245, 265, 387, 511-
515, 615, 684, 739, 740, 744.
748, 755, 835, 836, 869, 898
Liber 147, 156, 157, 253
Libera 156
Libra 515-517
Liers-in-wait 517
Lies 170, 785, 517-518
Life 13, 29, 452, 453
Light 126, 171, 328, 331, 363,
399, 400, 518, 663, 691, 918
Lightning 519-520
Lilith 236, 309, 459, 509, 520-
521, 624, 733, 852, 853, 898
Lilitu 520, 852
Lilu 510, 511, 520, 852, 854
Lim 521-523, 667
Limos 367
Linos 19, 523-524 `
Lion 88, 89, 115, 159, 173, 191
Lioness 89, 386, 456, 524-525,
669
Lion god 462
Lion goddess 165
Lion of Judah 199
Lips 899
Livia 713
Logos 23, 58, 82, 122, 269,
300, 368, 400, 407, 472, 525-
952
531, 558, 561, 664, 666, 791,
815, 904
Lord 6, 531-533, 878, 910, 924
Lord of the Animals 406
Lord of the Beasts 752
Lord of the Capridae 752
Lord of Creation 752
Lord of Heavens 149
Lord of the Ostriches 752
Lord of the Scorpions
752
Lord of Spirits 864
Lord of Wisdom 409
Lord of the World
408
Lordship 533
Lotan (Litany)
739
Lucifer 203, 246
Lugalbanda 829
Lugal-Emush 830
Lugal-Urukar 830
Lyre 406, 533
Lysander 712
Lytaea 434
150,
168, 245, 265,
Ma 66, 214, 534
Maat (Ma‘at)
861, 862, 901
Madànu 821
Maenads 654
Magistrate. 77, 82, 84
Magna Mater 115
Magnes 438, 537
Magog 62, 166, 374, 375, 463
535-537
Maia 406
Makedon 537-538
Mala 336, 708
Malak 46, 50
Malakbel 150, 914
Mal’ak melis 538
Mal’ak Yahweh 538, 727
Malik (Malek, Maliku) 293,
538-542. 564, 574, 575, 582,
583, 585
Malkatu 724
Mama 603
Mami 316, 603
Mammon 542-543
Man 301, 316, 338, 543, 717
Manat 430, 568
Manawat 340
Mandulis 14, 20, 493
Mania 367
Man of God 55, 528
Manutu 567
444, 534-535,
INDEX
Maran 151
Mar-Biti 727
Marduk 32, 72, 109, 126-127,
172, 202, 205, 208, 232, 244,
265. 291, 300, 314, 356, 449,
512, 532, 543-549, 555, 589,
607, 610, 612, 622, 627, 630,
643, 685, 708, 738, 821, 829,
842, 853, 867. 868, 871, 935
Maria (Mary) 84, 178, 298,
299, 300, 317, 421, 441, 471,
549-553, 679, 890
Mar-ilahe 782
Mars 84-85, 202, 369, 680
Marsyas 646
Martan 151
Martu 32-34, 870
Mashhit 553
Masséba (Massebót) 448, 450,
819
Mastemah 56, 78, 83, 243, 246,
553-554, 893
Master 73, 78, 83, 127
Maiti 889
Mater Matuta 336
Matter 554
Mayim 674
Mazzaloth 554
Medea 463, 558, 858
Mediator 59, 398, 469, 529,
554-557, 557-560, 570, 579,
593
Medousa 654
Melchizedek 52, 195, 199, 281,
297, 404, 441, 560-563, 756,
764, 929, 931, 933
Meleagros 86
Melek 34
Melkira 246
Melqart 8, 158, 184, 219, 278,
307, 539, 563-565, 583, 788
Memory 641
Memra 58, 243
Men 493
Menelaos (Menelaus) 258, 366,
413, 565-566
Meni 339, 340, 820, 566-568
Menitum 567
Menrva 116
Me'or'el 886
Mer 518
Mercury
410, 609
Meriri 568-569
Merkavah 84
Mesites 569
Meskhenet 863
84, 202, 405, 406,
Meslamtaea 622
Messenger 45-59, 82, 339. 349,
407, 410, 419, 428, 468, 569,
611, 688, 706, 719, 727, 798
Messiah 22, 83, 131, 192, 194,
196, 197, 198, 200, 264, 284,
469, 470, 471, 503, 569, 609,
722, 736, 790, 791, 792, 793,
802, 814
Metanoia 52, 367
Metatron 52, 303, 571
Methyer 617
Metis 118, 664
Mht-wrt 617
Michael 52, 81, 171, 246, 267,
338, 350, 569-572, 663, 721,
800, 840, 855, 863, 886, 933
Midday demon 236, 572-573
Mighty God 717
Mighty One of Jacob (Abir
Ya'agob) 441, 573-575, 750,
770, 771
Mighty Ones 575, 619
Mikal 569
Milcom 2, 140, 189, 277, 538,
575-576, 581, 639, 677
Milku 227, 228. 293. 342. 518.
532, 582, 695
Milkuni 582
Min 28, 456, 525, 577
Mind 765, 816
Minerva 116
Minki 642, 643
Minos 660
Minotaur 434
Mire 577
Miriam (Mariam) 549
Mishar(u) 577-578, 84, 930
Misor 577, 85, 930
Mistress 6, 112, 115, 578
Mistress of animals
752
Mistress of dominion 38,
112
Mistress of
heavens 38, 112
Mithra (Mitra) 106, 160, 888,
889
Mithras 95, 106, 398, 493, 557,
558, 578-581, 888, 908
mlkm 162
mik ‘Im 638, 694, 697
Mneia 367
Mnemosyne 64]
Mnevis 71, 181, 398
Moira (Moirai) 35, 408, 527,
567, 857, 877, 878
43,
the high
953
Molech (Molek, Molekh) 10,
34, 228. 538. 575, 581-585,
927
Monster 86, 684. 685, 739, 740,
74], 742. 769
Mont 111], 181
Moon 3, 25, 29, 69, 82. 92,
150, 202, 216, 328, 356, 389,
393, 399. 429, 445, 585-593,
605, 650, 754. 766. 810, 861,
862
Moongod 451, 505, 518. 686,
843, 891
Morning star 110. 203, 356,
754, 755, 756. 761, 933
Mortals 21, 395
Moses (Musa) 56, 82, 90, 148,
181, 264, 283, 302, 317, 324,
339, 350, 353, 399, 458, 476,
503, 553, 557, 558, 570, 593-
598, 615, 624, 635, 663, 703,
710, 719, 743, 746, 751, 780,
855, 863, 874, 912
Most High 14-16, 45, 52, 78,
197,278, 293, 295, 296, 298,
316, 393, 421, 428, 439-442,
560, 561, 591, 508, 719-722.
756, 799. 800, 921, 931, 939
Mot (Mutu) 1, 135, 147, 169,
222, 227, 228, 245, 247, 332,
378, 383, 484, 487, 588, 598-
603, 673, 693, 708, 740, 756,
768, 854, 855, 916
Mother 178, 327, 402, 603-604
Mother Earth 167, 272,
654, 828
Mother goddess 94, 115,
167, 450, 452, 661, 678, 679
Mother of all Life 747
Mother of the gods 104,
402, 745
Mountains 33, 92, 222, 643
Mountains and
waters 867, 869
Mountains-and-val-
leys 604-605, 709
Mountain demon 707
Mountain spirits 646
Mouth 605-606
Muati 609, 613
Mulissu 10, 606
Mulliltum 606
Muluk 539, 575
Mummu 842
Muse (Muses)
538
Mut 30-31, 164, 48]
deep
434, 523, 524,
INDEX
Mylitta 606
Mysrha 7
Nablum 315
Nabû (Nebo) 127, 216, 449.
548, 607-610, 613, 614
Nahar (Naharu) 135, 610
Nahash 610, 746.
Nahhunte 499, 610
Nahor 610
Nahriel 505
Nahur 748
Naiades 636
Name 190, 262, 322, 324, 354,
610-612, 763, 910
Nammu 272, 737, 738, 859
Namsaras 643
Namtar (Namtaru) 237, 240,
241, 242, 332-334, 486
Nanaya (Nanaia, Nanay, Nanea)
608, 612-614, 727
Nanna 356, 452, 586, 782, 783
Nanni 927
Napirisa 433
Naprushu 432
Napsara (Napsaras) 642, 643
Nara (Naras) 642, 643
Naram-Sin 359
Narcissus 614-615
Naru (Narum) 315, 446, 615,
707, 870
Nasatya 578, 888
Nasukh 609
Naunet 29, 737
Nebuchadnezzar 13, 714
Necessity 35, 615
Nefertem 669
Nehushtan 591, 615-616, 741,
743. 746
Neith 120, 457, 616-618, 862
Nemesis 115, 904
Nephilim 72, 74, 229, 345, 618-
620, 699, 796, 894
Nephthys 64, 121, 456, 457,
617, 650
Neptune (Neptunus) 662
Nereids 621
Nereus 620-621
Nergal 46, 98, 163, 187, 201,
225, 237, 241, 243, 393, 404,
431, 484, 540, 563, 575, 583,
609, 621-622, 673, 701, 786,
842, 866
Nero 63, 70, 171, 711, 713,
735
Nestis 815
Netherworld 1, 99, 225, 377,
685, 686, 689, 690, 692, 739,
745, 153, 768
Nibhaz 24, 623, 630, 836, 837
Night 185. 222, 294, 399, 438,
510, 623-624, 645, 754, 810,
854
Night-demon 572, 725
Nike 367, 624-626
Nikkal 393, 491, 505, 510, 511,
587, 588. 603, 783, 858, 891
Nile 30, 68, 457. 617, 626-627,
650. 698, 707, 737
Nimrod 343, 345, 357, 403,
512, 627-630, 631, 708
Ninatta 758
Ningal 452, 586, 587, 588, 603
Ningirsu 342
Ningishzida (NingiSzida) 744,
832
Ninhursag 511, 603, 791
Nin.ima 859
Nin-kasi 275
Ninki 272, 642
Ninlil 108-109, 431, 505, 586,
606. 642, 643, 708, 783
Ninma 859
Ninmah 491, 603. 859
Ninsun 829
Ninti 316
Nintu 272, 388, 603
Ninurta (Inurta, Nurti) 109,
342, 357, 364, 449, 544, 546,
549, 608, 622, 627-629, 630,
631, 632, 644, 686, 722, 818,
822
Ninurulla 109
Niobe 92
Nirah 744
Nisaba 315, 607, 901
Nisroch 628, 630-632
Nita 722
Njw 29
Noah 219, 383, 462, 474, 503,
504, 554, 632-633, 689, 763,
874, 894, 925
Noble ones 633-634, 719
Nomos 251, 634-635
Notos 899
Nous 264, 526, 527, 530, 561,
664
Nir 353, 356
Nudimmud 301, 643, 868
Numen 123, 341, 369, 683, 712
Nun 96, 119, 354, 644, 737,
745
Nunu 687
Nuriel 505
954
Nusku (Nuska) 46, 49, 53, 33],
504, 609, 630
Nusur 271
Nut (Nuth) 121, 123, 224, 456,
603, 748, 822, 860
Nymph 492, 635-636, 637, 873
Nyx 185, 624
Oak 637-638, 823, 851, 936
Oannes (Uanna) 73-74
Oath 117, 130
Ob (Obot) 148, 638, 876, 907
Oberim 638
Ocean 126, 301, 354, 690, 707,
708, 737, 738, 740, 805
Oceanus (Okeanos) 397, 625,
641, 877
Ochlos 367
Octavian
Odysseus 86, 116-117, 654
Og (Og-Melech) 113, 161, 293,
338, 374, 412, 634, 638-640,
694, 695, 697, 927
Ogdoad 84, 641, 644, 862, 863
Ogyges 5
Ohrmazd (Ohrmezd, Ohrmizd)
107. 170, 521
Óhyáh 344
Oil 193, 250, 640
Olam 288, 289, 641
Olden Gods 222, 479, 511, 641-
645, 709, 898
Olympian gods (Olympians)
325, 343, 406, 629
Olympius (Olympios) 256, 369
Olympus (Olympi) 85, 162,
251, 256, 343, 345, 403, 434,
435, 439, 625, 645-646, 659,
664, 904, 928
Omanos 892
Omnipotens 752
One 245, 471, 529, 557, 558,
646-648, 919
Oneiros 439
Ophannim 52, 78, 648, 743
Opis (Upis) 94
Oreades 636
Orestes 76, 413
Oreus 85
Orion 17, 92, 203, 345, 619,
648-649, 657
Orontes 708
Orpheus 251, 255, 257, 383
Orthaea 434
Osiris 8, 69, 95, 121, 171, 172,
180, 181, 224, 253, 354, 427,
445, 456, 493, 526, 538, 610,
INDEX
617, 649-651, 690, 737, 745,
748, 762, 828, 862, 899
Osiris-Apis 70
Osiris Lunatus 69
Osiris-Ptah 181
Osorapis 650
Otanim 80
Otos (Otus) 86, 345
Oudaios 257
Oulomos 312
Ouranos 112, 651
Ouroboros 745
Ousoos 306, 460
Pabilsag 628
Padar 725
Padrashasha 725
Pahad 652, 840
Pahad Laylah 652
Pallas 116, 625
Pan 406, 636, 674
Pantokrator 23, 440, 652, 752,
920
Papsukkal 53
Paraclete 420, 422, 652-653
Paranomia 367
Parnassus 642
Parthenos 118, 251
Pashittu 236
Pasithea 438
Patroklos 653
Patron angels 663
Pazuzu 236, 237, 744
Peace 89, 108, 634
Pegasos 654
Peitho 65, 67, 367
Pelasgos 537, 858
Peleus 653
Penates 778
Peneios 220
Penia 367
Penthesileia 86
People 654
Periclymenus 621
Persephone 7, 233-234, 383,
465, 661
Perses 654
Perseus 111, 463, 654-655
Pestilence 1, 75, 333, 673-674,
702, 708, 852
Phaethon 393, 395, 397, 475
Phales 254
Phantom 403
Phanuel 52, 81, 338, 885
Pharaoh 121-122, 353, 427,
668, 689, 690, 701, 711, 746
Pheme 367
Pherekles 9
Philia 367
Phlox 331
Phnun 95
Phobos 86, 330, 367
Phoebe (Phoibe) 76, 91, 258,
857
Phoebus (Phoibos) 76, 655
Phoenix 14, 399, 655-657
Phorkys 620
Phos 331
Phylacus 51
Physis 665
Pidar (Pdr) 510, 725
Pidray (Pidraya, Pidrayu) 37,
249, 250, 392, 509, 510, 725
Pininkir 433
Pishasha 783
Pishon 709
Pistis 367, 904
Plague 75, 86, 333, 701
Plague god 673, 674, 701
Planet (Planets) 109, 202, 203,
718, 722, 809, 908
Planetary Deities 82
Pleasant One 9
Pleiades 17, 203, 272. 378. 648.
657-659
Plenilunium 480
Pleroma 121
Ploutos (Plutos) 233, 367
Pluto (Pluton) 493, 598, 662,
874, 935
Pneuma 31, 60, 84, 400, 418,
420, 903
Pollux 258, 659
Polyboea 435
Polyboia 436
Polydeukes 258
Polyneikes 180
Pompeius 734
Pontos 114, 135, 660
Poseidon (Po-si-da-e-ja) 11, 87,
92, 117, 344, 493, 646, 659-
662, 670, 739, 873, 874, 934,
935
Potestates 79
Pothos 65
Power 19, 27, 106, 108, 262,
275, 351, 359, 440, 503, 542-
544, 662, 779-780, 790, 841
Presbyteroi 662
Presence 81, 322, 323
Priam 11
Primeval deities (Primeval
gods) 645, 709, 739, 745
Prince (Princes) 78, 81, 196,
955
246, 375, 473, 522, 538, 540,
546, 553, 564, 570, 662-664,
721, 739, 774, 796
Prince of Error 84, 246
Prince of Greece 78
Prince of Light(s)
553
Prince of Persia 78
Prince of the army of
Yahweh 517, 664, 813
Prince of the Demons 247
Principalitiies 78-80, 85, 124,
240, 664
Principia 79
Prometheus 326, 747, 873
Pronoia 35, 327, 398, 526, 527,
664-667
Protectors 667-668, 894
Proteus 620
Providence 30, 664-667, 735
Providentia 664
Providentia deorum 666
Psychopompos 51, 408, 694
Ptah 44, 68, 111, 181, 668-669,
86]
Ptah-Sokar 669
Ptolemy N 712
Pu-u-lišanu (Ka-eme) 605
Pim 605
Purouel 885
Purusa 866
Pygmalion 67
Pyr 33]
Pyrrhus 51
Python 75, 264, 265, 266, 669-
671, 879, 881
328,
Qadar 672
Qadeshet 111
Qadish 53
Qadishtu 705
Qadosh 287
Qais 676
Qaishah 567
Qardum 19
Qatar 672
Qaus 274
Qayn 180
Qaynan 180, 479
Qdš 416
Qdš w Ammr 718
Qedar 90, 672
Qedešet 417
Qedoshim 672, 719
Qeteb (Qoteb) 161, 232, 568,
572, 673-674, 703, 853
Qôs 140, 274, 674-677
INDEX
a
Qudshu 40, 43, 100, 139, 525,
603, 678, 745
Qudur (Qudar) 672
Queen of Heaven 38, 42. 113,
174, 371, 389, 392, 455. 552,
603, 678-680, 759, 811, 918
Queen of the gods 402
Quirinus 680-681, 778
Rabisu 236, 682-683. 853
Rachel 476, 477, 498, 506, 683-
684, 845-850
Raguel 81, 338
Rahab 90, 138, 172, 265, 512,
651, 684-686, 740. 869
Raingoddess 453
Raingods 732
Raiphan (Rayphan, Rephan)
478
Rakib-E] (Rakib-H) 277, 686-
687, 705, 765, 914
Ram 29, 687
Ramael (Ram'el, Ramiel) 243,
466, 467
Rapha 698, 687-688
Raphael 51, 58, 81, 107, 293,
338, 570, 893688
Rapiu (Rapi'u, Rapi'uma, Rap'u,
Rpu, Rpum) 113, 135, 226,
231, 293, 447, 448, 540, 583,
686, 692-696, 699, 700
Rpu mik ‘im 695
Rasap 786
Rashap (Rashapu, Rashpu,
?rgrip, Rushpan) 98, 701,
703. 761
Raven 445, 688-689
Re 29, 71, 110, 164, 355, 386,
427, 445, 456, 610, 617, 618,
647, 650, 689-692, 737, 764,
788, 861, 863, 899, 901
Re-Atum 122
Re-Harakhte
Horakhty) 123, 427, 689
Reason 525
Rebbu 684
Remiel 81, 339, 466
Remus 180
Rephaim 19, 135, 148, 161-162,
223, 226, 228, 238, 292, 338,
506, 575, 583, 588, 605, 620,
634, 638, 668, 686, 687, 688,
(Re-
692-700, 844, 873, 876, 927
Rephan 700
Resheph 98, 168, 228, 232,
237, 240, 274, 277, 289, 332,
333, 335, 416, 426, 509-511,
525, 568, 572, 587, 600, 605,
673, 674, 700-703, 746, 761,
785, 853, 921
Resheph-Alasiotas 702
Resheph-Amyklos 702
Resheph-Eleitas 702
Resheph-mkl 702
Resheph of the arrow 702
Resheph-sprm 701-702
Rex tremendus 486
Rhea 112, 158, 215, 233, 401,
407, 641, 660, 662, 872-874,
877, 935, 938
Rider-upon-the-clouds
686, 916, 703-705
Riding Horseman 705-707
Righteousness 170, 219, 298,
534, 535, 560, 707
Rimmon (Rammanu) 382, 925
River 135, 267, 300, 301, 314-
316, 446, 474-475, 605, 626,
641, 651, 707-709, 737, 762,
763, 870
Rivergod 446
River of Death 762
Rock 4, 296, 574, 580, 709-
710, 771, 819
Roma 197, 710-711, 712, 713
Rompha (Romphan) 478
Romulus 180, 680
Rope? 135
Rtá 90
Ruda 511
Rudra 75
Ruler 21, 23, 227, 237, 239-
240, 244, 247, 366, 379, 441,
735, 788, 79]
Ruler cult 21, 711-716
Rumiel 466
Ruti 29
19, 389,
Sabaoth 398, 920
Sabazios 253, 257, 493, 920
Sabbata ( Sabbat Sabbath) 96,
473, 495, 590, 717-718
Sabbé 474
Saints 205, 369, 400, 414, 451,
634, 683-684, 718-720, 798,
819
Saints of the Most High 719,
720-722
Sa'tr 674
Sakhmet (Sechmet, Sach-
met) 164, 165, 335
Sakkud (Sag-kud, Sakkut(h),
Sikkut) 342, 478, 722-723,
811, 821
956
Salambo (Salambas) 322
Salutificator 736
Salvator. 736
Samana 786
Sambéthé 473, 474
Samemroumos 306, 460
Samiel 766
Sammael (Samael) 246, 853
Samsape'el 767
Samson 402, 404, 723
Sanctuary 723-724
Sapanu 709
Sar 724
Sarah 291, 451, 710, 724-725
Sarapis 238, 496, 650, 733, 734
Sariel 338, 339, 570, 885, 886
Sasam 725-726
Satan (Satanas) 244, 248, 266,
270, 377, 553, 571, 619, 624,
726-732, 747, 797, 814
Satis 707
Sato
Saturnus (Saturn)
478, 718, 732, 811
Satyr(s) 237, 437, 674, 732-733
Saviour 174, 195, 205, 351,
407, 419, 440, 483, 559, 714,
733-737, 877
Scarab
Scorpio 648
Scorpions 237
Sdym 733
Sea 135, 166, 205, 222, 265,
301, 378, 441, 446, 511, 512,
605, 624, 641, 644, 659, 684,
708, 720, 737-742, 800, 805,
867, 880, 916
Sea dragon 336, 852
Sea god 446, 739
Sebastos (Sebastoi) 171, 712,
713
Sehr 588
Seimios 158
Se‘irim 459, 732
Sekhmet 319, 525, 669
Sela 742
Selem 449, 742
Selene 395
Sémea 263
Semeion 805
Semele 256
Semiel 767
Semihazah 894
Semiramis 263, 896
Semyaza 619
Senate 713
Seneh 742
158, 202,
Senir 411
Seraphim (Sarap-snakes)
744
Serpent 168, 203, 237, 265,
433, 512, 513, 514, 591, 615,
617, 628, 669, 690, 737, 740,
742, 744-747
Serpent deity 737
Serget 617
Serug (Sarug) 748
Seshat 901
Seth 180, 265, 344, 345, 427,
456, 513, 619, 650, 737, 748-
749, 861, 879
Seven 749
Seven evil gods 236
Seven spirits of deceit 238
Sha 749
Shadday 178, 207, 278, 287,
292, 296, 314, 574, 675, 709,
749-753, 853, 920
Shaddayin (Shadday dei-
ties) 297, 750, 752
Shadrapha 693
Shaggar 587, 761
Shahan 150, 177, 222, 393.
600, 753, 756, 783, 843
Shahar (Shahru, Sahr, Shr) 754-
755
Shakkan 272
Shala (Sala) 331, 381
Shalem (Shalim, Shalimu,
Salem, Salim, Salimu) 177,
222, 298, 367, 393, 600, 708,
754, 755-757, 775, 931
Shalman (Slmn) 757-758, 775
Shamash 140, 205, 222, 225,
227, 277, 311. 315, 357, 452,
479, 518, 522, 577, 607, 757,
771, 900, 929, 930, 932
Shamhazai 619
Shamsh 150, 280
Shan 753
Shapash (Shapsh, Shapshu,
Sps) 100, 126, 222, 227, 289,
510, 599, 678, 692, 694, 747
Shapshu-pgr 509, 510
Sharratu 724
Sharruma 392
Sharyana 50
Shassuratu 858
Shaushka 758-759
Shean 753, 759
Sheben 759-760
Shechem 461, 637, 760
Shed 426, 693, 852
Shedu 163, 181
742-
INDEX
Sheger 587, 760-762
Shekina (Shekhinah)
324, 351
Shelah 500, 762-763
Shem 108, 302, 322, 383, 463,
633, 763-764
Shemesh 140, 202, 277, 370,
371, 394, 445, 580, 585, 655,
764-768, 773, 810, 833
Shenirda
Sheol 229, 231, 23, 345, 33,
393, 48, 601, 605, 619, 674,
696, 753, 768-770, 869
Shepherd 178, 194, 406, 426,
574, 647, 770-771, 773, 789
Sheger 771
Sheri 754
Sheru
Sherum 754
Sheru’a 109, 606
Sheshach 758
She-who-strangles-the-
sheep 725
Shield Goddess
Shield of Abraham 771-773
Shimige 773-774
Shimut 722
Shining One(s) 774
Shiqmah 774
Shiqqus 774
Shraosha (Shrosh, Sraosha) 909
Shu 862
Shukamuna (Shugamuna, Thu-
kamuna) 320, 776
Shukamuna-wa-Shunama (Thu-
58, 322,
kamuna-wa-Shanuma) 739,
716, 866
Shukurru 820
Shulman 757, 758, 774-775,
775
Shulmanitu 775-776
Shu/imaliya 776
Shumu 763, 764
Shumu'il 451
Shunama 320, 739, 776-771,
866
Shunem 776, 777
Sia 861
Siashum 837
Sibitti 378
Sibyl 473, 474, 671
Sid (Sid) 426, 777
Sidon 133, 376, 426, 777-778
Sidqu 930, 931
Sikkanu 449
Silenos 778
Silvanus 778-779
957
Sima 263
Simé 263
Simon Magus
781
Sin 226, 421, 635, 781-782,
842, 843, 856
Sin 179, 181, 586, 587, 588,
589, 607, 609, 630, 686, 724,
749, 758, 782-783
SP 588, 609, 739
Sirash 871
Sirens 237
Sirion 411, 783-784
Sirius 457, 628, 648, 658
Sisera 461, 784
Sister 178
Sisyphus 855
Siton 174, 217, 642
Siyyim 459
Skiron 899
Sky 183
Skygod 427, 647
Skythes 784-785
Sleep 438, 854
Smiting God , 701
Snake 75, 116, 121. 252, 403,
744-747, 781, 835
Sobek 617
Soil 785-787
Sokar (Sokaris)
669
Sol Invictus 398, 400, 401
Solomon 646
Soma 384, 385
Son of God 198, 248, 264, 350,
420, 421, 441, 469, 470, 471,
495, 527, 528, 529, 562, 635,
788-794, 799, 802
Son of Man 44, 52, 60, 61, 196,
200, 270, 301, 349, 495, 469,
633, 717, 720, 790, 800-804,
810, 864
Sons of El 353, 361, 776
Sons of (the) God(s) 18, 51,
205, 246, 363, 555, 619, 632,
718, 727, 791, 794-800, 810,
873, 893, 906
Sons of heaven 894
Soothsaying spirit 447, 804, 907
Sophia 60, 264, 527, 634, 667,
791, 804, 900
Sophrosyne 367, 904
Sospitator 734
Sospitatrix
Soteira 736
Soter (Soteres) 710, 711, 714,
736, 804, 877
268, 270, 779-
30, 70, 121,
Soteria 367
Sothis 457
Souchos 617
Soul-bird 42]
Source 26, 631. 709, 737, 805-
806
Sovereign 78
Spectre 55
Spear 820
Spenta Mainyu 518
Sphinx 190, 191, 426, 732
Spirit 58, 62, 83, 122, 187, 193,
194, 299, 309, 325, 328, 341,
349, 352, 418, 619, 719, 730,
779, 789, 806, 826, 847, 849,
903, 907
Spirit of God 352, 790
Spirit of the dead 223,
229, 353, 360, 364, 806-809,
847, 849, 876
Spirit of the Lord 790
Spring 221, 388, 643, 669
Standing One 780
Star(s) 17-18, 51, 78, 82, 112,
202, 268, 328, 356, 389, 393,
397, 399, 429, 516, 557, 585,
592. 648. 657, 679, 689, 722.
754, 755, 766, 809-815, 885,
923
Star of Bethlehem 757
Statues 445, 448
Stoicheia 268, 792, 815-818
Stone 158, 177, 327, 388, 449,
574, 643, 709, 805, 818-820,
851
Stone-demons 818
Storm god 377-379, 381-382,
403, 453, 643, 748, 754
Stratonice 712
Strong Drink 820-821
Styx 625, 762, 876
Sud 49
Sudaga 126
Suduk 557
Suen 586, 587, 593, 782
Suhinun 32
Suin 782
Sukkallu (Sukallu) 333, 334
Sukkoth-benoth 821-822
Sulmu (Sulmus, Solmos) 448
Sumugan 644
Sun 29, 69, 120, 122, 126, 150,
183, 202, 203, 220, 227, 269,
272, 289, 315, 328, 349, 356,
363, 385, 389, 394, 395-501,
429, 543, 580, 585, 591, 592,
605, 607, 617, 633, 655, 657,
INDEX
689-692, 822, 833, 861, 870,
918, 929, 932-933
Sun deity 228, 767
Sundisk 449
Sun god 29, 69, 119, 178, 224,
349, 445, 452, 456, 499, 585,
586, 588, 603, 694, 737, 788,
790, 929, 930
Sungoddess 378, 394, 426, 510,
511, 599, 549, 599, 692, 756
Sungoddess of Arinna
392
Suriel 570, 886
Suryal 81
Sycamore (Sycomore) 385,
822-823
Sydyk 875, 930
Symbetylos (Sumbetyl, Sumbe-
tulos) 106, 158, 175
Taautos 577, 745, 930
Taboo 188, 848824-827
Tabor 412, 637, 827-828
Tal 828
Tallay 37, 249, 250
Tammuz (Ta’uz) 8, 9, 172, 175,
177, 221, 235, 347, 452, 453,
763. 828-834, 890
Tanit (Tinnit) 104, 111,
158, 325, 340, 507
Tannim 265, 459
Tannin (Tunnan, Tunnanu) 135,
265, 512, 513, 528, 684, 739,
740, 834-836, 852
Tarhunza 378, 379, 381
Tartak 115, 623, 836-837
Tartarus (Tartaros) 186, 343,
345, 873
Tashmetu (Tashmet,
tum) 607, 608, 609
Tasmisu 643
Tatenen 669
Taurus 658
Techne 367
Tefnut 29, 30, 120-123, 164,
456
Tehom 512, 605, 645, 740, 837
Telepinu 694
Tempestates 900
Tempter 727
Ten Sephirot 837-843
Terah 3, 843-844
Teraphim 353, 699, 700, 844-
850
Terebinth 4, 6, 510, 637, 638,
823, 850-851
Teri 843, 844
150,
Tashme-
958
Terpsichore 523
Terror 329, 548, 569, 673
Terror of the Night 329, 624,
673, 851-854
Teshub (Teshup) 101, 317, 392,
643, 644, 748, 758, 935
Tethys 877
Thamaqu 692
Thanatos 85, 367. 602, 674,
854-856
Theagenes 413
Thea Hypsiste 295
Theia 395
Themis 251, 252. 641. 664,
856-857
Theos 710, 713, 857
Theseus 28, 118, 258, 13, 565,
660
Thessalos
858
Thetis 620, 659
Thillakhuha 763, 858-859
Thornbush 859-861
Thoth 31, 69, 355, 408, 409,
444, 445, 527, 577, 637, 861-
864, 781
Thought 781
Thousand gods 522
Throne(s) 74, 81, 107, 111,
190, 207, 349, 350, 381, 393,
427, 428, 429, 435, 441, 567,
597, 717, 720, 755, 788, 789,
813, 864-866, 875, 921
Thukamuna 866-867
Thyia 537
Thymoi 79
Tiamat (Témtum) 166, 186,
205, 244, 266, 272, 301, 314,
356, 502, 512, 544, 548, 605,
643, 645, 684, 708, 738, 835,
853, 867-869, 871, 935
Tibal 722
Tiberius 713, 735, 870
Tidanu 232
Tigris 314, 431, 475, 707, 708,
738, 750, 867, 870-871
Tirash (Trt) 218, 871-872
Tishpak 342
Titan Crius 899
Titans 91, 93, 273, 343, 388,
395, 462, 620, 625, 641, 699,
872-874, 879, 935
Tohi wa-bohi 645
Topos 717
Torah 51, 558, 559, 634, 635,
874-876, 903, 904
Trajan 713
537, 538, 785, 857-
Travellers 148, 876-877
Tree(s) 637, 638, 650, 655, 656,
877
Trickster
747
Trinity 122
Trisheros 412
Trismegistos 863
Triton. 620
Trivia 903
Truth 652
Tuenni 222
Tuhusi 643
Turan 64
Tutelary goddess 758
Tutu 544
Tyche 115, 203, 336, 337, 339,
340, 408, 483, 567, 568, 664,
711, 712, 877-878, 937, 940
Typhon (Typhoeus, Typhos) 45,
265, 267, 526, 564, 670, 708,
748, 879-881, 929, 935
126, 325, 409, 746,
Ugaru 53
Ullikummi 643, 739, 879
Umban 432
Umun.urugal 622
Unclean spirits 420, 730, 882
Underworld 333, 338, 382, 383,
643, 654, 661, 687, 744, 754
Underworld deity 338
Underworld demons 744
Underworld River 763
Uni 564
Unknown God 84, 118, 882-
885
Upuaut 617
Uraeus (Uraei) 69, 70, 457,
615, 743, 745, 746
Urania (Ourania) 65, 66, 67,
110, 523, 678
Uranus (Ouranos) 66, 67, 112,
135, 157, 174, 273, 343, 345,
389, 391, 395, 397, 564, 641,
642, 644, 651, 857, 872, 873,
874, 888, 935, 938
Urash 388, 498
Uriel 51, 338, 345, 399, 505,
518, 570, 767, 885-886
Uryah(u) 518
Ursa Minor (Little Bear) 203,
658
Urshanabi 431
Urti 627
Usha 867
Usur-amassa 612
Uthra 50
INDEX
Utnapishtim 225, 633, 708
Utu 178, 356, 452, 586
Utuabzu 74
Utukku 310
Vampire 66, 887
Vanassa 2, 430
Vanities 887-888
Varuna 160, 174, 579, 729,
888-889
Vashti 889-890
Venus 1l, 64, 84, 109, 202,
203, 356, 392, 393, 452, 455,
511, 678, 679, 722, 755, 756,
757, 809, 811, 833
Verethraghna 482, 579
Vespasian 713
Victory 482
Vine 341, 890
Viper 890
Virgin 91, 177, 299, 523, 550,
679, 793, 890-891
Virgo 251, 88]
Virtue 735
Vohu Manah 891-892
Vohumanó 569
Vrevoil 885
Vritra (Vrtra) 265, 708
Wadd 101, 260
Wahman 107
Wargod 676
War goddess 453
Warriorgod 745
Warrior goddess 117, 322
Wasti 889
Watcher 51, 52, 78, 84, 220,
339, 344, 633, 719, 721, 893-
895
Water 816
Water-monster 737
Way 260, 385, 895-897
Weather-god 149, 265, 370,
676
Wé-ila 175, 309
Wé-ilu 309
Wepwawet 538
Wicked spirits. 730
Wild Beasts 853, 897-898
Wind 309, 399, 643
Wind-Gods 898-900
Wine 218, 250, 340, 366, 377,
900
Winged serpent 743
Wisdom 58, 72, 74, 104, 122,
126, 150, 264, 325, 399, 409,
423, 470, 496, 525, 529, 610,
959
624, 634, 666, 669, 69. 718,
766, 791, 810, 840, 861, 865,
874, 875, 900-905
Witness 373, 388, 391, 396.
398, 416, 905-907
Wizard 223, 229, 583. 847,
849, 907-908
Word 122, 791, 792
World rulers 124, 908-909
World-Soul 665
Wrath 106-108, 909
Xéshm 909
Xsatra 9]
Yaaqan 910
Yabnu 432
Yagut 913, 915
Yah 207, 288
Yahipanu 692
Yahweh 910-919
Yahu 15,371
Yahweh of Samaria 896,
919, 920
Yahweh of Teman
919, 920
Yahweh zebaoth (Yahweh
of hosts} 20, 50, 83, 144,
268, 638, 743, 813, 920-924
Yam (Yammu) 44, 110, 134,
135, 138, 161, 205, 245, 265,
378, 425, 511, 512, 513, 531,
532, 599, 600, 602, 684, 685,
708, 739, 740, 867, 868, 925
Ya'üq 462, 913, 915, 925
Yaqar (Yaqaru) 532, 668, 694,
695
Yareah 590
Yarhibol 340, 805, 914
Yarikh (Yarikhu, Yarih, Yarihu,
Yrh) 98, 100, 110, 216, 342,
505, 510, 511, 532, 586, 587,
686, 695, 761, 858, 859, 925
Yatpan 38, 219, 220
Yaw 15
Yazatas 282
Yehud 811, 925-926
Y& or 626
Yidde‘oni 806, 926
Yima 482
Yizhar 926
Yom (Yawm) 511, 926
912,
Zababa 109, 622
Zabulus 154
Zagnugael 50
Zam 482
INDEX
Zamzummim 697, 698, 927 379, 380, 383, 389, 396, 401, Zeus Kretogenes 461, 784
Zaphon (Saphon) 132, 133, 403, 406, 435, 439, 492, 537, Zeus Masphaletenos 492
135, 152, 278, 295, 361, 371, 566, 620, 624, 635, 641, 646, Zeus Megistos 412
387, 392, 393, 646, 696, 709, 654, 659, 661, 670, 702, 704, Zeus Most High 428
739, 879, 916, 927-929 710, 714, 733, 785, 805, 815, Zeus Olympios (Zeus
Zappu 648 857, 858, 872, 877, 879, 882, Olympius) 2, 3, 371, 414,
Zarpanitu (Sarpanit(u)) 171, 888, 902, 908, 934-940 566, 645, 714
172, 548, 609, 821 Zeus Akraios 369 Zeus Polieus 117
Zebaoth (Zabaoth) 20, 52, 920 Zeus-Baal-samin 369 Zeus Sarapis 496
Zedeq (Sedeq) 251, 298, 307, Zeus Bennos 439 Zeus Teleios 65
367, 578, 757, 929-934 Zeus Betylos 157. 175 Zeus Tropaeus 436
Zeh-Sinai 934 Zeus Demarous 112, 294, Zeus Xenios 404
Zelos 65 564, 642, 644 Zion 297, 348, 605, 739, 788,
Zephyrus (Zephyros) 434, 899 Zeus Epiphanes 714 875, 916, 940-941
Zervan 14 Zeus Heliopolitanus 183 Ziusudra 632
Zervan akarana 14 Zeus Heraios 402 Zodiac 202-204, 240, 515, 516
Zeus 2, 26, 28, 45, 64, 16, 91, Zeus Hypsistos 149 Zophesamin (Zophasemin) 894
114, 117, 120, 149, 154, 158, Zeus Itaburios 827 Zur 941
183, 232, 245, 251, 258, 265, Zeus Kasios 138, 152, | Zuzim 698
294, 325, 330, 343, 369, 371, 153, 929
960
PRAISE FOR THE
FIRST EDITION
OF THE DDD:
“This unique source is a grand scholarly achievement whose
depth, breadth, and contemporaneity will make it useful
to scholars and graduate students in religion and ancient
cultures. Highly recommended.”
— Choice
“The articles are uniformly competent, up to date, and
clearly written. . . . Many of the entries, especially for more
obscure deities or 'demons,' are the best and most exhaus-
tive monographs on the subject in any language. . . . The
book is even more useful than its title implies!”
— The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
"An outstanding work of reference on the gods, angels,
demons, spirits, and semidivine heroes whose names occur
in the biblical books. . . . This is a fine work, and the DDD
will not fail to become a household term among scholars.
The editors can be congratulated on their achievement."
— Internationale Zeitschrifienschau für
Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete
EERDMANS BRILL
FAN
04-11119
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11